If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
"Doomsdrzej" wrote
| Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better | service for LESS and undercut everyone else. | What competition? I have a service I like. My other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid. I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only option was dish, which failed on cloudy days. Even with competition, this is a classic case of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and a Walgreens in your town you could say there's competition, but they're both national chains, carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty much the same prices. There's a difference between competition and collusion. The latter is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate, illegal price fixing, but the result is the same. The point of Net neutrality is not to give control to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service. That the people renting you the wire should only be renting the wire and not controlling the content. If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see online that's a separate issue. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
Mayayana wrote:
"Slimer" wrote | Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better | service for LESS and undercut everyone else. | What competition? I have a service I like. My other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid. I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for highspeed Internet. Exactly. Slime's right-wing propaganda is failing him, again. Some have none. My brother in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only option was dish, which failed on cloudy days. Even with competition, this is a classic case of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and a Walgreens in your town you could say there's competition, but they're both national chains, carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty much the same prices. There's a difference between competition and collusion. The latter is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate, illegal price fixing, but the result is the same. The point of Net neutrality is not to give control to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service. That the people renting you the wire should only be renting the wire and not controlling the content. If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see online that's a separate issue. Good post! -- "COLA losers like chrisv detest success of any kind. It's as simple as that." - Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:47:29 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better | service for LESS and undercut everyone else. | What competition? I have a service I like. My other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid. I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only option was dish, which failed on cloudy days. Even with competition, this is a classic case of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and a Walgreens in your town you could say there's competition, but they're both national chains, carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty much the same prices. There's a difference between competition and collusion. The latter is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate, illegal price fixing, but the result is the same. The point of Net neutrality is not to give control to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service. That the people renting you the wire should only be renting the wire and not controlling the content. If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see online that's a separate issue. I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On 12/7/2017 9:08 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. LOL! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:57:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | The point of Net neutrality is not to give control | to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that | the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service. | That the people renting you the wire should only | be renting the wire and not controlling the content. | If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see | online that's a separate issue. | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather than "think" it's true? If the US has given control of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be a record of that. I did and there are. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet Ignoring the rest of your post. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
"Doomsdrzej" wrote
| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. | Ignoring the rest of your post. Any reason for that? You don't like new information? You don't like your beliefs complicated by details? The rest of my post was just explaining the details of how you can protect your privacy and freedom online. You said that was what you were interested in. You're afraid you'll lose your freedom to Google and Facebook. I'm telling you how not to let that happen. So it seems you actually don't care about online freedom. What do you care about? The luscious pleasure of righteous indignation? Watch out. The people telling you what to be mad about are not trying to help. They're just plutocrats who put greed before humanity. They know that they need to inflame popular opinion with one hand if they want to get away with stealing your money with the other hand. You're being played. I suppose you haven't actually looked at the current tax bill either. But you're probably for it, right? You want the gov't to stop wasting money to do things like helping paraplegics with medicaid and providing health care to the elderly who've paid for that healthcare through SS taxes? Did you know that's exactly what Paul Ryan says he wants to cut once he cuts taxes for the rich? Read the paper. Read your own right-wing media. People like Ryan are not even hiding their lies. They know they can just throw out trigger phrases like "fake news", "liberal media", and "government waste", and millions of people will believe whatever follows. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
Mayayana wrote:
Doomsdrzej (AKA "Slimer") wrote: Ignoring the rest of your post. Any reason for that? You don't like new information? You don't like your beliefs complicated by details? Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being "liberal". -- "I hate practising Muslims." - "Slimer" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
"Wolf K" wrote
| | It appears that Doomsday is one of those people who have great skill and | knowledge in some things, as shown by his useful _technical_ posts. It's | when he goes outside that domain that his analytical powers desert him. | I figured it's useful to air out this topic since it came up. Net neutrality is a critical issue and few people seem to understand it. Though I'm not sure any explanations will get past the disinformation from the Rush Limbaughs of the world. I'm only hoping that the discussion might inform a few people who didn't know about the issue at all. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than something like 164.68.32.1. Ignoring the rest of your posrt again. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
"chrisv" wrote
| Any reason for that? You don't like new information? | You don't like your beliefs complicated by details? | | Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the | unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being | "liberal". | I figured everyone deserves respectful discussion. And I have a lot of sympathy for some right-wing issues. But in general I post with the view that it's a group discussion that will live online. Some things are worth trying to clarify. Some posts are just convenient excuses to do that. For example, there's a compulsive arguer in the Mac and photo groups who spews derision and misinformation. But he provides wonderful opportunities to set the record straight on a variety of topics that he can't help arguing about. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than something like 164.68.32.1. Ignoring the rest of your posrt again. As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech". No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his or her speech. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:00:18 -0500, Wolf K
wrote: On 2017-12-08 10:20, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than something like 164.68.32.1. And abolishing net neutrality will change this? How? Actually, the Daily Stormer's website is easily accessible, if you know how. It is with Tor or now as a result of the fact that Anglin keeps finding ways to get a domain name despite the UN and its numbskulls' best efforts. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:17:57 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote: On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than something like 164.68.32.1. Ignoring the rest of your posrt again. As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech". No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his or her speech. How are the UN and the domain name providers _helping_ him spread his message by accepting his money for a product or service? If a black baker prepared a cake for a KKK member, would he be aiding the KKK member in spreading his message? Stop being an idiot, Baked Anus. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On 2017-12-08 10:49 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:17:57 -0800, Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: "Doomsdrzej" wrote | | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think | | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless | | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind | | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook. | | Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather | than "think" it's true? If the US has given control | of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be | a record of that. | | I did and there are. | http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet | Did you actually read up on what that means? The US is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality *does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can* block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed to give them control. I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than something like 164.68.32.1. Ignoring the rest of your posrt again. As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech". No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his or her speech. How are the UN and the domain name providers _helping_ him spread his message by accepting his money for a product or service? If a black baker prepared a cake for a KKK member, would he be aiding the KKK member in spreading his message? The UN is not involved in even the slightest way. Until you can acknowledge that truth, you're just a kook. If a baker of any colour was asked to bake a cake and put a message on it that he or she found offensive, he or she would be free to decline. You have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not ever compel anyone else to help you disseminate that speech. When you pay someone to be your DNS provider, they are free to decide if they want your custom or not. Stop being an idiot, Baked Anus. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
"Mayayana" wrote
| Today's news at WashPo? Holiday cookie recipes is the | top item. Los Angeles is burning and war is breaking out | in Palestine. But WashPo is writing about cookie recipes. On second thought, I guess I'm being too harsh. This reindeer ginger snaps recipe is not to be missed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/im...s/reindeer.jpg |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|