Call Congress, tell them you support Net Neutrality


  • Then I request the Mods or creator to remove it .


  • @Gargantua:

    The rule isn’t what’s important to remember and enforce.  The spirit behind the rule is.

    I agree, but then where does one draw the line on exceptions? Better to kiss

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    So, I learned today about a site that had it’s Domain name SEIZED recently; and it got me into reading more about Domain Name Seizures AKA the shutting down of a site for whatever reason.

    Turns out this happens all the time, and was even an issue as far back as 2012 - check out this article for example
    https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/

    In other words,

    Net Neutrality is fake news. because if you’re speaking out about extremely controversial issues, running a site the gov wants to tax, or simply have a site that someone else really wants, the domain name can just be taken from you and you can be shut down or blocked out.

    I think that’s a far greater risk for A&A.org than net neutrality.  Hopefully we never have to deal with it, but even if it happend, there would probably be no warning, and no way for the community to rally to respond.

  • '18 '17 '16

    @Gargantua:

    So, I learned today about a site that had it’s Domain name SEIZED recently; and it got me into reading more about Domain Name Seizures AKA the shutting down of a site for whatever reason.

    Turns out this happens all the time, and was even an issue as far back as 2012 - check out this article for example
    https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/

    In other words,

    Net Neutrality is fake news. because if you’re speaking out about extremely controversial issues, running a site the gov wants to tax, or simply have a site that someone else really wants, the domain name can just be taken from you and you can be shut down or blocked out.

    I think that’s a far greater risk for A&A.org than net neutrality.  Hopefully we never have to deal with it, but even if it happend, there would probably be no warning, and no way for the community to rally to respond.

    What the hell does any of this have to do with net neutrality? That’s like saying it’s not an issue because they upped the price of Girl Guide cookies and that hits us all closer to home. Did Verizon put you up to this? :roll:

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Net neutralitiy is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally, and all websites equally accessible to the public.  No pay for premium models, or blocked content.

    It’s a great idea.

    But the truth is it’s a friggin lie, even when net neutrality law was in place domains could just be seized arbitrarily to stop those trying to speak freely etc.  Traffic was shut down and blocked etc.  The law did nothing to protect the public.

    What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.


  • @Gargantua:

    {snip}
    What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.

    It is a lot of noise, isn’t it? A whole lot of people are talking about it. But you don’t think it will affect you. So you don’t see the point.

    There is a difference between a nation state seizing a web site and a corporation slow rolling you every time you try to visit a website. But the difference is moot if you can’t get to it either way. I suspect that the government is not going to shut down myISPsucks.net. But a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can keep their customers from viewing such a website.

    In an example much more closer to home, a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can accept money from large corporations to shut down small sites that they don’t agree with. In such a world, if Hasbro were to be irritated at A&A.org for not always fawning over every decision made by Hasbro then Hasbro could pay ISPs to throttle down A&A.org’s bandwidth. If it took a minute for any page here to load, a lot of people would quit coming here. And in that way, Hasbro could keep their customers from viewing such a website.

    You might say: “That could never happen, A&A.org is way too small for Hasbro to care about.” To which I say, I’d rather have a world where ISPs don’t have this power in the first place.

    You might say: “But there’s nothing stopping ISPs from doing this before.” Before, you could sue your ISP for blocking access to your traffic. Now, all you can do is launch a campaign on the internet about what a crappy job your ISP is doing. You know, the type of website they don’t give easy access to anymore.

    -Midnight_Reaper

  • Official Q&A

    And what’s to stop your ISP from throttling back websites (including news services) that don’t agree with its political bent, giving you easy access to only those that do?  Ultimately, net neutrality is an issue of freedom of speech, not simply one of commerce.


  • @Midnight_Reaper:

    @Gargantua:

    {snip}
    What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.

    It is a lot of noise, isn’t it? A whole lot of people are talking about it. But you don’t think it will affect you. So you don’t see the point.

    There is a difference between a nation state seizing a web site and a corporation slow rolling you every time you try to visit a website. But the difference is moot if you can’t get to it either way. I suspect that the government is not going to shut down myISPsucks.net. But a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can keep their customers from viewing such a website.

    In an example much more closer to home, a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can accept money from large corporations to shut down small sites that they don’t agree with. In such a world, if Hasbro were to be irritated at A&A.org for not always fawning over every decision made by Hasbro then Hasbro could pay ISPs to throttle down A&A.org’s bandwidth. If it took a minute for any page here to load, a lot of people would quit coming here. And in that way, Hasbro could keep their customers from viewing such a website.

    You might say: “That could never happen, A&A.org is way too small for Hasbro to care about.” To which I say, I’d rather have a world where ISPs don’t have this power in the first place.

    You might say: “But there’s nothing stopping ISPs from doing this before.” Before, you could sue your ISP for blocking access to your traffic. Now, all you can do is launch a campaign on the internet about what a crappy job your ISP is doing. You know, the type of website they don’t give easy access to anymore.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    If an ISP were to agree to a proposition from Hasbro like that, then they would be required (by law) to publicly disclose that information, creating public backlash that would undoubtedly result in more consumer money shifting to their competitors than Hasbro could ever possibly hope to compete with. As to them blocking a negative ad campaign, that would require basically shutting down every news/forum site on the internet, which for any ISP interested in staying in business is unlikely.

    @Krieghund:

    And what’s to stop your ISP from throttling back websites (including news services) that don’t agree with its political bent, giving you easy access to only those that do?  Ultimately, net neutrality is an issue of freedom of speech, not simply one of commerce.

    Funny you should mention free speech. As a matter of fact, there is a large Free Speech battle on the internet going on right now. Only it’s not from the “Anti-Net Neutrality” crowd, it’s from corporations like Google (especially YouTube), Twitter and Facebook, all heavily in favor of Net Neutrality, and all of which censor conservative content on their sites. For example, YouTube blocks channels like PragerU (Educational, conservative content) from being accessed in school by placing them in restricted mode.

    And to be perfectly honest, there should be nothing illegal about companies screening content however they want (your platform, your rules. Free Speech doesn’t apply). As long as they are legally obligated to be upfront about it, it’s up to consumers as to how they feel about it.

  • '18 '17 '16

    Here is a very easy explanation of what net neutrality really is for people who are fooled by the B.S. being fed to them by those who stand to benefit from the new laws and their supporters who don’t know any better but just spew the same rhetoric because of their affiliation or because they think it makes them sound smart;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oInAlTKlw64

    Please stop spreading disinformation, you are hurting us all even if you haven’t figured that out yet.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    If an ISP were to agree to a proposition from Hasbro like that, then they would be required (by law) to publicly disclose that information, creating public backlash that would undoubtedly result in more consumer money shifting to their competitors than Hasbro could ever possibly hope to compete with.

    The public backlash would only happen under specific circumstances. First, you have to be able to find the information. A public disclosure need only be public, it need not be easy to find. You would have to rely on a site like Open Secrets to find and publish that on the internet, which could be blocked by ISPs.

    Second, the public would have to care. If you block Facebook or your favorite news site, yes, there will be backlash. The public won’t care  about Hasbro shutting down our site. Plus, there would also people who actually support it as “free market forces,” which is itself incorrect because the free market assumes competition not the lack thereof.

    As to them blocking a negative ad campaign, that would require basically shutting down every news/forum site on the internet, which for any ISP interested in staying in business is unlikely.

    Although that is the simplest solution to blocking negative ads about your ISP, there are both technical and contractual ways around this.

    0. You only have to block ad networks and shut down VPN traffic.

    1. You write some tech to block ads that link to sites known to be critical of the ISPs practices. There are a few different ways I would go about creating this tech. The simplest being a browser extension that has a heartbeat to keep your internet on/fast. Now that you have a browser extension, you have access to ALL the web browsing content and you can do anything you want with each page; including blocking only specific ads.

    2. Require all your customers to install a ROOT CA from the ISP. Now the ISP can read all your SSL traffic and decide what is censored and what is not.

    3. The easier solution, block all ad networks unless they sign a contract that says they cannot publish ads that hurt the ISP. Or you give the ad networks a free fast lane if they comply. Carrot or stick works here.

    When you let a monopoly ISP do whatever they want with the traffic and consumer, everything imaginable is on the table. Some are technically more difficult than others but nothing is impossible.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    Another way of thinking about Net Neutrality is as anti-trust regulations. In the 90s, there was competition for dial-up internet and more competition for broadband. As broadband consolidated and got faster, regulation was needed to maintain the original spirit of the internet.

    Finally, in modern life, the internet is a utility and should be treated as such.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    @Bob77:

    He has a very good point…calling a politician to voice concerns about an agenda is political.
    Suggesting what to say is lobbying.

    Good point. I should add a footnote to the rules, which wouldn’t actually change much for this thread. For instance, I think I put a pink ribbon on the site in October several years ago.

    I made an exception here for a number of reasons. First, I believe it affects the existence of this site. You may disagree but even if you disagree, you should at least concede there is still a minuscule chance of the site being affected. Second, in the US there is roughly 80% support for Net Neutrality; it’s simply not that controversial. What I didn’t expect (and I really should have) was for the minority opinion to be more complainy than the majority opinion.


  • @GeneralHandGrenade:

    Here is a very easy explanation of what net neutrality really is for people who are fooled by the B.S. being fed to them by those who stand to benefit from the new laws and their supporters who don’t know any better but just spew the same rhetoric because of their affiliation or because they think it makes them sound smart;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oInAlTKlw64

    There are many things wrong with this video, but the biggest is the guy doing it assuming that him being a network engineer makes his opinion on the legitimacy of Net Neutrality more credible. NN is a political issue that has to do with government policy towards ISP’s. It’s like someone saying their opinion on economic theory matters because they work at a bank. As to me ‘spewing rhetoric because I think it makes me sound smart’, I’m guessing it’s comments like that which is why politics were banned from these boards in the first place. However, you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.

    @GeneralHandGrenade:

    Please stop spreading disinformation, you are hurting us all even if you haven’t figured that out yet.

    Aren’t you Canadian?

    @djensen:

    When you let a monopoly ISP do whatever they want with the traffic and consumer, everything imaginable is on the table. Some are technically more difficult than others but nothing is impossible.

    All an ISP is is someone who offers access to the internet in exchange for payment. When you say repealing Title II lets ISP’s “do whatever they want with the traffic and consumer,” that basically means it allows them to do what their entire business model is built on doing. As for the use of the word ‘monopoly’, there are a plenty of ISP’s out there, and no real way to block more from popping up, so I don’t see much of a monopoly. Which is good news, cause when Verison decides to charge $30 an hour for access to Netflix, you’ll know it’s time to switch over to AT&T.

    @djensen:

    I made an exception here for a number of reasons. First, I believe it affects the existence of this site. You may disagree but even if you disagree, you should at least concede there is still a minuscule chance of the site being affected. Second, in the US there is roughly 80% support for Net Neutrality; it’s simply not that controversial. What I didn’t expect (and I really should have) was for the minority opinion to be more complainy than the majority opinion.

    If we’re going to concede to anything with a ‘miniscule’ chance of affecting the existence of the site can be discussed then that opens the door to a great deal more than Net Neutrality. Basically any major political issue, from Foreign Policy to Global Warming (depending on your opinions on those subjects).

    I’m going to make a radical statement: Net Neutrality won’t cause the end of the world. I remember when people said the internet would end when Title II was passed, and nothing happened, so there might just be a chance that nothing will happen when things to back to the internet of 2015. The repeal might cause consequences down the road, it might prevent some, but as of yet it all it’s done is reversed a “fix” to a possible problem that hasn’t yet happened (definitely not at the levels you’re inferring).

  • '18 '17 '16

    Yes I am Canadian. If you think that destroying the internet as we know it today is something that will only happen within your own borders then you need to step outside your country for a day and see that there’s a great big world out here. As sites who can’t afford to pay the extortion die away they die away for all of us and not just you in America.

    I wonder if people like you and the others who spew this BS will have the guts to admit that you were wrong when you finally realize that you advocated for allowing the corporations to steal the internet away from the people like just about everything else in this world. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as well even if it is mindless rhetoric. The internet won’t die but it will be sham compared to what it is right now. Open your eyes.


  • @GeneralHandGrenade:

    Yes I am Canadian. If you think that destroying the internet as we know it today is something that will only happen within your own borders then you need to step outside your country for a day and see that there’s a great big world out here. As sites who can’t afford to pay the extortion die away they die away for all of us and not just you in America.

    No reason why “sites who can’t afford to pay the extortion” would be closed off if they’re available internationally. Like you said, it’s a great big world out there. Besides, if  everything you and Djenson were saying about Net Neutrality is true, the good news is that America is a representative republic, where people can vote in a pro-NN president in 3 years if the repeal goes south. Now, I’m definitely not one to deny someone taking an interest in international affairs, but don’t act all triggered and lecture me about my country’s politics. Last I checked, Canada’s got plenty of it’s own for you to worry about.

    @GeneralHandGrenade:

    I wonder if people like you and the others who spew this BS will have the guts to admit that you were wrong when you finally realize that you advocated for allowing the corporations to steal the internet away from the people like just about everything else in this world. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as well even if it is mindless rhetoric. The internet won’t die but it will be sham compared to what it is right now. Open your eyes.

    Not really sure what corporations have “stolen” from me. I’m sitting here, on a laptop from Best Buy, on the internet via a greedy ISP, on a website I found on Google, talking to a person I know from informative video’s you produce on Youtube. And yes, my eyes are “open.” I’ve read both sides of the issue, and I find the case for keeping NN under Title II as insufficient as the case for placing it under Title II was 2 years ago.

    And I repeat: What’s so apocalyptic about returning the internet back to what it was in 2015? Did I miss the huge internet blackout during that time?

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    Net Neutrality rules have been in effect since the Bush era, since 2010. It wasn’t until 2015 that a court struck down those rules because ISP had to be classified as Title II, that that was done to keep NN in tact.

    Most land-based broadband enjoy a natural monopoly in most areas.


  • @djensen:

    Net Neutrality rules have been in effect since the Bush era, since 2010. It wasn’t until 2015 that a court struck down those rules because ISP had to be classified as Title II, that that was done to keep NN in tact.

    Not true. The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003. In 2004, the FCC encouraged ISP’s to abide by these four principles (called “Network Freedom”):
    1. Freedom to access content
    2. Freedom to run applications
    3. Freedom to attach devices
    4. Freedom to obtain service plan information

    None of this was signed into law, or even an official policy, but from a speech by then Chairman Michael Powell.

    In 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s decision that a cable internet provider is an “information service,” (Title I) not a “telecommunication” service (Title II) in a 6-3 vote. In the same year, the FCC issued the a policy statement announcing they would adopt the following guidlines:

    _� To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
    nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
    their choice.

    � To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
    nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
    choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

    � To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
    nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
    do not harm the network.

    � To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
    nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
    application and service providers, and content providers._
    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf

    This was just a policy, however, and had no legal implications, especially since high-speed internet service classified under Title I, giving less authority over it.

    In 2008, the FCC tried to enforce these guidelines legally against Comcast, but was overruled by an appeals court.

    In 2010, the FCC adopted the FCC Open Internet Order, which was the first official rules regulating the internet:

    _1. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user�s choice over the Internet.

    2. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user�s choice.

    3. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user�s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

    4. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not deprive any of its users of the user�s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

    5. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

    6. Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part._
    https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2009/10/26/net-neutrality-when-network-management-reasonable/

    Key phrase here is “reasonable network management,” which is basically an open ended way of saying that the FCC gets to determine when and where these rules would be applied.

    This could arguably have been the start of legal net neutrality, but after the 2014 case Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, the Court of appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC’s Open Internet Order could only be applied to common carriers, basically invalidating the 2010 regulations.

    Finally, in 2015, the FCC reversed it’s 2005 decision and voted to define the internet as a “telecommunications” service (Title II) instead of a “information” service (Title I), making ISP’s common carriers.

    What happened in 2017 was that the Internet was again redefined as an information service (Title I). So yes, the idea of Net Neutrality has been around for a while, but it had no power until 2015. And as I said before, up until 2015 the Internet has doing more than fine fine without the government regulating it.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    Thanks for the clarifications. Useful stuff.

    Massive corporate ISPs like AT&T and Comcast are only a relatively recent thing. Expecting a massive corporation to do the right thing is naive. If they can profit from it, they’ll screw consumers.

    Regulations like these are a necessary evil to prevent monopolies. If you look at the 3-tier system in the US for alcohol. It seems weird but it has been an effective anti-trust tool allowing competition from much smaller businesses. Compare this to New Zealand, Australia, or UK, and the smaller alcohol manufacturers just can’t compete against tied houses. Market forces can’t change the actions of a monopoly. If one company prevents a consumer from seeing a new product, the market may not even know they want that delicious, delicious thing because the monopoly fears anything new and does what it can to destroy the new thing.

    My only optimism is that cities are starting/planning to invest in infrastructure like fiber and doing it right but just laying the fiber and allowing private companies to maintain it and provide access over it.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts