[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Net neutrality (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/6/2010 11:54:44 AM EDT
I dont understand, the government want to censor the intraweb? Is that it? Can someone give me the ADD short answer? 
|
|
Quoted:
There is just way too much conservative stuff on the web and not enough liberal stuff. That means government must step in to equalize it. +1 It's about controlling ideas that the liberals don't like. Is anyone complaining about free speech being inhibited online?? It's the last place anyone really has to express their views and remain anonymous. If it ain't broke don't fix it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. I have no idea what it is about either, but I don't like new laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. 10+ years in telco designing and supporting networks. You can take it how you want. Most of the pantywaists posting on the subject know about Jack Schitt on this subject, and Jack left town. The "Corporation" wants to filter traffic. Its that simple. The "Man" wants to make sure all traffic is treated equally. So how would YOU describe it? Tell me Mr. Telco, whats this ruling really about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. I have no idea what it is about either, but I don't like new laws. You don't hear much about it on the news, except for FOX. Libs want to keep it that way. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. I have no idea what it is about either, but I don't like new laws. You don't hear much about it on the news, except for FOX. Libs want to keep it that way. What exactly is it about? |
|
Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. +1 But of course the loons will be here shortly to tell you that it is actually a power grab so that your rights and guns will be taken away... |
If you want to know what it's about you go here: And READ something! Don't listen to random bullshit. http://www.eff.org/related/9375/blog Handful of articles covering the important issues down the page. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2766/4488606040_6739fbdb16_o.gif LOLOLOL where is that from?! (i know its a spin-off of the WTF face .gif, but from another thread?)
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is just way too much conservative stuff on the web and not enough liberal stuff. That means government must step in to equalize it. +1 It's about controlling ideas that the liberals don't like. Is anyone complaining about free speech being inhibited online?? It's the last place anyone really has to express their views and remain anonymous. If it ain't broke don't fix it. What I find amusing is that most of the dipshits on /b/ and /r9k/, over on 4chan, supported Obama in the interests of maintaining "net neutrality" (which they saw McCain as a threat to). What a fucking joke. 
|
|
Quoted: this is preventing providers from limiting bandwith/access to certain sites. this would have been good for us if it made it. -Mike Bullshit. When we saw the loophole, we had to ask ourselves, "Is this real net neutrality?" And the answer was simply, "No." The entertainment industry is already pressuring ISPs to become copyright cops. Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design.  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. 10+ years in telco designing and supporting networks. You can take it how you want. Most of the pantywaists posting on the subject know about Jack Schitt on this subject, and Jack left town. The "Corporation" wants to filter traffic. Its that simple. The "Man" wants to make sure all traffic is treated equally. So how would YOU describe it? Tell me Mr. Telco, whats this ruling really about. Not so much. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
this is preventing providers from limiting bandwith/access to certain sites. this would have been good for us if it made it. -Mike Bullshit. When we saw the loophole, we had to ask ourselves, "Is this real net neutrality?" And the answer was simply, "No." The entertainment industry is already pressuring ISPs to become copyright cops. Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design.
so how would this bill have changed your access compared to what is in place right now... please enlighten me. I have read the article you posted. there is a loophole so it is not perfect but the current situation allows for much more censorship -Mike |
|
"Net Neutrality" is an idea that would have ISPs giving you an unhindered, uncontrolled connection to any and all content over the internet. They would not be able to block access to or throttle bandwidth to any site or service.
The idea is good - you should be able to access anything and everything unhindered by the ISP. The recent stink here is that the FCC was trying to get the power to regulate aspects of the internet in the name of 'Net Neutrality'. I don't actually know the details of the legislation, so don't quote me. Net Neutrality = good Government regulation and control thereof = bad |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this is preventing providers from limiting bandwith/access to certain sites. this would have been good for us if it made it. -Mike Bullshit. When we saw the loophole, we had to ask ourselves, "Is this real net neutrality?" And the answer was simply, "No." The entertainment industry is already pressuring ISPs to become copyright cops. Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design. so how would this bill have changed your access compared to what is in place right now... please enlighten me. I have read the article you posted. there is a loophole so it is not perfect but the current situation allows for much more censorship -Mike I don't think you did because that was covered in the Jan 20th posting, linked above. Last week the MPAA and RIAA submitted their comments in the FCC's net neutrality proceeding. As anticipated in EFF's comments, the big media companies are pushing for a copyright loophole to net neutrality. They want to be able to pressure ISPs to block, interfere with, or otherwise discriminate against your perfectly lawful activities in the course of implementing online copyright enforcement measures. Of course, the MPAA and RIAA couch this in language intended to sound inoffensive. The RIAA says "the perfect should not be the enemy of the good" and "justice often takes too long." The MPAA chimes in that "it is essential that government policies explicitly permit—and encourage—ISPs to work with content creators to utilize the best available tools and technologies to combat online content theft." But here's how it would work in practice. The proposed FCC net neutrality principles include a loophole for "reasonable network management," which is defined to include "reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to...(iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content." That means that so long as your ISP claims that it's trying to prevent copyright infringement, it's exempted from the net neutrality principles and can interfere with your ability to access lawful content, use lawful devices, run lawful applications, or access lawful services. This is not about protecting copyright infringers—the FCC's proposed net neutrality principles expressly do not apply to unlawful content or unlawful transmissions. So you don't need a "reasonable network management" loophole to go after illegal conduct. The loophole that the RIAA and MPAA are after is about giving the green light to overbroad copyright enforcement measures that inflict collateral damage on innocent conduct. The proposed copyright loophole is reminiscent of the RIAA's response when asked about innocent people mistakenly sued for file sharing: "When you go fishing with a driftnet, sometimes you catch a dolphin." Unlike the MPAA and RIAA, EFF doesn't think that ISPs should get a free pass for sideswiping innocent activities if they implement shoddy copyright enforcement systems. And neither do Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association, CCIA, NetCoalition, or the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Allowing ISPs to jeopardize perfectly legal activities in the name of "copyright enforcement" is a bad idea. Let the FCC know that you oppose any copyright loophole that would allow the RIAA and MPAA to pressure ISPs into catching your "dolphins" in their poorly designed fishing nets. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this is preventing providers from limiting bandwith/access to certain sites. this would have been good for us if it made it. -Mike Bullshit. When we saw the loophole, we had to ask ourselves, "Is this real net neutrality?" And the answer was simply, "No." The entertainment industry is already pressuring ISPs to become copyright cops. Carving a copyright loophole in net neutrality would leave your lawful activities at the mercy of overbroad copyright filtering schemes, and we already have plenty of experience with copyright enforcers targeting legitimate users by mistake, carelessness, or design.
so how would this bill have changed your access compared to what is in place right now... please enlighten me. I have read the article you posted. there is a loophole so it is not perfect but the current situation allows for much more censorship -Mike I don't think you did because that was covered in the Jan 20th posting, linked above. Last week the MPAA and RIAA submitted their comments in the FCC's net neutrality proceeding. As anticipated in EFF's comments, the big media companies are pushing for a copyright loophole to net neutrality. They want to be able to pressure ISPs to block, interfere with, or otherwise discriminate against your perfectly lawful activities in the course of implementing online copyright enforcement measures. Of course, the MPAA and RIAA couch this in language intended to sound inoffensive. The RIAA says "the perfect should not be the enemy of the good" and "justice often takes too long." The MPAA chimes in that "it is essential that government policies explicitly permit—and encourage—ISPs to work with content creators to utilize the best available tools and technologies to combat online content theft." But here's how it would work in practice. The proposed FCC net neutrality principles include a loophole for "reasonable network management," which is defined to include "reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to...(iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content." That means that so long as your ISP claims that it's trying to prevent copyright infringement, it's exempted from the net neutrality principles and can interfere with your ability to access lawful content, use lawful devices, run lawful applications, or access lawful services. This is not about protecting copyright infringers—the FCC's proposed net neutrality principles expressly do not apply to unlawful content or unlawful transmissions. So you don't need a "reasonable network management" loophole to go after illegal conduct. The loophole that the RIAA and MPAA are after is about giving the green light to overbroad copyright enforcement measures that inflict collateral damage on innocent conduct. The proposed copyright loophole is reminiscent of the RIAA's response when asked about innocent people mistakenly sued for file sharing: "When you go fishing with a driftnet, sometimes you catch a dolphin." Unlike the MPAA and RIAA, EFF doesn't think that ISPs should get a free pass for sideswiping innocent activities if they implement shoddy copyright enforcement systems. And neither do Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association, CCIA, NetCoalition, or the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Allowing ISPs to jeopardize perfectly legal activities in the name of "copyright enforcement" is a bad idea. Let the FCC know that you oppose any copyright loophole that would allow the RIAA and MPAA to pressure ISPs into catching your "dolphins" in their poorly designed fishing nets. again, how does that compare to what is in place right now? there are loopholes designed to prevent the use of teh companies service for the purpose of committing a crime (copyright infringment) but this would have been an improvement over the current situation. I dont like that either but this is not creating new censorship like you are saying Comcast won this.... not us -Mike |
|
Quoted: "Net Neutrality" is an idea that would have ISPs giving you an unhindered, uncontrolled connection to any and all content over the internet. They would not be able to block access to or throttle bandwidth to any site or service. The idea is good - you should be able to access anything and everything unhindered by the ISP. The recent stink here is that the FCC was trying to get the power to regulate aspects of the internet in the name of 'Net Neutrality'. I don't actually know the details of the legislation, so don't quote me. Net Neutrality = good Government regulation and control thereof = bad The RIAA and MPAA and whoever else have several loopholes in the proposal, but everyone has fingers in their ears screaming LALALALA!! I don't care how deep you have your fist in the ass of an ISP, it doesn't make plain language mean something different. The EFF has several lawyers looking out for our interests, trust in them. Not DU'ers, not 4chan, not oblama's street team, and not uninformed spewers of bullshit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You guys are confusing net neutrality with the Fairness Doctrine. Think of NN as the "Fairness Doctrine" of the internet. Thats not entirely accurate, but it'll do for a drive by post. "Net Neutrality" as the idea started ages ago is a great thing. "Net Neutrality" as the gov is trying to implement, is not a good thing, it will cause bandwidth throttling and has the potential to mandate the censoring of sites, the very thing it is supposedly preventing... "Net Neutrality" is much like the "fairness doctrine" in that regards, gullible people hear something ("show both sides of an issue" in the case of the fairness doctrine) and think it is a good thing, but they dont pay attention to the details (there is no possible way to show every side of an issue, so the government bureaucrats will decide what information is pertinent). And anyone that thinks the "fairness doctrine" was a good thing, well....  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. 10+ years in telco designing and supporting networks. You can take it how you want. Most of the pantywaists posting on the subject know about Jack Schitt on this subject, and Jack left town. The "Corporation" wants to filter traffic. Its that simple. The "Man" wants to make sure all traffic is treated equally. So how would YOU describe it? Tell me Mr. Telco, whats this ruling really about. Did you read what you just typed? The Corp want to do what it wants. The Government wants to Corp to do what it wants. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
again, how does that compare to what is in place right now? What terrible thing is happening to you right now? My internet access is better than it's ever been. I remember dial-up by the minute. I am just asking you to address why you are against this. the current laws in place vs w/NN. everyone is acting as if this new law would allow for new powers given to the ISPs/gov which is not the case it should be easy considering you are calling BS on my post |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: again, how does that compare to what is in place right now? What terrible thing is happening to you right now? My internet access is better than it's ever been. I remember dial-up by the minute. I am just asking you to address why you are against this. the current laws in place vs w/NN. everyone is acting as if this new law would allow for new powers given to the ISPs/gov which is not the case it should be easy considering you are calling BS on my post Because nothing the government touches ever ends up better, cheaper, or more efficient. Ever. Nobody here trusts oblama and his dummies on ANYTHING, but they want to trust him on this? What fools men be sometimes.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. 10+ years in telco designing and supporting networks. You can take it how you want. Most of the pantywaists posting on the subject know about Jack Schitt on this subject, and Jack left town. The "Corporation" wants to filter traffic. Its that simple. The "Man" wants to make sure all traffic is treated equally. So how would YOU describe it? Tell me Mr. Telco, whats this ruling really about.
Did you read what you just typed? The Corp want to do what it wants. The Government wants to Corp to do what it wants. Right, the Corp wants to restrict you, and .gov is saying that the corp cant restrict you. In this case what the .gov wants it the better outcome for "We the people". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
again, how does that compare to what is in place right now? What terrible thing is happening to you right now? My internet access is better than it's ever been. I remember dial-up by the minute. I am just asking you to address why you are against this. the current laws in place vs w/NN. everyone is acting as if this new law would allow for new powers given to the ISPs/gov which is not the case it should be easy considering you are calling BS on my post Because nothing the government touches ever ends up better, cheaper, or more efficient. Ever. Nobody here trusts oblama and his dummies on ANYTHING, but they want to trust him on this? What fools men be sometimes.
I think there are some big misunderstandings here... are you against outright net neutrality, ignore this specific bill... because to me net neutrality is a free speech issue, I dont think this bill is perfect but it is a step in the right direction. currently there are no net neutrality laws and if your ISP decided to arbitrarily block something you have no course of action except to search for a new provider... not always an option I dont think this bill is perfect but I do think it is a step in the right direction... this isnt gov control, this is NOT fairness doctrine of the internet -Mike |
|
Quoted:
So NN is a good thing until the gubermint sticks its hand in. ISP #1 attracts 100 hits and competing ISP #2 only gets 50 hits. So the Gubermint under NN throttles back the bandwidth of #1 by 50% this makes everything cool on Gores Intraweb. Am I correct?  NO net neutrality is designed to prevent ISPs from doing exactly what you are describing... the ISPs want to limit access/bandwith to sites that use an excessive amount (Comcast mainly) and net neutrality was designed to prevent the practice... it has a loophole which would allow the ISp to continue blocking if it has legal concerns which isnt good but they do what you are describing allready -Mike |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So NN is a good thing until the gubermint sticks its hand in. ISP #1 attracts 100 hits and competing ISP #2 only gets 50 hits. So the Gubermint under NN throttles back the bandwidth of #1 by 50% this makes everything cool on Gores Intraweb. Am I correct? NO net neutrality is designed to prevent ISPs from doing exactly what you are describing... the ISPs want to limit access/bandwith to sites that use an excessive amount (Comcast mainly) and net neutrality was designed to prevent the practice... it has a loophole which would allow the ISp to continue blocking if it has legal concerns which isnt good but they do what you are describing allready -Mike Thank you |
|
Quoted:
So NN is a good thing until the gubermint sticks its hand in. ISP #1 attracts 100 hits and competing ISP #2 only gets 50 hits. So the Gubermint under NN throttles back the bandwidth of #1 by 50% this makes everything cool on Gores Intraweb. Am I correct? Flip it around. Right now there is no net neutrality, the government wants to implement net neutrality as law which is the equivalent of "free speech" on the internet. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: again, how does that compare to what is in place right now? What terrible thing is happening to you right now? My internet access is better than it's ever been. I remember dial-up by the minute. I am just asking you to address why you are against this. the current laws in place vs w/NN. everyone is acting as if this new law would allow for new powers given to the ISPs/gov which is not the case it should be easy considering you are calling BS on my post Because nothing the government touches ever ends up better, cheaper, or more efficient. Ever. Nobody here trusts oblama and his dummies on ANYTHING, but they want to trust him on this? What fools men be sometimes. I think there are some big misunderstandings here... are you against outright net neutrality, ignore this specific bill... because to me net neutrality is a free speech issue, I dont think this bill is perfect but it is a step in the right direction. currently there are no net neutrality laws and if your ISP decided to arbitrarily block something you have no course of action except to search for a new provider... not always an option I dont think this bill is perfect but I do think it is a step in the right direction... this isnt gov control, this is NOT fairness doctrine of the internet -Mike No I am not against Net Neutrality outright, I've said that time and again. I'm not against health care either, look how that turned out! NO steps in the "right direction", do it right or don't fuck with it. |
|
Quoted: The merits of NN aside, this was simply the court telling the FCC that they could not impose this without legislation allowing them to do so. Yes, and now pay attention everyone... Hence the danger. If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet. And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC "Internet Lawful Use Policy," created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance. After all, it was only thanks to a jurisdictional challenge –– ironically, by many of the same groups currently celebrating Genachowski's rulemaking announcement –– that we defeated the FCC's "broadcast flag" mandate which would have given Hollywood and federal bureaucrats veto power over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded TV programming. EFF's concerns are born from more than just a general skepticism about government regulation of the Internet. Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture and has a history of ignoring grassroots public opinion (see, e.g., media consolidation). That makes the agency a poor choice for restraining the likes of Comcast and AT&T. Fortunately, there are two opportunities to reign in the FCC’s expansive views of its own “ancillary jurisdiction.” A federal court is considering this important question as part of Comcast's challenge to the FCC's order last year regarding interference with BitTorrent traffic (PFF filed a strong amicus brief in the case, arguing against the FCC's power grab). Or Congress could limit the FCC's power by authorizing to regulate only to ensure network neutrality. That's where we won today. See? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the govnerment is doing the opposite and making sure the internet is not censored. The government is trying to maintain "free speech" on the internet. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just plain not knowing. I have no idea what it is about either, but I don't like new laws. You don't hear much about it on the news, except for FOX. Libs want to keep it that way. What exactly is it about? HMMMM..... |