Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 27th, 2017, 03:57 AM   #1
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

I can't believe there hasn't been a single thread about this yet. I've been meaning to make one, but haven't had the time.

This decision could literally be the end for small forums like VT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's start with the fundamentals.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality: A law which says that Internet Service Providers (ISP's) can not limit, restrict, or block any specific information or websites from you on the internet.
Meaning, if an ISP is providing you with internet, they MUST provide you with unrestricted access to EVERYTHING on the internet.

Simple enough, this is a VERY good thing for consumers.
The free & open internet is the best thing to ever happen for society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the dangers of getting rid of Net Neutrality?

Without Net Neutrality, your ISP will be able to slow down, restrict, or block your access to any information or websites on the internet, however they see fit.

They could block access to information about their competitors.
They could block access to any negative information about them.
They could block access to any news articles that are detrimental to them.
They could block access to how much money they lobby to politicians.

They will literally be able to control the information we have access to. This is real, and scary as hell.

They could split access to the internet into packages, like so:

Basic Internet: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, News $29.99
Internet w/ Video: Netflix, Youtube, Hulu +$9.99
Internet w/ Games: Steam, Origins, Games +$9.99
Internet w/ Music: Spotify, Pandora, IHeartRadio +$4.99

This is a REAL photo of internet packages in Portugal where Net Neutrality doesn't exist.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why is Net Neutrality in danger?

Well, Trump has recently appointed a new FCC-Director, his name is Ajit Pai.

He was actually initially appointed under Obama. But in between now and then, he went to go work as a *lobbyist for Verizon.
(*Handing money to politicians, in order to get them to pass the laws that Verizon wants)
[If Net Neutrality was destroyed, Verizion & all other ISP's would benefit big time. They'd be able to slow-down, restrict, or block anything they wanted.]

Now that Pai is back in office, he has scheduled a vote to get rid of Net Neutrality: December 14th.

The 3 Republican FCC-Directors (There are 5 total) are expected to vote in line with Pai.
1 has already confirmed he will do so.
The other is expected to do so according to past voting records.
The 2 Democrats have expressed their concerns, and will be voting against Pai.

So Net Neutrality is in BIG danger, unless one of the 3 Republican FCC-Directors decides to change their mind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What can I do to help stop this?

1.) Get informed.

2.) Tell EVERYONE, Friends, Family, post on Social Media, everywhere.

3.) Sign Petitions, and call your representatives: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

I encourage you to go to that website, follow through with all of it, especially the phone calls.
Then get as many friends or family members to do it as possible.
Tell them to spread the word, and have their friends and family do it too.

This is truly our only chance to save Net Neutrality.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 27th, 2017 at 01:12 PM.
Likes: (1)
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 04:24 AM   #2
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: The road opposite the big lake on the island in front of the big city on the mainland.
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

I get it. It's once again all about cash. How surprising.





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:14 AM   #3
Stronk Serb
Kebab Remover
 
Stronk Serb's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 3, 2012
Location: Serbia (FYR)
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Yes, it's a jerk thing to do because it makes way for so much abuses by the government and individual ISP's. Newspapers and TV's can very easily be censored, directly or indirectly. Internet cannot, unless something like this happens.

Male/Serb nationalist/Centrist Authoritarian /Straight/Heliphobe
VT's most likely to become president of 2017
VT's leading expert on Slavology and anything Slavic-related, if you have some questions of Slavic nature, just send me a VM or a PM
Likes: (1)
Stronk Serb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:14 AM   #4
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
This is a REAL photo of internet packages in Portugal where Net Neutrality doesn't exist.
image
Just want to say that this is wrong and misleading. That image has been shared around social media quite a lot lately, but I don't think most people know what it exactly means, probably because in no way Portugal's ISP economy is related to the USA's. Net neutrality is in fact important because it's a way we can use to avoid ISPs from getting a monopoly on how they give access to internet data, and I'd say we can all agree that it would be unfair if a certain ISP blocked access to another competitor's websites, or if they supported a certain political party and blocked access to their rival party's website, something like that. This makes particularly sense when we have countries with only one or two ISPs who can easily monopolise internet data to their benefit. It's not the case of most European countries and it's certainly not the case of the USA where you have tons of ISPs like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon etc... What that image says is that, for mobile internet only, you can choose a certain "pack" which allows you access to a certain type of mobile applications based on what your consumer habits are. If you're someone who regularly uses music applications but never uses any of the other, what's the point in paying for a service you don't use? That way, they are limiting which data you can access based on your personal choices and consumer habits. It is, thus, a pro-consumer initiative, and since the OP is someone who values so much consumer rights over companies rights, I'm not sure why he would consider this something bad (although he's openly against special discounts for students in bank loans and special discounts for kids in amusement parks, so to be honest this doesn't surprise me). It's breaching internet neutrality, but consumer rights are not affected. It is not shown in that picture, but if you scroll down on that website, you'll see that the option for having unlimited access to all mobile data is obviously available (for a bigger price, obviously once again, because you're paying for a larger service). The way it is shown seems to imply that we can only have access to individual packs and if we wanted access to everything we'd have to pay for all of them separately. That would be absurd. There's also another thing: MEO is, as far as I know, the only Portuguese ISP provider that has that type of "data packs" offer available, other ISPs do not have it. And this just confirms what I've said initially: if you only have one major ISP in a certain country, that ISP has monopoly over all the internet data that is accessed in that country, and thus, net neutrality is quite desired. In other countries where you have multiple ISPs with different characteristics each, net neutrality could hamper other smaller companies from offering competitive services based on, for instance, consumer habits. It would also lower the incentive ISPs would have to reach particular consumers and offer them special prices. So saying net neutrality is good or bad is not enough, it depends on how the ISP economy works in a certain country. Also, net neutrality exists in Portugal and in Europe in general, and that's so true that roaming has now officially ended.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~

Last edited by Living For Love; November 27th, 2017 at 05:12 PM.
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 01:08 PM   #5
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Just want to say that this is wrong and misleading. That image has been shared around social media quite a lot lately, but I don't think most people know what it exactly means, probably because in no way Portugal's ISP economy is related to the USA's. Net neutrality is in fact important because it's a way we can use to avoid ISPs from getting a monopoly on how they give access to internet data, and I'd say we can all agree that it would be unfair if a certain ISP blocked access to another competitor's websites, or if they supported a certain political party and blocked access to their rival party's website, something like that. This makes particularly sense when we have countries with only one or two ISPs who can easily monopolise internet data to their benefit. It's not the case of most European countries and it's certainly not the case of the USA where you have tons of ISPs like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon etc... What that image says is that, for mobile internet only, you can choose a certain "pack" which allows you access to a certain type of mobile applications based on what your consumer habits are. If you're someone who regularly uses music applications but never uses any of the other, what's the point in paying for a service you don't use? That way, they are limiting which data you can access based on your personal choices and consumer habits. It is, thus, a pro-consumer initiative, and since the OP is someone who values so much consumer rights over companies rights, I'm not sure why he would consider this something bad (although he's openly against special discounts for students in bank loans and special discounts for kids in amusement parks, so to be honest this doesn't surprise me). It's breaching internet neutrality, but consumer rights are not affected. It is not shown in that picture, but if you scroll down on that website, you'll see that the option for having unlimited access to all mobile data is obviously available (for a bigger price, obviously once again, because you're paying for a larger service). The way it is shown seems to imply that we can only have access to individual packs and if we wanted access to everything we'd have to pay for all of them separately. That would be absurd. There's also another thing: MEO is, as far as I know, the only Portuguese ISP provider that has that type of "data packs" offer available, other ISPs do not have it. And this just confirms what I've said initially: if you only have one major ISP in a certain country, that ISP has monopoly over all the internet data that is accessed in that country, and thus, net neutrality is quite desired. In other countries where you have multiple ISPs with different characteristics each, net neutrality could hamper other smaller companies from offering competitive services based on, for instance, consumer habits. It would also lower the incentive ISPs would have to reach particular consumers and offer them special prices. So saying net neutrality is good or bad is not enough, it depends on how the ISP economy works in a certain country. Also, net neutrality exists in Portugal and in Europe in general, and that's so true that roaming has now officially ended. And finally, I'm not sure if this thread is a debate or something a spam bot would post.
Not going to comment on all the personal comments and insinuated attacks. Those are called "Ad-Hominem Logical Fallacies". (Attacking my character; instead of my argument or logic)

This thread was not designed to be a debate, we're in VT Daily Chronicle, not ROTW.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
It's not the case of most European countries and it's certainly not the case of the USA where you have tons of ISPs like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon etc...
Where I live, I only have access to two fast, reliable ISP's in my area, AT&T & Xfinity. (And two other really slow, really shitty ISP's)

I live in Sacramento FFS, capital of the most populous state in America.
And if I want internet, I have the option of just TWO giant mega-corps to go to?

Your premise of "having tons of ISP's to choose from" is false, so every argument after that is void.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 27th, 2017 at 04:50 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 01:19 PM   #6
PlasmaHam
Awesome Poster
 
PlasmaHam's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: July 7, 2016
Location: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

I really don't have much time currently, so this will probably be my only post on this topic. First, this is not this doomsday apocalypse you seem to be indicating it is. I would call 'Fake New' here, but I know that is a triggering term for you, and I'm just trying to be sensible here. First, as @Living For Love pointed out, it is an unfair and border-line ignorant to say that the internet situation between a small European country and the USA are comparable. There are numerous factors that differentiate them, primary being the fact that the USA has far more competitors in the broadband market than Portugal. You are essentially comparing a monopolistic market to a competitive market. Basic economic principles teach that with more competitors in a market, firms will be less likely to do anything unpopular or unfair, like anti-competitive buffering of certain sites, because consumers can often easily switch between firms.

If you still think net-neutrality is essential to the internet, consider this. When Net-neutrality laws were first being serious considered back in 2010, they could only come up with four examples of anti-competitive business practice. In the ~15 years of the internet, in the country with the most developed internet and diverse market, only four examples, all minor, nothing near whatever Portugal did. And it wasn't until 2015 when net neutrality as we know it actually became law, yet for some reason the internet still survive. There isn't a problem here, so stop pretending like there is one.

Secondly, let's look at the economic and business side of this. Net neutrality regulations in the USA make it essentially impossible for start-up ISP providers to enter the market. For one, it requires ISPs to be able to handle all sites in a fair and equal manner. This may sound good on the outside, but practically it simply doesn't work. Small ISPs don't have the infrastructure to handle data-heavy sites, like file sharing and video streaming, in a fair manner in terms of speed and access to lesser sites like VT or Wikipedia. To comply with net-neutrality laws, small IPs essentially have to throttle their internet across the board, which deters customers and growth. Without net neutrality laws, ISPs would be able to throttle those data heavy sites, but then leave the majority of sites at high-speeds, which is much more attractive to customers and business growth. It also doesn't help that current net neutrality laws force potential ISP's to go through a lengthy and expensive registration process, which deters entrance to the market. This is why so many major internet providers appear to be in support of net-neutrality, because it restricts any competition from coming up and challenging their market share.

In addition to that, net neutrality legislation also allows the FCC to enact hefty taxes upon ISPs if it sees so fit. Internet providers are now some of the heavily taxed companies in the country percentage wise.

Thirdly, let's look at the governmental oversight view of this. The internet has long been heralded as a free and open platform for all, with no one organization or person overseeing it. Ironically, net neutrality and Title II (the telecommunication law from the 30s that net neutrality now claim also applies to the internet) gets rid of that, by proving an entity that oversees the internet, atleast in the USA. The current laws even allow the FCC to bully ISPs and certain sites into doing their bidding via threatening to revoke their license, like how you hear of TV networks being bullied by the FCC. Of course, Obama's FCC chairman said that while that law was on the book, he promised that the FCC would never ever actually use them. Of course, this was the same administration that said that Benghazi was due to a Youtube video, and that "you can keep your doctor", so I'm sure we can have the utmost trust in that promise.

Sorry if this got long-winded. Just wanted to throw everything out there, since it is doubtful I'll respond later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love
And finally, I'm not sure if this thread is a debate or something a spam bot would post.
Ikr. I've noticed that with a lot of posts by this user, that it seems more like a copy-paste job from some Leftist website than an original post.


Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rnet-less-open

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#2b2cde4fbece

http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/...ov-14-2014.pdf

https://www.fastcompany.com/40450516...ity-regulation
PlasmaHam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 03:15 PM   #7
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
I would call "Fake News" here
Please, explain exactly what you mean by "Fake News", do you perhaps mean, "something I disagree with"?

Everything in my original post is 100% factual.
Net Neutrality is in danger from this vote.
ISP's 'could' (not saying they 'will' 100%) block, restrict, throttle, whatever they wanted.
They 'could' create those data-packages.

Please quote ONE factual error in my post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
There are numerous factors that differentiate them, primary being the fact that the USA has far more competitors in the broadband market than Portugal. You are essentially comparing a monopolistic market to a competitive market. Basic economic principles teach that with more competitors in a market, firms will be less likely to do anything unpopular or unfair, like anti-competitive buffering of certain sites, because consumers can often easily switch between firms.
As I have stated in my reply to LFL, there are TWO ISP's where I live.
. . . I'm in the capitol of the most populous state in America.

Here's a picture from the FCC with the estimated percentages of people who have access to multiple ISP's.


51% of Americans have only one provider choice! Where I live, I only have two.

So that entire argument is completely null.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
If you still think net-neutrality is essential to the internet, consider this. When Net-neutrality laws were first being serious considered back in 2010, they could only come up with four examples of anti-competitive business practice. In the ~15 years of the internet, in the country with the most developed internet and diverse market, only four examples, all minor, nothing near whatever Portugal did. And it wasn't until 2015 when net neutrality as we know it actually became law, yet for some reason the internet still survive. There isn't a problem here, so stop pretending like there is one.
Yes, I understand that it "could" work without Net Neutrality.

But I don't trust that big money-focused corporations have my interest in mind when they're designing their own internet restrictions/regulations.
It's only about their own profits.

https://arstechnica.com/information-...deo-to-10mbps/
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/n...-end-slowdown/
https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formal...t-was-illegal/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ing-after-all/

Verizion, AT&T, & Comcast are all guilty of Data-throttling. (This includes my only two available ISP's)

And as we've seen in Portugal, data-packages like that can happen
Don't try to say it's different, because it's not. I explained that in my first paragraph.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
Secondly, let's look at the economic and business side of this. Net neutrality regulations in the USA make it essentially impossible for start-up ISP providers to enter the market. For one, it requires ISPs to be able to handle all sites in a fair and equal manner. This may sound good on the outside, but practically it simply doesn't work. Small ISPs don't have the infrastructure to handle data-heavy sites, like file sharing and video streaming, in a fair manner in terms of speed and access to lesser sites like VT or Wikipedia. To comply with net-neutrality laws, small IPs essentially have to throttle their internet across the board, which deters customers and growth. Without net neutrality laws, ISPs would be able to throttle those data heavy sites, but then leave the majority of sites at high-speeds, which is much more attractive to customers and business growth. It also doesn't help that current net neutrality laws force potential ISP's to go through a lengthy and expensive registration process, which deters entrance to the market. This is why so many major internet providers appear to be in support of net-neutrality, because it restricts any competition from coming up and challenging their market share.
If you understood how computers and network speeds work, you'd know that everything you just said is wrong.
I'll try to explain this as best I can.

You claim that small ISP's can't provide equal access because data-heavy sites won't be able to run "fast enough".
That is false.

If a small ISP provides a plan for 5Mb/s. ALL Net Neutrality asks is that that 5Mb/s is not restricted in how it is used.

So even if you're trying to load a Youtube Video that needs 10Mb/s, it will have to load, buffer, and run slow.
But that ISP is letting you use all your 5Mb/s on whatever you want. That's Net Neutrality.

"throttling" data-heavy sites will do nothing to make other sites run faster.

Argument = Null


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
In addition to that, net neutrality legislation also allows the FCC to enact hefty taxes upon ISPs if it sees so fit. Internet providers are now some of the heavily taxed companies in the country percentage wise.
The reason for this is Internet Services being reclassified as "public utilities". So all of them are taxed at higher rates. (The FCC doesn't just get to do it "as it see fits".)
I'm don't particularly agree with this part of the Title II regulations.
But those regulations have nothing to do with the fundamental idea of Net Neutrality.

I'm only defending Net Neutrality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
Thirdly, let's look at the governmental oversight view of this. The internet has long been heralded as a free and open platform for all, with no one organization or person overseeing it. Ironically, net neutrality and Title II (the telecommunication law from the 30s that net neutrality now claim also applies to the internet) gets rid of that, by proving an entity that oversees the internet, at least in the USA.
Net Neutrality only says that ISP's can't restrict what you use your internet for.
The FCC (The overseeing government organization) existed before those laws were ever even passed.

Other Title II regulations are a different story. I am only talking about Net Neutrality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
The current laws even allow the FCC to bully ISPs and certain sites into doing their bidding via threatening to revoke their license, like how you hear of TV networks being bullied by the FCC.
"doing their bidding via threatening to revoke their license" = Enforcing laws via threatening to revoke their license if they don't comply with the law.

I guess the government is also bullying Restaurants into doing it's bidding via threatening to revoke their license.
(The government enforcing health codes for restaurants.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaHam View Post
Ikr. I've noticed that with a lot of posts by this user, that it seems more like a copy-paste job from some Leftist website than an original post.
Everything I write is original. The fundamental information comes from a plethora of different sources.

1.) Right-Biased News Site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
If you'd like to quote a certain part of that article, I can probably dispel it for you.

2.) Opinion article by a Free-market Libertarian who has a predisposed bias to be against any government regulation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#6d2f4ace651a Read his bio

3. ) This talks about "economic theory" (Supply-Side Economics) about how under Title II Regulations, ISP's will be less likely to spend money on Capital Investments.
It never provides actual evidence, just hypothesis's.
[I'm not defending all of Title II; just Net Neutrality.]

4.) This is addressing additional provisions such as ISP's being classified as "common carriers", extra taxes from internet being classified as a "public utilitiy", and some "monopoly regulations" which they talk about but never explain.

As I've said before, I don't 100% agree with those two classifications.

The ONLY part I am concerned about is actual Net Neutrality.

If Ajit Pai and the other two directors can come up with a new light-handed regulation which includes Net Neutrality, I would probably support it.
But all they want to do is destroy it all, with no replacement.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 27th, 2017 at 04:38 PM.
Likes: (1)
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 06:14 PM   #8
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

A dick move everyone knew was going to happen, but if it end up slowing down Trump's Twitter account it can't be that bad.

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
Likes: (1)
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 06:18 PM   #9
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Where I live, I only have access to two fast, reliable ISP's in my area, AT&T & Xfinity. (And two other really slow, really shitty ISP's)

I live in Sacramento FFS, capital of the most populous state in America.
And if I want internet, I have the option of just TWO giant mega-corps to go to?
Well, that's unfortunate, but if both AT&T and Xfinity decide to breach net neutrality in a way that threatens your consumer rights, other ISPs will promptly decide to make their services available in your region because they have an incentive to do so, which is the fact that the people in your region are unsatisfied with the other two ISP services. They see it as a marketing opportunity. This is just a consequence of the capitalistic economy. Plus, that new ISP could even be a new startup, creating jobs etc... In other words, your particular example only further proves my initial points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
A dick move everyone knew was going to happen, but if it end up slowing down Trump's Twitter account it can't be that bad.
Lmao, that would be interesting xD Still waiting for Trump's Twitter account to become unverified and watch the ensuing chaos.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 06:28 PM   #10
PinkFloyd
Steve Jobs' Bitch
 
PinkFloyd's Forum Picture
 
Name: Rob
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: Minneapois-St. Paul Metro, Minnesota
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Not to be cynical, but this has been a long time coming. I really really hope we can delay it further, but it's a matter of when, not if. The bigwigs that control everything want money, and they have the resources to get it. Money is power, and they have money.

"My mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping." Fred Rogers
PinkFloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:31 PM   #11
Stronk Serb
Kebab Remover
 
Stronk Serb's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 3, 2012
Location: Serbia (FYR)
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

For those complaining at the lack of competition, here there is SBB which holds a monopoly, at least in the capital. They provided the best and cheapest service for a time, probably without any profits for a few years, just enough to flush out the competition and own a large part, maybe even more than half of the market. I never had any bad experiences with them, but I know a few people who had. Their customer service is substandard so you have to literally pressure them into doing something. The alternative is Telekom, our state-owned telecommunications company. You might think they would offer a better serves in the ISP business, but they don't. They are making a fortune on their telecommunications monopoly and are not interested in improving the ISP sector even though it can be easily improved.

The remaining companies are either worse than these or are powerful only on the local level. A good example are Radijus Vektor which didn't implement optics and collapsed because of that and Beogrid, a great firm which is sadly limited on the area where I used to live with my mom. Targo Telekom is a different story. They started out tall and were the best for a few months. Then after some backroom politics they were forbidden from having any new clients and were stuck with the lld ones amd they declared bankriptcy shortly after.

Male/Serb nationalist/Centrist Authoritarian /Straight/Heliphobe
VT's most likely to become president of 2017
VT's leading expert on Slavology and anything Slavic-related, if you have some questions of Slavic nature, just send me a VM or a PM

Last edited by Stronk Serb; November 27th, 2017 at 08:35 PM.
Stronk Serb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:34 PM   #12
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Well, that's unfortunate, but if both AT&T and Xfinity decide to breach net neutrality in a way that threatens your consumer rights, other ISPs will promptly decide to make their services available in your region because they have an incentive to do so, which is the fact that the people in your region are unsatisfied with the other two ISP services. They see it as a marketing opportunity. This is just a consequence of the capitalistic economy. Plus, that new ISP could even be a new startup, creating jobs etc... In other words, your particular example only further proves my initial points.
If Net Neutrality is gone, you would have no "consumer rights", and you'd have no way to know if they were being violated. The two major ISP's could choose to restrict your access to whatever information they wanted, without your knowledge.


And there would be no "competition" In America, because only AT&T & Comcast have the money necessary to lobby our politicians into granting them permit to set down cable-lines.
Source

Only AT&T, Comcast, and other Mega-Corps have enough money piled up to invest into providing cheaper/faster internet.

Why do you think Ajit Pai lobbied money for Verizion?
Why do you think AT&T & Comcast continue to lobby $100's of millions of dollars into our politicians?

Because the big benevolent Corporations wanna try to provide 'us' with the cheapest, fastest internet?
Or perhaps, they just want to increase their profits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT&T Lobbying/Political Contributions: Over $400 million dollars since 1,990.

Comcast Lobbying/Political Contributions: Over $200 million dollars since 1,990.

Verizion Lobbying/Political Contributions: Almost $300 million dollars since 1,990.

It must be out of the goodness of their hearts, right? Those big companies, would neeever do anything to hurt the consumer, right?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/n.../#.Wh4eeGhSyUk

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 28th, 2017 at 09:43 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 11:10 PM   #13
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

[Sorry for double-posting. I thought this update deserved it's own post.]

Update


Verizon may be actively suppressing information about Net Neutrality through Tumblr tag subscriptions
[Verizon owns the company Oath Inc., which owns Tumblr.]

1.) Many users from Tumblr are reporting that they're being unsubscribed from the tag "Net Neutrality" after subscribing to it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comm..._on_tumblr_it/

2.) One lady on Tumblr made two different posts:
>One with no tags, and only a picture saying "Net Neutrality Information is being Actively Suppressed". That image reached 1,777 people.
>Another one with a message about saving Net Neutrality, and using the tag #NetNeutrality. That image reached 3 people.

https://www.facebook.com/vellumandvi...type=3&theater
[Go to the first comment on the post, and read her replies for pictures]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verizon would benefit greatly if Net Neutrality was destroyed.
The less people know about Net Neutrality, the better for them.

Trump just appointed a Verizon lobbyist as FCC-Director.
That man is about to destroy Net Neutrality.

If Net Neutrality information is already being actively suppressed, imagine what ISP's will suppress when Net Neutrality is gone.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 28th, 2017 at 11:13 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 12:20 AM   #14
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Net neutrality will go away in the next few years.


It's best to prep-and train now to learn how to organize like the political generation before us to get net neutrality back next election cycle.

We gotta learn how to use the phone books guys...LAN line organization has to make a comeback we can't trust any data dependent infrastructure for the time being.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 02:02 AM   #15
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post
Net neutrality will go away in the next few years.

It's best to prep-and train now to learn how to organize like the political generation before us to get net neutrality back next election cycle.

We gotta learn how to use the phone books guys...LAN line organization has to make a comeback we can't trust any data dependent infrastructure for the time being.
I think the more practical solution would be using VPN's on your computer.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 02:56 PM   #16
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
I think the more practical solution would be using VPN's on your computer.
That doesn't work if net neutrality is gone. VPN's are for security, not for an issue where he infrastructure of the internet can slow you down from getting to certain destinations on a website per website basis, controlled by the telecom companies.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #17
Stronk Serb
Kebab Remover
 
Stronk Serb's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 3, 2012
Location: Serbia (FYR)
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
I think the more practical solution would be using VPN's on your computer.
As far as I am aware if, VPN's work from externak surveillance. If I had a VPN and I went to an undesirable website, it would still be seen since my ISP can see my computer accessing said website through their ports. Still, I am sure that the tech nuts will find a way around this eventually.

Male/Serb nationalist/Centrist Authoritarian /Straight/Heliphobe
VT's most likely to become president of 2017
VT's leading expert on Slavology and anything Slavic-related, if you have some questions of Slavic nature, just send me a VM or a PM
Stronk Serb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 03:31 PM   #18
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

@Uniquemind @Stronk Serb

Yes, you are both correct; My mistake.

I was thinking of something like a relay network, like Tor Browser.

When you connect to Tor Browser's network, the only thing your ISP can see is that you're connected to Tor's Network.
From there, your connection can be relayed to several locations around the globe until it's untraceable.

Tor Browser is quite slow at the moment, but I'm sure if Net Neutrality went away, people would start heavily investing into that kind of technology.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; November 29th, 2017 at 03:37 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2017, 12:23 AM   #19
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
@Uniquemind @Stronk Serb

Yes, you are both correct; My mistake.

I was thinking of something like a relay network, like Tor Browser.

When you connect to Tor Browser's network, the only thing your ISP can see is that you're connected to Tor's Network.
From there, your connection can be relayed to several locations around the globe until it's untraceable.

Tor Browser is quite slow at the moment, but I'm sure if Net Neutrality went away, people would start heavily investing into that kind of technology.
No, their non-sequiturs.

Meaning the issues aren't connected.


Net neutrality has to do with connection speed and stability, not security.


If net neutrality is gone, and connections become slow, unless you pay a premium for fast connections, there is no competition for a low to middle class person to afford an ISP that doesn't throttle them or slow their connection down.

Actually it would mean if net neutrality is gone, then if you use a VPN, your internet browsing experience can be really slow, because of where your connection is bouncing to and fro.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2017, 12:41 AM   #20
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Net Neutrality is in danger after Trump appoints FCC-Director Ajit Pai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post
No, their non-sequiturs.

Meaning the issues aren't connected.


Net neutrality has to do with connection speed and stability, not security.


If net neutrality is gone, and connections become slow, unless you pay a premium for fast connections, there is no competition for a low to middle class person to afford an ISP that doesn't throttle them or slow their connection down.

Actually it would mean if net neutrality is gone, then if you use a VPN, your internet browsing experience can be really slow, because of where your connection is bouncing to and fro.
If your ISP decides to start blocking/slowing certain websites. You'd still be able to access them through Tor.

Of course the obvious next stop is your ISP blocking Tor and similar applications.

Matthew - 18 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2018
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org