Jump to content

This impacts all of us. Let's act like it.


Arctic55

Recommended Posts

Oh, this again. ;_;

 

Sure, it needs to be stopped and such, but it looks like they can and will just try, try again until they get their way. 

 

That's not a reason to not fight it.  We'll keep fighting it until we're sure the internet will remain a free information source.  Call your congressman, because this impacts everyone.  Don't sit back just because it keeps happening.  Fight until these bastards can't fight back anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously, everybody who attempts to put up these regulations should to be fired as soon as possible. these attempts to control the internet are blatant grabs at money and power, and should not be tolerated. this is the abandoning of consumer satisfaction in favor of perceived profit. the worst part is, nobody but comcast wins (and even they lose in the long term). starting companies will have a harder time making it, existin companies will have to charge more for simple services online, consumers will be forced to pay more for what was once standard product. standard product will be sub-par at best, and complete trash at worst. this is simply a foolish move all around. and i pity whomever was senile enough to think it is even remotely profitable in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a reason to not fight it.  We'll keep fighting it until we're sure the internet will remain a free information source.  Call your congressman, because this impacts everyone.  Don't sit back just because it keeps happening.  Fight until these bastards can't fight back anymore.

 

A butterfly flapping its wings impacts everyone. I don't have a congressman, and if I did I wouldn't write to them. As it is, the internet is neither free nor uncensored nor neutral. It is a paid service used to sell more services that is very much controlled and monopolized including censorship for profit. Fight for whatever you want, just know that you wouldn't be fighting for "net neutrality". You'd be fighting for one set of greedy monopolists against another and the rhetoric that this "#battleforthenet* is anything but that insults all of us, let's act like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A butterfly flapping its wings impacts everyone. I don't have a congressman, and if I did I wouldn't write to them. 

 

The funk are you actually talking about?

 

 

As it is, the internet is neither free nor uncensored nor neutral. It is a paid service used to sell more service.

 

Oh.  You're on the "everyone is a product of the system" train.  Well when this paid service that you're using right now is suddenly slower, capped at a limit, twice as expensive, and those exchanges are applied to both your home and mobile services, don't come back and jabroni about "I should've acted".  Since it's such an insult to you.

 

Did you even read the funking bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funk are you actually talking about?

 

That "this impacts everyone" is vacant rhetoric and that I don't have a congressman because I don't live in a congressional district.

 

Oh.  You're on the "everyone is a product of the system" train. 

 

The funk are you actually talking about?

 

Well when this paid service that you're using right now is suddenly slower, capped at a limit, twice as expensive, and those exchanges are applied to both your home and mobile services, don't come back and jabroni about "I should've acted".  Since it's such an insult to you.

 

Did you even read the funking bill?

 

If any of these dramatic restrictions took place then competing ISP's could render them meaningless and thrive off of doing so. Failing that, this bill can easily be overwritten and would be if the need arose. Yes, I did read bill S.993. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If any of these dramatic restrictions took place then competing ISP's could render them meaningless and thrive off of doing so. Failing that, this bill can easily be overwritten and would be if the need arose. Yes, I did read bill S.993. 

 

You're assuming that with a house majority of republicans who are making massive amounts of money off of this bill, that it would ever be overwritten until the house changed again.  Let's be realistic here.  That wouldn't funking happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that whatever we try to do is useless since the elected officials apparently don't listen to constituents, and/or the belief that said officials are competent enough to know that this idea was a stupid idea before it's too late. (Or right now, since Republicans control the White House and Trump literally only cares about his wallet and executive privileges, they'll do anything to prioritize corporate welfare and dump the rest of us on the side.)

 

But yeah, the internet needs to remain free access. I do not want Comcast or some other companies controlling what we can / cannot do on the internet. If they get their way, a lot of the stuff we can currently do may not be an option; that, and shittier net speed unless we pay for it. Also will be a much larger pain in the ass to do research online for papers and stuff; both if you're in the public school system and as a college student. 

 

Do not let companies get their way and turn our net privileges into what's being done in China/North Korea (in the sense that certain sites will be blocked unless you pay for it).

 

====

At the same time, I'm happy that I don't have Verizon/Comcast for a net provider, but let's hope mine doesn't (given they have their own issues related to service at times). 

====

 

Wonder if anyone else in this state brought this up to Hanabusa/Tulsi in Congress? Haven't seen anything on FB yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming that with a house majority of republicans who are making massive amounts of money off of this bill, that it would ever be overwritten until the house changed again.  Let's be realistic here.  That wouldn't funking happen.

 

Fret not, monopolists looking to make massive amounts of money (who may or may not be Republicans) are precisely the reason this bill won't pass. 

 

What kind of argument is "I don't like this proposed law, but they can always just repeal it, so I won't fight against it"?

 

I think it's a level-headed argument. I don't particularly like either side involved in this "#battleforthenet" and I'm not obliged to fight on behalf of either. Anyone who'd force me to fight for them isn't worth fighting for. I might not like lag, but I'd take it over conscription any day. 

 

>competing ISPs

 

Yes, I'm sure the competition between Comcast and Time Warner is plenty healthy enough to prevent them from being unfair to customers.

 

Because these are the only ISP's that can ever exist ever. #GoogleFiberSavesTheDayWithCheaperMoreMeticulouslyCensoredInternet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All expansion plans for Google Fiber were put on hold last October, along with the corresponding jobs being cut. Currently, they have around 453,000 broadband customers.

 

In 2014, TWC had about 11.4 million.

 

Comcast had 21.7 million.

 

This bill is being lobbied by those two companies. If you think otherwise, you are deluded and this discussion is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of these dramatic restrictions took place then competing ISP's could render them meaningless and thrive off of doing so. Failing that, this bill can easily be overwritten and would be if the need arose. Yes, I did read bill S.993. 

I'm not sure to what extent is this still the case but I believe in murrica (Cuz I'm not from burgerland naturally) the internet market is very much closer to a monopoly than anything else. You mentioned google fiber in a later post but as far as I'm aware, those aren't available in as many areas as Comcast. Comcast DOES have significant market power which is what is allowing this whole fiasco to happen at all. 

Yes Giga's statistics up there prove my point.

Granted there is that one other company he named but it's still nowhere near a competitive market environment that would actually prevent this kind of bs from happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is being lobbied by those two companies. If you think otherwise, you are deluded and this discussion is pointless.

 

I'm not denying that it's being lobbied by those two companies (among others). That said, if you think #ThisImpactsAllOfUsLetsActLikeIt isn't being lobbied by monopolist companies willing to censor and otherwise control the internet for profits you are deluded, which isn't to say this discussion is pointless.

 

All expansion plans for Google Fiber were put on hold last October, along with the corresponding jobs being cut. Currently, they have around 453,000 broadband customers.

 

In 2014, TWC had about 11.4 million.

 

Comcast had 21.7 million.

 

As Google is a major player in protesting this bill, is on the whole a much larger corporation and happens to provide internet service, it'd be their prerogative to be an alternative in the event TWC, Comcast, etc. tyrannically abuse free reign as ISP's as fearmongered. Of course, none of that needs to happen as I'm sure Google won't let this threat to their control of the internet go through, or if they do they'll do so on their terms. 

 

Either way the internet is very much controlled for profits, let's not delude ourselves into thinking it isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said it isn't. The point is that this bill makes things worse, and making things worse is probably something that should be avoided.

 

If you don't want to speak out against it, good for you, I guess. I'm gonna continue informing people that this is going on, since the vast majority (even you, from what I can tell) are opposed to what this bill allows.

 

My problem isn't with you, and I'm not trying to prove some point. If google has ulterior motives in supporting the protest to this, then more power to them. What I'm concerned about are Time Warner Cable and Contact, throttling businesses into paying so that their content can reach its audiences. They don't save money by providing "less internet". It just isn't how the infrastructure works. It doesn't take much of a leap to see this kind of thing as extortion, especially when, in the modern age, "opting out" of internet usage (therein paying said cable companies) is hardly an option for consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said it isn't. The point is that this bill makes things worse, and making things worse is probably something that should be avoided.

 

I can't speak as to whether that's necessarily true and don't think anyone else here can either.  

 

So far this seems to be generating discussion over the extent to which we value freedoms and services we largely take for granted in spite of not having had access to them as a species until extremely recently. The internet isn't something previous generations depended on, and yet the prospect of mere restrictions on the convenience of our use of the internet seems to rouse our warlike passions. Interesting, to say the least.   

 

since the vast majority

 

I don't care.

 

Why should the vast majority have any bearing on how I feel? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polaris, might i ask why you think protesting this wouldn't change anything? It's true that protesting might not do anything, but at the very least, you can let the companies know that the consumer does not want it, and possibly alert them to the immediate loss in in trust and gradual loss of profits should they continue down such a foolish road. as you said, another ISP could potentially come into the mix and rise quickly by opposing this, but by then, the damage would have been done. so i guess my question really, is why would you take the risk waiting for that pound of cure, when an ounce of prevention lies directly in front of you?

 

To me, it seems as if this is preventing the loss instead of waiting till it breaks and hoping something can be done after. This bill is 100% intended to hobble the current freedom that the internet possesses. So it's all well and good to say that it can be fixed later, or that the internet's not free already, but why would you permit even more chains when you can at least try to keep it as free as possible? I'm not a fan of the defeatist mindset, nor can i say that hoping for somebody else to fix the problem (all the while having a means to at least attempt a counter) is something to either respect or even permit as default thinking in any situation.

 

 

 

So far this seems to be generating discussion over the extent to which we value freedoms and services we largely take for granted in spite of not having had access to them as a species until extremely recently. The internet isn't something previous generations depended on, and yet the prospect of mere restrictions on the convenience of our use of the internet seems to rouse our warlike passions. Interesting, to say the least.   

 

 

correct. we haven't had it all that long, but in the current age, as humanity advances, the internet, has indeed become integral to how we live. but let me make something clear before continuing, because it seems to have not registered with you just yet; the internet is not just a mere convenience. it is a service that we pay for, and we, as consumers, expect not to be cheated out of what we pay for. would you accept a broom or a vacuum at full price, that works only half as well as it should, and indeed once would have, on that same reasoning? simply because the company that provides the product choses to apply even more arbitrary restrictions for the sake of their own greed? is the current system prefect? no, but that is no excuse to let it slink further into the shithole called greed. we are upset, because the money we work to earn, is not given lightly, and for a company to blatantly attempt to swindle us for mere greed is an absolutely sheet deal. the money i work for is damn hard earned, and by signing this protest, i am making that known. i will gladly go without internet, and refuse to grant another dime to these crows should such a terrible business decision be allowed to stand. we are paying them, for a service, and while new innovations of that service are not necessary, dragging that service backwards, in pursuit of greed based profit, is absolutely unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The companies don't care. Not like people have anywhere else to turn.

 

The politicians, on the other hand, want to get reelected.

and therin lies the main issue. how to get the people to turn away. polaris is right when he said people can live without the internet, but it seems more and more people have forgotten this fact. if they could remove themselves, if only for a few months in protest, that would be more than enough to get the point across. a few months of wireless hardship for a more free internet, to me wouldn't be too bad of a tradeoff. 

 

politicians, are another snake entirely, but indeed, should they vote this in, all it would take, is a (at least semi-competent) politician who didn't, to have them effectively removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the world depends on the internet for entertainment at well as commerce, that really isn't feasible.

 

Yes, some people absolutely can go without internet, and would be willing to. But not enough to offset how much money there is to be gained through throttling.

 

Proposing people boycott the internet is just silly, honestly. The best bet is to make it clear to those who do have control over whether this bill makes it that if they vote to pass it, they are losing their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the world depends on the internet for entertainment at well as commerce, that really isn't feasible.

 

Yes, some people absolutely can go without internet, and would be willing to. But not enough to offset how much money there is to be gained through throttling.

 

Proposing people boycott the internet is just silly, honestly. The best bet is to make it clear to those who do have control over whether this bill makes it that if they vote to pass it, they are losing their position.

 

commerce i agree with, but you can forgo short term entertainment for long term gains.

 

you can onl take so much before even the ones throttled hopped off and began helping newer faces in the fray compete.

 

 

it is, and i know that, but my original position was the ounce of prevention, aka hit them at the polls, and make it clear to providers that they would lose far more than they stood to gain from their actions. sure,  not immediately, but in the near enough future. innovation isn't impossible, and they only hold the reigns because nobody more capable cares to just yet. this move, would give inspire and give rise, to all of those more capable people. it would be the end of their era for real. not in the short term, but it would guarantee their end in the not-too-distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polaris, might i ask why you think protesting this wouldn't change anything? 

 

On the contrary, choosing to protest instead of choosing not to would surely lead to different outcomes. Those differences in outcome could be the tipping point that determines this bill being overturned, they could contribute just enough momentum to a sea of outrage, they could be trivial, and they could backfire. We've seen protests backfire, certainly of late. Protest culture has been sweeping in the year of 2017, yet with each revelation that the latest noble protest was staged by vast corporate entities with think tanks and cash, the air around subsequent protests grows thicker with disillusionment. You needn't look any further than here to see how easily a protester can preach so zealously to the converted as to inspire apostasy. "That's no reason not to fight" is, to me, a completely funking backwards sentiment. We don't need reasons not to fight, we need reasons to fight. I'm sure you have as valid reasons as anyone for opposing this bill, but opposing this bill isn't much of a stand to take when damn near everyone is opposing this bill to the extent where not opposing it strongly enough is vilified, as if I'm under some moral imperative to fight alongside you with all my might. Anything that's easier to fight for than not to isn't a worthwhile cause, it's an insufferable bandwagon. To me, my right to abstain from movements like this is infinitely more important than something so trivial as overturning this bill, and so that's where I'm focusing my energies.  

 

To me, it seems as if this is preventing the loss instead of waiting till it breaks and hoping something can be done after. This bill is 100% intended to hobble the current freedom that the internet possesses. So it's all well and good to say that it can be fixed later, or that the internet's not free already, but why would you permit even more chains when you can at least try to keep it as free as possible?

 

Perhaps, but consider that in protesting this bill you're protesting a protest of a protest. Are you really preventing disease, or are you contributing to it? 

 

I'm not a fan of the defeatist mindset, nor can i say that hoping for somebody else to fix the problem (all the while having a means to at least attempt a counter) is something to either respect or even permit as default thinking in any situation.

 

I don't need your permission to think as I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say this thread's getting pretty interesting :O almost wanna move it to Debates due to the shift in tone, but that seems kinda unnecessary so it's staying here. That said, things do seem to be getting a little heated, so I'm just here to remind y'all to keep it civil, which I don't really have to do since y'all have been doing a good job with that so far. Still, better safe than sorry.

 

Before I go, I'll drop my own two cents on the matter then be on my merry way. The last time people tried making this happen it failed outstandingly. But lately, we seem to have had governments almost competing to do the most self-destructive stuff possible, so while I absolutely hope the bill won't pass, I'm unfortunately not ruling out the possibility that it might. And if it does, y'all probably won't see me for a while. I can't stop doing all internet-related things just like that - I've got Steam games and League to play, and friends to talk to on Skype after all - but I refuse to really browse an internet where this kind of thing exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...