Net Neutrality

[TheDemonLord]

So the US has voted to repeal Net Neutrality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

What is your take on the vote? Do you understand what it is? Do you think the Argument(s) for both the infavour and against sides are valid?

[jasonu]

So the US has voted to repeal Net Neutrality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

What is your take on the vote? Do you understand what it is? Do you think the Argument(s) for both the infavour and against sides are valid?

Will it limit my access to KiwiBiker?

[Akzle]

what the us govt/israel need to realise is that they don't own and can't control that shit.

until they get an intel chip into every device/human

the joys of decentralised infrastructure. Mind, if 8.8.8.8 went down, there'd be a lot of dweebs derp-derping.
.

[iYRe]

why would anyone be using 8.8.8.8 ? That's just a silly thing to do. Some ISP's have a google cache (not sure if they have DNS proxy in them but I expect so), but not all. Plus... its a kinda obvious place to intercept traffic.

[Katman]

until they get an intel chip into every device/human
.

I seem to remember bogan was gagging for it.

I'd have to track down the thread to recall whether the OP was similarly enthused.

[pete376403]

The FCC haas a republican majority. regardless of what Ajit Pai says, the republican mindset is "Anything Obama did is bad, therefore it must be repealed" and also "everything is for sale to the highest bidder"

[Viking01]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/14/how-net-neutrality-loss-change-internet-212671

https://digg.com/2017/how-net-neutrality-repeal-affect-me

[Akzle]

why would anyone be using 8.8.8.8 ? That's just a silly thing to do. Some ISP's have a google cache (not sure if they have DNS proxy in them but I expect so), but not all. Plus... its a kinda obvious place to intercept traffic.

i'd say most ISP's both cache teh google, and serve their own DNS.

but, liek, google is 99% of the interdweebs, so if it goes down it wont be long before we start caching dead links, then it all goes to fuck.

most traffic can be intercepted at carrier level. and i'm guessing here, but they'll just route all your shit through a bullsh DNS that gives them your packets. tasty tasty packets. and you wont even know.

[Grumph]

The FCC haas a republican majority. regardless of what Ajit Pai says, the republican mindset is "Anything Obama did is bad, therefore it must be repealed" and also "everything is for sale to the highest bidder"

basically true except "everything is for sale to our friends....."

[Akzle]

I seem to remember bogan was gagging for it.

I'd have to track down the thread to find out whether the OP was similarly keen.

well that's all right because bog is an id10t.


meanwhile, technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA
(why yes, that is httpS. and jewtube, with google's TLS 1.2 certificate. how safe do you feel, and, can you afford an older certifier? or must you update continually to maintain access...<_<)

[AllanB]

I increasingly don't give a shit about anything America do. Build the wall for sure just run it all the way around the entire USA.

[nerrrd]

'Net neutrality' is an odd phrase, but if it's a step towards 'regulating' the internet then bound to happen eventually.

Edit: so it's the opposite? Or self-regulation? Guess it depends on what ends up being in the service providers best interests.

[Graystone]

So the US has voted to repeal Net Neutrality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

What is your take on the vote? Do you understand what it is? Do you think the Argument(s) for both the infavour and against sides are valid?

It's an interesting and much misunderstood topic, though it simply boils down to what you class the internet (in its entirety) as. And it is that entirety that presents the problem, surely the communication (emails, skypes, etc) can be seen as a utility to which we have a universal right, perhaps even the online shopping aspect, but what about entertainment, movies, games, porn? maybe, then what about the darker aspects, illegal downloads, propaganda, fake news and conspiracy theories? No doubt others have their own ideas as to which parts fall into which categories, but I think most would agree there are those three broad categories.

And then there is the obvious impracticalities of enforcement as well...

[oldrider]

Putin To Launch ‘Independent Internet’ Without ‘New World Order Censorship’ http://www.exposinggovernment.com/2017/11/28/putin-to-launch-independent-internet-without-new-world-order-censorship/ :confused:

[YellowDog]

Will it limit my access to KiwiBiker?

You bet buddy!

The number of Islamic insurgents on this site are very likely to corrupt you into committing serious atrocities :facepalm:

[Viking01]

https://www.juancole.com/2017/12/destroy-internet-understanding.html

[jasonu]

Build the wall for sure just run it all the way around the entire USA.

That's what I'm hoping for.

[F5 Dave]

What? More than he normally does?!

Bugger missed the quote bit.

[pritch]

Mr Pai was a paid lobbyist for the big telecom companies. Trump appointed him to his position, and now Pai's main aim is for the companies who paid him to make bigger profits. I hope this corrupt crap doesn't find its way here but I wouldn't bet on that. Fingers crossed.

[jasonu]

I hope this corrupt crap doesn't find its way here but I wouldn't bet on that. Fingers crossed.

I'm sure you already have your fair share of shenanigans.

[oldrider]

Neo-Marxists Lose the Net Neutrality Battle https://capitalresearch.org/article/neo-marxists-lose-the-net-neutrality-battle/ :scratch:

[TheDemonLord]

Neo-Marxists Lose the Net Neutrality Battle https://capitalresearch.org/article/neo-marxists-lose-the-net-neutrality-battle/ :scratch:

Well, that article sure explains a lot, just not in the way the article thinks it does.

somebody somewhere has done a fantastic job of convincing people what Net Neutrality is and what it isn't.

There also seems to be a very healthy dose of (as someone else already posited) Obama did it, therefore it's bad.

[oldrider]

Well, that article sure explains a lot, just not in the way the article thinks it does.

somebody somewhere has done a fantastic job of convincing people what Net Neutrality is and what it isn't.

There also seems to be a very healthy dose of (as someone else already posited) Obama did it, therefore it's bad.

It may well be a wonderful forest to play in but I sir at times have great difficulty identifying and separating the wood from the trees! :rolleyes:

Must try harder? - The dead flies on the window sill tried harder to the very end - perhaps one should learn to try smarter? :yes:

The cheese adds say good things take time! - Unfortunately not too much of that left! :no: .... (Sigh)

[Graystone]

somebody somewhere has done a fantastic job of convincing people what Net Neutrality is and what it isn't.

Really? Not sure if that is sarcasm but if anything it's the anti-govt movement that has done the erroneous convincing on this one...

[Viking01]

Who will benefit ?

https://fair.org/home/net-neutrality-repeal-is-only-part-of-trumps-surrender-to-corporate-media/

[pete376403]

https://www.reddit.com/r/netneutrality/comments/7enl2r/someone_changed_the_wikipedia_page_for_ajit_pai/

[TheDemonLord]

Really? Not sure if that is sarcasm but if anything it's the anti-govt movement that has done the erroneous convincing on this one...

It's very sarcastic, a lot of people seem to think that Net Neutrality was only an issue after Obama and the FCC signed some legislation in 2015, most have no idea of the history of Net Neutrality or what it means as either a design philosophy or technical implementation - most seem to think that it's allowing the Govt to censor things (which is wrong on a technical, philosophical AND legislative point)

And I've seen some very mislead opinion from people who I otherwise enjoy listening to and agree with.

[Graystone]

It's very sarcastic, a lot of people seem to think that Net Neutrality was only an issue after Obama and the FCC signed some legislation in 2015, most have no idea of the history of Net Neutrality or what it means as either a design philosophy or technical implementation - most seem to think that it's allowing the Govt to censor things (which is wrong on a technical, philosophical AND legislative point)

And I've seen some very mislead opinion from people who I otherwise enjoy listening to and agree with.

Excellent, I shall agree then. And even closer to home, net neutrality is not something we've always enjoyed either! I could be wrong, but I don't think we have it at the moment...