- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,236
- Reaction score
- 64,871
- Points
- 148
As @spydy13 and @NasstyNate have stated, it doesn't seem as though you understand what Net Neutrality actually is. Are you confident in your understanding of the topic?
Yes.
As @spydy13 and @NasstyNate have stated, it doesn't seem as though you understand what Net Neutrality actually is. Are you confident in your understanding of the topic?
Yes.
The bottom line is that I don't believe the primary motive for these regulations had anything to do with a concern that competition might be stifled. Throttling a competitor would likely be considered an antitrust violation even without these regs. I think the real concern was more of a populist thing that evil big business shouldn't be able to get higher speeds than some guy who wants to stream movies from Netflix, or online game.
Yes.
Post all your email addresses and passwords for us to check out what you're doing if you have nothing to worry about.Please start. I'm honestly curious to see where I'm so wrong.
EDIT: To clarify, the "world" that I am describing here, the one that would bring about my demise, is the one where I am worried all the time about what the government is doing.
Then can you articulate your grievance? I'm not sure what you feel the ISPs lost that they should have the right to do in your view?
I've already stated this, but fine. Here are two things the FCC has said its new regs will accomplish with which I disagree.
No Throttling - broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non- harmful devices.
No Paid Prioritization - broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind - in other words, no “fast lanes.”
I believe they should be permitted to do both. It's not that complicated.
Have you ever thought how ISPs achieve this level of throttling?
I know how it is done, and why it is done. And I don't want to microanalyze each specific concern about packet-sniffing to explain why I'm not personally concerned, or why I think such concerns are largely overblown right now. After all, packet-sniffing already exists, and has been in place for a long time. And the world has not ended, at least for me.
In short, I understand the privacy arguments, and believe they are largely overblown, and don't find them convincing.
You, on the other hand, have posted on multiple occasions about your desire to remain as anonymous as possible on the net, so I understand why you may weigh that differently.
ETA: And just to add....
As far as I can tell, the reg does not bar all packet-sniffing. It would only prevent an ISP from using packet-sniffing to throttle lawful traffic.
There are a lot of other reasons for packet-sniffing, and presumably, that would continue.
With most of the same potential concerns for abuse (other than throttling lawful users), I might add.
This level of filtering is costly from a routing standpoint for large amounts of traffic moving at near line speed.
Comcast and others determined that they could and would try to oversell their pipelines by downthrottling customers paying for service; and they would do so by analyzing the content of those packets to determine their content, application, service, and destination.
Why does Comcast have the right to slow down my traffic because they cannot read it's contents?
Again, does UPS have the right to open my packages and determine the speed and cost after the point of shipment?
Indeed. My career goals in politics and lobbying would pretty much come to an end, overnight, if someone could tie just my private personal views on things that I might voice on RCF with my name and face.
t's not just an issue of pure anonymity, but simply of privacy. I disclose what I want to disclose, and nothing more. When I go to purchase internet service, from an internet service provider, that should not come with the implied caveat that I will have a perpetual wiretap on my line.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to maintain speed and have no throttling, it is going to cost all of us more to pay for Internet service.
I would prefer throttling of services that are much less likely to impact me.
Lol. Bullshit.
Horrible opinion and I have no doubt that's a troll.