Pages:
Author

Topic: Net neutrality just went through, opinions? (Read 3079 times)

full member
Activity: 308
Merit: 100
I'm nothing without GOD
March 11, 2015, 07:54:28 PM
#52
The internet companies should already have that right without spending more money that will be forced on the consumers to pay.
hero member
Activity: 676
Merit: 500
They can only regulate the actual transmission of data, and the purpose is to maintain the flow, not restrict it. There's no history of the FCC throttling phone transmissions
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Basically. If a website like Netflix wanted their website to load at a decent speed or be available at all they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.
That's correct. Net neutrality is a great thing,  this was a huge victory for the free flow of information,  and a major loss for the greedy Internet Service Parasites that sought to profit from throttling some information while favoring those who bribe tbem.

Net Neutrality Is a HORRIBLE thing. I would rather have the ISP controlling everything (it is rightfully theirs to control, like the gatekeepers at alexandria library), that the stupid government. Plus, this is paving the way to internet taxes, etc.
No private company has the right to monopolize an industry the way Time Warner, Verizon,  and Comcast have done in the USA. And nothing as important as the internet should be left in the hands of corporations.

Ignoramus.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Loose lips sink sigs!
Where are the details? What's your take?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Basically. If a website like Netflix wanted their website to load at a decent speed or be available at all they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.
That's correct. Net neutrality is a great thing,  this was a huge victory for the free flow of information,  and a major loss for the greedy Internet Service Parasites that sought to profit from throttling some information while favoring those who bribe tbem.

Net Neutrality Is a HORRIBLE thing. I would rather have the ISP controlling everything (it is rightfully theirs to control, like the gatekeepers at alexandria library), that the stupid government. Plus, this is paving the way to internet taxes, etc.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Aww, the internet hurt the little conservatard's feelings so he had to ignore me. What a precious delicate little flower that corporate bootlicker is. The reason I'm a dick to people like that is because there's just no excuse for willful ignorance for anyone with Internet access. We have at our fingertips the greatest compendium of knowledge ever assembled. A thousand thousand library of Alexandrias, and we don't have to sift through the database manually like in the days of yore.

There is no excuse. It's shameful to be ignorant about any topic you're interested in. It's doubly shameful to engage in debate about a topic without first taking five damn minutes to learn the truth of the matter.

Zero tolerance for willful ignorance. Shame the fuckers.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
Only halfwit redneck muricans think libertarian means right-wing corporate bootlicker. For the rest of the world, the word refers to folks on the left of the political spectrum. You sad, clueless clown.

It'd be the ISP's you'd have to bribe, not "big gubmint". And the effect would be immediately noticeable,  so you'd end up getting yourself and your ISP in big trouble. Why don't you retreat to your mountain bunker and spare the internet your ignorance. No one likes listening to idiots parroting fox news neo-fascist corporate talking points.

Your libel out of desperation continues*... apparently that's all you've got, so welcome to my ignore list. Enjoy talking to your brick wall for eternity!

"All libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Philosophy


* which is illogical, as you won the "liberty" to spread your First World Luxury Problem bandwidth demands like feces upon your neighbors who can't afford Netflix and its ethical prerequisite dedicated lines, but deserve every bit of the bandwidth for which they DO pay.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Only halfwit redneck muricans think libertarian means right-wing corporate bootlicker. For the rest of the world, the word refers to folks on the left of the political spectrum. You sad, clueless clown.

It'd be the ISP's you'd have to bribe, not "big gubmint". And the effect would be immediately noticeable,  so you'd end up getting yourself and your ISP in big trouble. Why don't you retreat to your mountain bunker and spare the internet your ignorance. No one likes listening to idiots parroting fox news neo-fascist corporate talking points.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
So I should have to bribe the government to respect my right to make contracts with all my customers that specify they are to use separate dedicated lines for high bandwidth uses and not interfere with other customers who contracted to receive specific speeds for their non-high bandwidth uses?
No government or private organization will have the power to do that for you now. That's the whole point of net neutrality. Fucks sake, you conservatives are thicker than molasses When it comes to the dreaded government bogeyman.



Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to use the internet. Withdraw your baseless contrarianism already.

Or when all else fails, attempt to libel an actual (classical) liberal (aka libertarian, since "liberal" got hijacked by totalitarians) as a "conservative" (also hijacked by totalitarians).

/yawn
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
So I should have to bribe the government to respect my right to make contracts with all my customers that specify they are to use separate dedicated lines for high bandwidth uses and not interfere with other customers who contracted to receive specific speeds for their non-high bandwidth uses?
Bandwidth is a zero sum game. You can't give extra to one party without reducing the speed of (an) other party/ies. No government or private organization will have the power to do that for you now. That's the whole point of net neutrality. Fucks sake, you conservatives are thicker than molasses When it comes to the dreaded government bogeyman.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
So I should have to bribe the government to respect my right to make contracts with all my customers that specify they are to use separate dedicated lines for high bandwidth uses and not interfere with other customers who contracted to receive specific speeds for their non-high bandwidth uses?
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Basically. If a website like Netflix wanted their website to load at a decent speed or be available at all they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.
That's correct. Net neutrality is a great thing,  this was a huge victory for the free flow of information,  and a major loss for the greedy Internet Service Parasites that sought to profit from throttling some information while favoring those who bribe tbem.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1031
I don't trust the FCC because it's ran by former cable company executives.  Excuse me, I should say evil profiteering cable company executives.  I don't trust it for a second.  Net neutrality is needed but I'm skeptical as to how the corrupted government will implement it.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1094
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
Need more data but my preliminary opinion is that it is ok (Need to determine what is in the 300 pages lol)

Everyone on the same infrastructure without PRIORITY means that Internet providers can't go bullshitting and slowing down the speed of internet cables, resulting in faster internet speeds overall for everyone.
Besides they already have enough power determining bandwidth and price even MB/KBP speed upload download ratios choosingbetween different content provider streams is unneeded.

Edit In:

Well seeing who is sponsoring the new bill cough all the PACs (Political Action Groups)
I can say this is a good thing after all lol

In the latest election cycle, Blackburn received $25,000 from an AT&T political action committee (PAC), $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, $20,000 from a cable industry association PAC, and $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans-internet-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/

Hmm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/06/netflix_net_neutrality_only_joking/
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/3/5/technology/netflix-takes-it-chin-net-neutrality
full member
Activity: 206
Merit: 100
This doesn't seem to be very transparent. Future legislation could give them censorship powers
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
Basically. If a website like Netflix wanted their website to load at a decent speed or be available at all they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.

in 332 pages? someone didn't learn about compression, or you are trying to lye to me elegantly. one must be right, the consequences and roots are different as worthy of "round up", if I may use this "green" elusion.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Basically. If a website like Netflix wanted their website to load at a decent speed or be available at all they would potentially have to pay the ISP's to let their websites work through that ISP's services. Because of this vote, that is illegal now.
full member
Activity: 308
Merit: 100
I'm nothing without GOD
Its just sopa and all that other bullshit but wrapped up so tight that none of us could stop it before it passed. Hell Pelosi said while on camera that for us to read it we have to pass it first. that should of been a huge warning sign for anyone.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/26/224-collapsing-wave-structure-point-to-breakup-of-usa/

Quote
This Collapsing Wave structure that the United States appears to be in means it is a one-time-wonder and that the United States will break-up and the there will be no more “united” union. This is becoming self-evidence in the polarization of politics with tremendous differences in culture on a regional basis. The Obamacare is just one aspect revealing the undercurrent whereby one segment of society believes it has a right to force their views upon another group.

So unfortunately, the USA does not appear to be destined to remain intact otherwise we would have seen and overall structured wave of 224 years. We seem to be in the Collapsing Wave with the 224 years was from birth to peak with an overall duration of 309.6 years at best. This appears to be like the Collapsing Wave in Imperial Rome itself whereas from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC to the peak in the glory of Rome and population in the city took place under Marcus Aurelius that was 224 years later in 180AD. The decline that followed brought total chaos, sovereign debt crisis, massive government seizure of capital, fragmentation of the Empire, and in the end, Rome was no longer the Capitol and that became Constantinople followed by the split of East and West. We are much more akin to the this type of Collapsing Wave formation whereby society collapses and breaks apart.

So what happened in April 2013, which is the peak of the USA in its current political structure as a constitutional Republic of 50 States?

Are you ready?  Shocked  Shocked  Shocked

http://nucleardiner.com/2013/06/12/edward-snowden-timeline/

Quote
Poitras convinces Greenwald to listen to Snowden. Snowden joins Booz Allen Hamilton on work for NSA [link added 2].  [2] Reuters says this was in April, with training sessions for “a week or two” at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Late March or early April, 2013: Greenwald begins communicating directly with Snowden.

April 2013: Snowden is assigned to an NSA facility in Hawaii.  [2]

May 1, 2013: Snowden leaves his house in Hawaii, “shortly before Snowden became known globally for his whistleblowing”: Gives interview to Der Spiegel via encrypted e-mails with Laura Poitras and Jacob Applebaum.  [7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#NSA_contractor

Quote
Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.

Greenwald began working with Snowden in either February or April 2013, after Poitras asked Greenwald to meet her in New York City, at which point Snowden began providing documents to them.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/us-russia-and-world-timeline-for-edward-snowden.html

Quote
March 31, 2013

Edward Snowden begins work as an infrastructure analyst of the NSA with Booz, Allen Hamilton. He takes a week or longer business trip to unknown location (Maui? to meet Appelbaum and other hackers gathered for the Spring Break of Coders in Hawaii?).

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27034-citizenfour-inside-story-of-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-captured-in-new-film-by-laura-poitras#

Quote
LAURA POITRAS: Yeah, I mean, I was actually very shocked. I was contacted in January, and we had email correspondence for a long time. And for all of—for the first three months, I assumed he would remain an anonymous source. He wouldn’t tell me any details about his—you know, where he worked or where he lived. And I thought that I was talking to somebody, at some point I’d receive documents, and then, you know, he would disappear and I would never know who the person was. And then, in April, he revealed to me—he said, "You know, you should know that I actually intend to come forward and say that I’m the source of this information," and that he didn’t want to hide, and he didn’t want others to take responsibility and that he didn’t—if there was a leak investigation, etc.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/idiot-wind.html

Quote
SNOWDEN AND APPELBAUM IN HAWAII

Naturally, since Jacob Appelbaum went to Hawaii in April 2012 and again in April 2013 to celebrate his birthday, right when Edward Snowden was also there, we're all wondering. LibertyLynx broke this story from a reliable source who had noticed the "alibi video" Jake desperately made in Berlin trying to explain the reason for something he feared NSA analysts might have noticed -- that he was in Hawaii in April 2013 when Snowden was also there (and I could add - in April 2012 when Snowden was already there, too).

And it's important to know (because some newspapers are muddled on this and Pincus tripped on this and then Greenwald whacked him) that Snowden goes back to March 2012 in Hawaii. Talking Points Memo fetched that out of his girlfriend's blog -- and I saw her blog before she deleted it and it was definitely there as a timeline she described (and you can still find her blog in the Wayback Machine).

Snowden first came to Hawaii to work for Dell. Then he left Dell to go to Booz Allen Hamilton where he worked less than three months as BAH tells us in a terse statement on their web site after these events.

The Times is the only source I've seen (correct me if I'm wrong) that posits a segue between Dell and BAH where his hacking for the ultimate great revelation starts at Dell, and gives him reason then to move to BAH.

In what may have been his last job for Dell in Hawaii, he was responsible for the security of “Windows infrastructure” in the Pacific, he wrote, according to people who have seen his résumé. He had enough access there to start making contacts with journalists in January and February about disclosing delicate information. His work for Dell may also have enabled him to see that he would have even more access at Booz Allen

Somewhere in the numerous Appelbaum videos online, somebody might someday find some "windows infrastructure" help-desking (naturally Appelbaum loathes Windows) or some clue that will tie them together more intimately in Hawaii. For now, it's only same state, same time, but we don't know if Jake passed through Honolulu to talk to his future WikiLeaks protege Ed in April 2012 or April 2013.

Of course, the essence of hackers is to be online and be anonymous and "exist in cyberspace". But for virtual worlders, they do in fact spend a lot of time in meet-ups and conferences and hackathons and teach-ins and whatnot, and that's what has to be studied. December 2012 at 29c3 (the Chaos Communications Club conference) is when Appelbaum openly recruited government programmers to "leave the dark side" and come join his chaos club...

From Snowden's girlfriend's now-deleted blog, we also have an indication that Edward flew somewhere in March 2013 for a week or so "on business". To Maui, 100 miles away, to see Jacob Appelbaum and other hackers at the Spring Break of Code? An even that Appelbaum first described as a birthday gift for a vacation that he spent with 20 of his friends, but is described by other people at the Spring Break of Code as an event they organized in January to encourage young coders intereset in privacy encryption. If they are separate events, they intersect, but maybe they aren't. Snowden may have also flown to the mainland, possibly for BHA training at this time -- this is March-April 2013 before he fled Hawaii to Hong Kong.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/us-russia-and-world-timeline-for-edward-snowden.html

Quote
The partial time-line that Joshua Foust has produced on the Snowden affair is incomplete and misleading. And he has published it without giving any of bloggers credit (including myself) who found various key parts of this time-line, i.e. LibertyLynx who revealed Jacob Appelbaum's June 25 speech containing his admission of travel to Hawaii in April 2013 at the same time Snowden was there; Streetwise Professor who put it into further context; and my further round-up of Appelbaum's data trail and my long-time analysis of his antics.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/07/jacob-appelbaums-data-trail.html

Quote
Jacob Appelbaum's Data Trail

As noted, LibertyLynx received a link to a video of Jacob Appelbaum speaking in Germany at Digitale Gesellschaft on June 25, 2013 in which he admits that he was in Hawaii in April 2013 -- which as we know was the same time Edward Snowden was -- and then goes on to paint a picture of this as some kind of fantastic coincidence, i.e. that he hasn't now been caught out in a lie claiming he hadn't heard of Snowden before he was contacted by him in May over encrypted email with Laura Poitras' help.

Naturally, I don't believe him, for all sorts of reasons. One, because in my first encounters with him, I found him to be such a liar and such a thug, whistling for Anonymous to harass me because I kept calling out the propagandistic lies of WikiLeaks in the "Collateral Murder" video. Appelbaum, like so many WikiLeaks propagandists on day-old accounts on Twitter assigned to heckle bloggers, claimed falsely that American soldiers deliberately shot the children in the van in Iraq. I continued to challenge this as false, as they couldn't possibly see that the van had children in it, and there was absolutely nothing to support this narrative, which was concocted.

Then when I saw Appelbaum's other performances, either in person or on videos on Youtube, I saw what a fabulist and paranoic racconteur he was, and I really was skeptical.

On this story, he makes it sound as if the trip to Hawaii -- paid for by friends unknown -- was some kind of "dream come true" as if it were the fulfillment of a long-held wish.

But he was in Hawaii the year before doing the same thing, so it sounds odd to speak of the second (or next) trip as being this long-awaited wish fulfillment.
Pages:
Jump to: