6 ms·

> the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything Of course they won't offer anything to you that is not immediately in their commercial interest. You have t

> the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything Of course they won't offer anything to you that is not immediately in their commercial interest. You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need.

gech 10y ago
Can you disclose if you have any direct interest in net neutrality being removed
- austincheney 10y ago
  I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality. Variably charging for accessing data is no different than variably charging for accessing water or electricity as the OP described. There is a valid exception for electricity though. When a user requests so much juice that the local infrastructure is harmed they should be fined and throttled. I don't see how this same limitation can be applied to data access due to limitations in the physical distribution technology. Even with that said I still think the ISP problem is the lesser of the two evils. People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook. This data isn't for lease or borrow... it is owned, and when it becomes the property of Google or Facebook they can, and should, use it against you to generate revenue. The software giants have convinced their users they are acting in a benign capacity for the interest of their users. The biggest problem is that most people take them at their word.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook Sure they do. People can complain about whatever they want. You're off on a tangent anyway. If you're for net neutrality, focus on that. That's the point of this thread, to brainstorm about how to maintain net neutrality. It doesn't matter whether the ISP or content provider is the bigger evil - they're both potentially evil under these circumstances. Let's focus on our opposition to the proposed policy and see how the giants react. My suspicion is FB and Google will not be supportive of the FCC's proposed changes, and that counts for something. If they turn evil at a later date, we address it then. As far as I know, they're not currently supportive so that's not on the table
    - thedatamonger 10y ago
      well said. thank you for staying on topic.
    - austincheney 10y ago
      > You're off on a tangent anyway. No, I am commenting directly to the subject matter. You want the subject matter to be only about net neutrality, but it isn't. I addressed this.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need." The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That includes the ability to give you what they need you to use instead of what you need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers weren't on and wifi was unplugged. Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies, Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.
- austincheney 10y ago
  > The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope. Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    " They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.
    - austincheney 10y ago
      > They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

gech 10y ago

Can you disclose if you have any direct interest in net neutrality being removed

austincheney 10y ago
I am absolutely in favor of net neutrality. Variably charging for accessing data is no different than variably charging for accessing water or electricity as the OP described. There is a valid exception for electricity though. When a user requests so much juice that the local infrastructure is harmed they should be fined and throttled. I don't see how this same limitation can be applied to data access due to limitations in the physical distribution technology. Even with that said I still think the ISP problem is the lesser of the two evils. People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook. This data isn't for lease or borrow... it is owned, and when it becomes the property of Google or Facebook they can, and should, use it against you to generate revenue. The software giants have convinced their users they are acting in a benign capacity for the interest of their users. The biggest problem is that most people take them at their word.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > People don't have any right to complain about NSA spying if they willingly sacrifice their personal data to Google and Facebook Sure they do. People can complain about whatever they want. You're off on a tangent anyway. If you're for net neutrality, focus on that. That's the point of this thread, to brainstorm about how to maintain net neutrality. It doesn't matter whether the ISP or content provider is the bigger evil - they're both potentially evil under these circumstances. Let's focus on our opposition to the proposed policy and see how the giants react. My suspicion is FB and Google will not be supportive of the FCC's proposed changes, and that counts for something. If they turn evil at a later date, we address it then. As far as I know, they're not currently supportive so that's not on the table
  - thedatamonger 10y ago
    well said. thank you for staying on topic.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    > You're off on a tangent anyway. No, I am commenting directly to the subject matter. You want the subject matter to be only about net neutrality, but it isn't. I addressed this.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need." The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That includes the ability to give you what they need you to use instead of what you need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers weren't on and wifi was unplugged. Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies, Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.

austincheney 10y ago
> The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope. Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  " They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    > They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.