This will not end well
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 26th, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Brace yourself for “Internet Fairness Doctrine”.
February 26th, 2015 at 4:33 pm
I, for one, look forward to the government-mandated 56k download speeds for all divisive and irresponsible political issues, including anything other than cat pictures.
February 26th, 2015 at 5:50 pm
It was nice while it lasted.
February 26th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
What will it finally take for us little people to stand up to this tyrant? Looking more and more like the time is coming where we will need to exercise our 2nd amendment rights as they were intended.
Bang, Bang!
February 26th, 2015 at 6:34 pm
It’s hard to watch America being Grubered again by three unelected bureaucrats acting in cahoots with a power hungry, big government president.
I can see my grandchild now: “Grandpa, why did people back in your day think the government take over of the Internet was a good thing?”
February 26th, 2015 at 6:39 pm
Some cluelessness going on here!
Yes, f ar for your lives because it’s been working SO WELL having Comcast and Timewarner throttle traffic already, and once you tell them to you would totally not expect them to abuse that power.
Companies acted poorly, consumers too dumb to realize, now guberment has to step in. That’s all that’s going on here.
February 26th, 2015 at 6:58 pm
Apparently I am clueless – so Other Steve, please enlighten us. Why does government have to step in again? To make things more efficient? To make things more fair?
Please do tell us more.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Well, we are now in the “we have to pass the bill to see what is in it” phase. There are 330 pages of ?????? from the “most transparent administration in history”. Does King Obama get to write history also? Well, there could be monies in the “regulations” for unicorn farms for all we know. I suggest taking a few days to, you know, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL before going off in 370 degrees of misdirection. Who knows? Obama might actually NOT BE LYING! What are the odds?
February 26th, 2015 at 7:06 pm
More to it than either simplification.
The means of communication are already regulated, it was not in any way a free market before and all of the major ISPs were feeding everything to the NSA already anyway.
The changes made here should pave the way for more small ISPs being able to compete which should help, but the government does nothing for free and yes the FCC now has greater latitude to impose their will on the internet in general.
The real future is an entirely encrypted internet where all communication is just data and most peer to peer communication is handled via a bittorrent like hashed data block system. Even then there is potential for use of graph analysis to track communications, but that can be somewhat mitigated with cryptographic concepts.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:11 pm
JUST WOW! Other steve… When the hell was the last time the government Streamlined anything??? They cannot even get a website to work much less every website.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:35 pm
Who the fuck said shit about streamlining?
The ISPs are now title 2 common carrier. It means they are not allowed to fuck with shit. A lot of this is EXACTLY related back to Bell being split up. It was impossible for small startups to compete, the companies in charge were making very poor and anti-consumer decisions, and they got their pee-pee slapped for it. Same thing here.
The irony is that while tards are complaining about King Obama and “a website not working”. People who have no idea what was actually debated here, but just want to toss in their “my side is always right and your is always wrong” (by the way, YOU are part of the problem). The reality is that municipal internet (local provided fiber) can now go ahead, speeds and quality of service will increase without a couple large conglomerates setting tiers, and for the most part you won’t notice any change at all.
D2K has it right.
Saying the internet is a government utility is not even remotely sort of correct.
Literally the only people fighting against this are the lobbyists and lawyers for Comcast and Timewarner because it’s their growth model. To make this a partisan issue is fucking stupid and you should feel dumb.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Also, Verizon. This all basically started because they got greedy. They all could have just agreed to Neutrality and been done, but no no, had to push it and now it’s not only neutrality but also a “utility” (common carrier). Every small ISP out there wanted this, municipalities barred from putting up their own ISP wanted this, basically everyone except lobbyists and America’s top eight companies with their donor money to congress.
To make it about Obama… Classic!
February 26th, 2015 at 7:45 pm
” People who have no idea what was actually debated here”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the details weren’t debated or made public. It was kept a secret until the FCC decided to move forward with it today.
February 26th, 2015 at 7:56 pm
Did you hear that on Foxnews?
Because here is all 2 1/2 hours of the discussion
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324473-1/fcc-meeting-open-internet-rules
February 26th, 2015 at 8:09 pm
I don’t watch cable news. So, it was “discussed” today? The plan being kept secret until today, as I said. Pretty much the exact point I made. And what you linked is south of an hour.
Ok, then.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:27 pm
And 6.8 is dead.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Hey SayUncle, this Other Steve guys seems to be new here. I’m not interested in his email address or anything like that, but I’ve kinda wondering how it came to be that he found this pleasant corner of the interwebs and cruised by to drop his steamer. At least he wasn’t a complete driveby, and hung around to appreciate the wrinkled noses of the regulars as the bouquet of his opinion wafted through the ether.
My hypothesis: he Googled searched “net neutrality blog” and cruised through the results until he found one with open comments and a less-than-appreciative attitude towards this little government power grab, and just HAD to bestow upon the benighted heathens therein the glory of his wisdom.
Test methodology: server logs and the Referrer headers.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:49 pm
No, he’s been here for a while. He’s usually on our side but he’s invested in this thing. Once you challenge him, he runs away.
February 27th, 2015 at 12:11 am
Tirno, been here longer than you I’m sure. And the very idea you think that 2 hours after the decision released, that I could get HERE via a google search for the most talked about news of the day… Shows me you have no business commenting on a classification change how the internet works.
Sayuncle,
lol, I don’t “run away” I just can’t fill my head with one-sided stubbornness all day. I have a full time job. While I can appreciate your thoughts on some gun matters, some news matters, and etc. You’re flat out falling for a cooperate maneuver here. The people against net neutrality are only doing so because of money, you’re trying desperately to apply a smaller goverment tag to it where it doesn’t really apply.
Net neutrality is how the internet has worked most of the time. It was only recently that Comcast/Verizon/Time/Charter got caught throttling bandwidth to players on the internet they made no money from. You’d THINK that someone running a blog might understand this issue.
Here it is:
Yes, the internet should not be tied in any way shape or form to the US government. The consumer should have the opportunity to vote with their wallet if they don’t like a company’s practices. However, that’s not how it’s been working, we have major monopolies and a large infrastructure gap from coast to coast where you might only have one choice, or you have two, but they both suck. This is NOT a free market. You have providers classifying terrible service as “broadband” because the term had no real meaning. Now add in the anti-consumer practices of prioritizing and buying their way into laws via state legislatures and you have an unavoidable issue where the government CAN SHOULD HAVE stepped in. It’s now a utility which gives the CONSUMER certain protections. This happened with radio, and phone too. It’s the internet’s coming of age party. Once again, a rigged market is not a free market.
But again, if anyone wants to be fucking retarded and make it a left vs right issue. Then go one to say how nothing the left EVER does could be correct. Go right ahead, but that’s the fucking problem with hardliners on both sides.
You can claim wookiesuite all you like, but net neutrality had to happen because someone’s bad decisions were effecting me. Once you effect me, that’s when there is a problem.
February 27th, 2015 at 1:13 am
First time I was online was on a Lear-Siegler ADM3A through a dual VAX11/780 in 1983 when it was called ARPANET. .mil, and definitely .gov. Since then, it’s gone public, and the damned .gov needs to stay the hell away from it.
There are problems with monopolies, but mostly because .gov at various levels has prevented competition, sort of like with AMPS cell service (a landline company plus a non-landline company per market).
What we need is not the .gov to shove its dick into our ass (again), but to get the hell away and let competition occur, at most make the 800lb gorillas let it happen, but the damned 800lb gorillas wouldn’t exist if the .gov hadn’t interfered in the first place.
February 27th, 2015 at 4:03 am
This is a lousy situation, various levels of government have been bought and in collusion with the massive ISPs protecting their interests for a while now.
This was a hard fought concession (the FCC “lost” a lot of the pro net neutrality comments during the comment period), but of course it came at a cost as it provided a certain capacity for the FCC to have greater regulation of the internet.
The EFF is the one to look to in this type of situation, they are not a bad organization, you’ll probably be hearing a lot more about them in relation to gun rights in the next year.
February 27th, 2015 at 11:57 am
Thank you D2K for actually understanding the issue and not going all !!Obama owns the Internet now, Internet gone!!
February 27th, 2015 at 12:43 pm
To add what D2K said on EFF, they are an excellent organization who actually follows issues and not politics.
They support Net Neutrality, and oppose the TransPacificPartnership which would the White House is trying to push through. The TPP is something you could actually hate on Dems for, same with the DCMA. That’s how you do it, on the issues instead of blindly supporting “your” side vs “theirs”.
The very idea that pro-gun people were pushing against Net Neutrality without understanding the issues… Linking it to Obama owning the internet… Well, now you have a taste of what it’s like being an ignorant anti-gunner who pops up on msg boards talking about a subject where their own ignorance is their reference.
Oh look, there are blind supporters of things on both “sides”.
February 27th, 2015 at 1:05 pm
I think a hell of a lot lot of the tin-foil !!!OBAMA!!! hysterics could have been eliminated if they had just allowed public review of the document before passing it. It screams of, “Gotta pass it to see what’s in it,” bullshit that it still splattering on everybody.
February 27th, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Just one lot. I have happy happy fingers fingers today. Time to get the papers get the papers.
February 27th, 2015 at 1:56 pm
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win
The last two paragraphs are the part everyone here is worried about and so are the EFF, they will continue to push for your rights, so go check them out sign up for their email alerts and protect your rights.
February 27th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Why do I hear an Obama sounding voice in my head saying “if you like your internet plan you can keep your internet plan.”
–Greg
February 27th, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Greg because you read that on a comment section on another site, and that you think it’s clever because you don’t understand what Net Neutrality or Title II utility is.
Read D2K’s posts and the EFF link above.
February 27th, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Thanks D2K and other steve. That is informative.
February 27th, 2015 at 6:21 pm
Other Steve, thanks for your alternate voice in this discussion. There are some aspects of the pro-net neutrality argument that I am hoping you could clear up for me. First, you said you were personally affected by these bad decisions that net neutrality would not allow. Can you explain specifically about what this harm was? Are you better off than you were four years ago? I know I am. I have internet on my phone now, I am streaming HD content, and I don’t have interrupted service anymore. My experience as an internet consumer has rapidly improved when I think back over the years.
Second, this line below is from the EFF link:
As expected, the FCC’s new rules forbid ISPs from charging Internet users for special treatment on their networks.
To me, I don’t see a problem here that needs fixing, and this is one of the core arguments I have been hearing for net neutrality. Why is special treatment a problem? Especially when the receiver of that benefit is paying for that service, as opposed to getting special treatment for some other reason (like race, gender, sexual orientation, nepotism, etc.). In pretty much all areas of life it is common to be able to pay more for enhanced service. An apt analogy would be toll lanes where commuters can chose to pay to enter a fast lane to bypass rush hour traffic. This doesn’t seem like a problem to me, especially when the “solution” is to forbid the practice- which effectively means those lanes won’t get built in the first place and everybody gets to go slow. And that’s what concerns me about net neutrality. Faster networks won’t get made if you can’t get paid, and that will stifle what has been blazing progress over the past couple decades.
February 27th, 2015 at 6:41 pm
TS, most major carriers were found to be throttling. That is 100% what that special conditions clause is. The one you don’t think is a big deal – somehow forming that opinion even though you don’t understand the events leading up to this.
You’re going to have to do some research on your own. But generally you are paying too much compared to world averages, getting a worse service, and you likely have at best two options in your town who both likely suck, usually just one when you look at Comcast Verizon ATT Charter TimeWarner those are your options in most of the country and I’ll just let you think about those names and if they are synonymous with good service and fair practices.
There are unique challenges to infrastructure in the US compared to a Japan or S Korea, but this is an area the “free market” failed at. The companies with enough money corrupted the market and now they have been regulated. There was no choice to vote with your wallet or let it work itself out. Greedy ISPs brought this on themselves.
Look at that list of companies again, now look at everyone for Net Neutrality (every small ISP or anyone that desires tone, Google, Microsoft, Applr, EFF, basically everyone except monied interests. If you look at the Verizon case, they had the opportunity to agree to NON-FCC neutrality, they and all the other big boys denied it and now the gov stepped in.
The irony is this is a overall a good thing and you are arguing against it without understanding why. The only issue is the FCC wasn’t more specific in its ruling but that’s pretty much to be expected.
February 27th, 2015 at 7:15 pm
And why is throttling bad? People pay more to get more. Consumers may have been throttled, but they are receiving services that are faster and faster year after year delivering a better experience to the end user. I used to never stream movies because the quality of a DVD was so much better. Not anymore, and that wasn’t that long ago.
You’re going to have to do some research on your own. But generally you are paying too much compared to world averages, getting a worse service.
I haven’t found that to be true from the research I did. Uncle’s link has a 30 min video from one of the commissioners of the FCC who spoke of the US network compared to the Euro network.
…and you likely have at best two options in your town who both likely suck
Suck compared to what? Speeds keep getting faster for me. More options are always a good thing, but I don’t see how adding regulatory hurdles will help a local start-up ISPs compete with the big boys. Usually that has the opposite effect.
Can you speak a bit of this harm you experienced (my first question on my previous post)? Not that I don’t believe you, I just want to know what the real world consequences are to not having these regulations.
February 27th, 2015 at 8:57 pm
You speak of monied interests, but the content providers (Amazon, Netflix) clearly also have monied interests. In the case of Netflix, they put a tremendous demand on ISPs to deliver rapidly expanding bandwith. Why should ISPs absorb all that cost? Netflix paying more for fast lane service that keeps their customers satisfied is completely reasonable. Ultimately that gets passed down to the consumer in subscription costs. If the internet user who simply reads blogs and news sites is expected to pay the same as those who binge watch “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black”, then that doesn’t sound like fair internet to me.
February 27th, 2015 at 9:36 pm
Maybe I’m misreading, did you really just say Google and Microsoft aren’t moneyed interests?
February 28th, 2015 at 1:30 am
TS the thing you have to understand is that the companies like Netflix, YouTube and Amazon are already paying for their net connection, the consumer ISPs are trying to charge them again for the data they’ve already paid for from Level3 or Cogent.
Assuming you are using Windows, in your command prompt
tracert saysuncle.com
The host he uses has Level3 as an ISP
Now your ISP is at some node communicating with Level3 and transferring data from their network to your ISP’s, you are paying your ISP for data up to that node and the website you are getting your data from is paying their ISP for everything up to that node.
Sometimes some other networks will be in between, but that doesn’t change much, each ISP just treats the first network they hit as the destination of the data and contractually handles things at that point.
The “internet fastlane” idea says that the website pays your ISP directly to not be throttled, despite the fact that the website’s ISP already has a data payment contract with your ISP that operates purely on how much data each company sends to the other and not the source of that data.
February 28th, 2015 at 3:04 am
TS
“And why is throttling bad? People pay more to get more.”
… Except that you would pay more and not get more, you pay more and just get slightly less fucked. Yea, because throttling out access to Netflix is OK, what about when it’s porn or gun websites? Oh, maybe that would be an issue? Because that’s what this was! Replace streaming and game throttling with blockage to second amendment information. They WERE well within their rights to do that – now are not. There was no true free speech on the internet the ISP could have blocked you out of anything they liked at anytime.
That’s just throttling currently and to a hypothetical scenario. There is also the anti-business, you know anti-FreeMarket, practices the large providers are guilty of.
The irony that if this were gun related, where you have to pay more for the same gun that holds 15 rounds vs 10 because of an artificial vendor lockout, or if Ruger paid off your municipality so they could not sell Glocks within the limits, or really even the bullshit argument you are trying to make that “fuck poor people, if they want equal access to the internet they should pay more for it” were related to gun availability – you would be up in arms.
I’m sorry man, but you do not understand this issue. The fact that you keep trying to argue is only highlighting that. The FCC has voted to make ISPs providers of a title 2 service, it’s done. Because you don’t realize that’s a good thing doesn’t mean it isn’t.
You’re anecdotal points that, the internet wasn’t good for you years ago and now it is, so that must mean “progress” is foolish. Please do some research, start at EFF.org
February 28th, 2015 at 2:39 pm
D2K: “…despite the fact that the website’s ISP already has a data payment contract with your ISP that operates purely on how much data each company sends to the other and not the source of that data.”
My point is why not just handle this with contracts? If ISPs violate the contract, they can be sued. If their contract doesn’t cover data sources and throttling, then they should negotiate a contract that does. The streaming movement creates tremendous challenges to provide exponential growth in data handling. Both Netflix and the ISP have a common interest in delivering a service to the consumer, and they are both in it to make money. Why should the government step and create a huge advantage for Netflix when they can negotiate a common ground instead?
Other Steve: “Except that you would pay more and not get more, you pay more and just get slightly less fucked.”
Is your service not faster than it used to be? What do you mean by “less fucked”? Is it that your service speed keeps improving, but not to your expectations?
You are making the argument that I would feel different if this were gun related, but as I told you, I subscribe to and use Netflix regularly, and my service is better than ever. I can stream HD movies without interruption. What exactly is the complaint? Is it that you have to wait for 20 seconds of buffering before the movie starts instead of 10 seconds? ISPs have an interest in delivering the content that their customers want.
Other Steve: ‘…even the bullshit argument you are trying to make that “fuck poor people, if they want equal access to the internet they should pay more for it”’
That is a gross mischaracterization. I said there is nothing wrong with expecting people to pay more for using more data. I have no idea how you managed to turn that into: people who don’t have much money should pay higher rates for the same amount of data.
Other Steve: “Please do some research, start at EFF.org”
Yes, I read the earlier link provided. My points are still standing for me: one, the internet has seen tremendous growth, with ever enhancing experiences to the end user, and has been a boom to the economy. Let’s not mess with it. Two, there is nothing wrong with paying more for faster speeds. I had four of five options when I signed up with my latest ISP for different connection speeds, all with different prices. A company like Netflix is, let’s face it, a bandwidth hog. ISPs have to figure out a way to get that data to their customers in a way which all parties can agree to. If they make it so that Netflix runs crappy, the customers will blame Comcast before they blame Netflix anyway. Three, increased regulations, and reduced profit potential only makes it hard for new ISPs to break into the market. We all want as much competition as possible to drive down prices and increase service. This isn’t the answer.
Did you watch the video interview with Ajit Pai from Uncle’s link? FCC Commissioner, Anti-trust lawyer- very informative.
February 28th, 2015 at 11:20 pm
Here you go:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2015/02/stop-calling-government-regulation-net.html
This is a very short post by Chris. Amazingly short, for him 😀
March 1st, 2015 at 1:32 am
TS, you do not understand the issue. Keep using your idea that “the internet has gotten faster so that must mean everything is fine” fallacy. Good luck to you.
.
Will, that’s a fabulous article. By that I mean fabulously speculative and inaccurate.
Verizon WAS NOT tied to common carrier. It “WAS” up until 7 months ago when they won a federal case that basically said “You know those FCC rules you were supposed to obey, they don’t really have the power to make you, so you don’t have to”… THAT’S one of the major issues here. The FCC had rules, most everyone obeyed them, the big companies decided to say fuck it, we’re going to break them, then had a court win saying it was OK to do so because they weren’t a title 2 common carrier while serving internet (but are for phone).
I’m interested to know exactly how the author is so keenly aware of the rules that have not yet been released!! Almost as if he is making a lot of this up!
The “HIDDEN” rules… Are entirely normal to be at this stage. The FCC makes a ruling and typically will sit on it as it’s finalized and released. In this case, it’s two republican’s holding it up:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fcc-confirms-net-neutrality-order-wont-be-released-today
The “hundreds of pages of the ruling” you might hear about is really just 8 pages of rules and 292 pages of references as required by law.
Nothing in title2 is any different than phone. Do you have a phone? Can you make calls to anywhere without having to have a priority line to do so? Do you have issues with people with higher tiers getting through before your calls? No. Nothing is different than phone.
The author of that article is in fucking fantasy land if he really thinks the small ISPs will be burdened by the same title2-compiancy they all now have to abide by (which isn’t even ALL the title2 rules, just some that prevent blocking and throttling). It’s a list of things they can’t fuck with, that’s all. He keeps making the error that the internet was “regulated” by a watchfull agency, everyone was just following the statement the FCC make a decade ago that “Please don’t misbehave”. They did.
The without a warrant stuff is INSANE. Cell phones and landlines fall under title2, remind me, do you need a warrant for those? Yes, well, you’re supposed to anyhow.
I don’t care who that guy is, he’s a lunatic if he actually believes all of that.
Just ask yourself this… Would it be OK for your ISP to block anything related to the second amendment or whatever your personal favorite subject is? Because up until this is all finalized that was entirely up to the ISP should they want to. That’s not an open or free internet. It might not be ideal, but gov pretty much had to step in to stop abuses we have already seen and prevent new ones.
March 1st, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Other Steve, is that your same answer to the Ajit Pai interview? That he doesn’t understand the issue? Mind you, he’s one of the people who has read the rules because he is on the FCC commission and has a vote.
March 2nd, 2015 at 10:23 pm
Well, since one of the key arguments is false on the face of it the net-neutrality argument strikes out for lack of credibility.
People that think they only have the choice of CenturyLink and Comcast just haven’t bothered to look at the marketplace. For some time I used an ISP called Speakeasy (now going by metadata). The reason for that is because Qwest and Comcast had TOS that wouldn’t allow me to run my family email server. I looked around and found the solution, Speakeasy. Guess what, when you look at what underlay Speakeasy it was Qwest. But the service was with Speakeasy that chose to not have oppressive TOS’s. Speakeasy bought huge blocks of bandwidth and resold it to customers that preferred their offering. Isn’t this a pretty close analogy to the whole Netflix nonsense? Of course it is. If the throttling thing became enough of an issue then some enterprising soul would buy up a bunch of bandwidth from some of the backbone owners with the terms that they would not be throttled and then turn around and sell you Billy Ray Bob’s Intertubes, guaranteed no throttling. This is the free market, give it time and people will figure out how to make money off of some company being greedy or stupid. Or press for government regulation that will never go away and is guaranteed to make things worse and worse over time.