Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[Stavros]

In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission has announced that it intends to vote in December to put an end to an Obama Presidency ruling that defined the Internet as a Utility, putting an end to what is known as 'Net Neutrality'-

Net neutrality is the principle that all traffic on the internet is treated equally. Its supporters argue that equal access to the internet has been essential in creating today’s dynamic online world.

On the chopping block are rules established in 2015 that prevent broadband companies from charging more for internet “fast lanes” for certain content and from blocking or slowing certain content. Critics charge that removing the rules will hand ISPs control of the internet – allowing them to pick winners and losers by slowing some services while giving preferential treatment to those they favor.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/net-neutrality-rules-to-be-ditched-as-expected-fcc-decision-sparks-protests

I wonder how, if this decision is passed, consumers will be affected if they want to access a site like Hung Angels. If the ISP in the US notes the frequency with which a member accesses HA will it charge more to give the consumer faster access? One claim in the US is that removing Net Neutrality will also enable ISPs to collect more detailed information on a consumer's web browsing habits.

In the UK the internet is currently net neutral through the European Union's Regulation on Open Internet Access, and in theory this could be scrapped as part of the transition through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons. Another major difference is that there is more competition in the UK for ISP contracts -I have switched ISPs three times- whereas in the USA there is often only one ISP and as the second Guardian article shows in some areas there might as well be no internet at all, the service is so poor.

Although this is another example of the Republicans reversing Obama legislation out of spite, the argument is that it will create more competition. I doubt it, but as I don't live in the US I can't say more than that, though it is curious in the case of Washington that the State that gave Boeing billions of dollars in tax breaks could have used those billions to improve internet access across the state.

Key question though remains: if Hung Angels is one of your most popular websites, will your ISP under the new rules charge you more to visit it, and thereby reduce your visits?

Guardian report here-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/net-neutrality-rules-to-be-ditched-as-expected-fcc-decision-sparks-protests

Guardian on the internet in Washington State-
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/republicans-are-about-to-kill-the-open-internet-net-neutrality-winlock-washington

Situation in the UK-
https://news.sky.com/story/net-neutrality-should-uk-citizens-be-worried-about-us-changes-10945518

[Ts RedVeX]

Federal Communistcations Comission? ;D

Oh wait.. This project actually sounds like letting ISPs do whatever they think is good for the companies unrestricted! Vivant free marketers!

Perhaps my webshite will reappear in google searches without complying to silly google standards as well!

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

[Castor_Troy05]

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.


The EU has laws which prevent this from happening to any member state. Brexit might lead the UK to follow Americas lead, yet again

[javier81]

Federal Communistcations Comission?.

The American media censorship regulatory bureau. Regulating the amount of censorship and pro corporate conservative butt-fucking the American public recieves, via the airwaves. Fuck Ajit Pai, and fuck that mental charity case Trump.

[Ben in LA]

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

[Stavros]

Federal Communistcations Comission? ;D
Oh wait.. This project actually sounds like letting ISPs do whatever they think is good for the companies unrestricted! Vivant free marketers!
Perhaps my webshite will reappear in google searches without complying to silly google standards as well!
Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.
a) you have not addressed the issues in the post, for example, will rescinding net neutrality improve internet access for customers in the USA, protect their right to privacy, and prevent ISP's with only a commercial motive limiting a consumer's access to websites by raising the cost of browsing them? In some cases, this could result in a reduction of visits to your 'website'.
A free market of the kind you yearn for is supposed to provide what consumers want, rather than what the profit-hungry vendors want, have you thought of that?

b) the EU has never imposed a single law or regulation on the UK, every law and regulation has been incorporated into English law through Parliament which has had the right to veto all and any such laws and regulations but has chosen not to. There is a slightly different situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland as I am sure you are aware of. And, a substantial majority of the EU law passed by Parliament since 1973 -along with those laws and regulations passed by the European Free Trade Area since 1960- is being confirmed as English law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons so that far from being 'destroyed' a great deal of English law will continue to be what EU law used to be, and rather a lot of that will consist of law that originated in the United Kingdom.

[Gillian]

Perhaps my webshite ...
Oh come on ... it's not that bad ... :D

[legault]

net neutrality is internet communism

[legault]

Oh, by the way, I think that the EU must be destroyed. - Along with all its laws imposed onto the UK.

Agreed 100%

[youngblood61]

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.Well said.

[flabbybody]

net neutrality is internet communism
Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.
Net neutrality will in no way impact accessibility to sites like HA, or any other web destinations for typical consumers.
An internet provider like Verizon might tweek the speed of one search engine versus another from time to time to maximize service efficiency, and yes, to direct customers to its own proprietary platform. But isn't that the right of any business in our free enterprise system?

[broncofan]

Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.

I know very little about this issue, but I'm not sure I see the analogy. Items in a store are owned by the store, and therefore the store can arrange them to ensure access to those that are most popular.

But internet service providers are only providing access to websites, so isn't it more like roads on the way to the store?

This doesn't necessarily hurt your point though...the question to me is if the speed will be determined by the popularity of the site or whether the popularity of the site will be determined by the accessibility. Isn't it possible for such a system to choose winners and losers?

[broncofan]

Isn't it possible for such a system to choose winners and losers?
It may not be obvious that this isn't what the system should do, but doesn't net neutrality ensure that people choose what they like and aren't directed top down from an isp? To me that seems much more like a market system than an isp deciding in advance what sites should be easy to access and which ones shouldn't be.

[Ben in LA]

This image shows why net neutrality is.
1040332

These two images illustrate what can happen if we don’t have net neutrality. It’s like cable television packages.
1040333
1040334
Then again, that’s capitalism.

[legault]

This image shows why net neutrality is.
1040332

These two images illustrate what can happen if we don’t have net neutrality. It’s like cable television packages.
1040333
1040334
Then again, that’s capitalism.

We havent had real capitalism in over 100 years

[nitron]

Would switching to DuckDuck make a differance? Anyone...

[smalltownguy]

What is net neutrality... in other words considering all data in the Internet at same and would not be charged differently what I want to know is how this can bring end your access to Hung angels

[gaysian71]

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

[Stavros]

Absolutely correct. Net neutrality is akin to the government telling a supermarket that it's not allowed to arrange store displays in a way that make certain items more prominent, thereby more likely to be purchased.
Net neutrality will in no way impact accessibility to sites like HA, or any other web destinations for typical consumers.
An internet provider like Verizon might tweek the speed of one search engine versus another from time to time to maximize service efficiency, and yes, to direct customers to its own proprietary platform. But isn't that the right of any business in our free enterprise system?

-I am surprised that you defend something you call 'free enterprise' when the development of the internet in the USA and its current state runs counter to the very concept. To begin with, while there are thousands of ISPs in the US, most are small, local and offer limited services, while the majority comprise large companies like Comcast and Verizon that bought or merged with smaller ISPs particularly after the dot.com bubble burst in the 1990s. These major firms have access to US homes courtesy of the existing rail and telecommunications infrastructure, meaning that these giant corporations did not spend vasts amounts of capital to create internet links from scratch but paid railroad companies a fee to use existing infrastructure running alongside the tracks saving a fortune in 'right of way' fees were they digging up earth on privately owned land.
https://qz.com/790210/tracing-the-byzantine-maze-of-the-companies-that-have-come-to-control-americas-internet/

-Again, a survey of internet customers in 2015 using census data reveals that while there have been improvements since 2013 -The latest Federal Communications Commission statistics show that Americans still have little choice of high-speed broadband providers- this runs counter to the whole notion of a free enterprise economy. The reality is that the companies are in charge, you as a consumer have little choice, and no control over the quality of service you pay for. One of the causes of the Net Neutrality rules in the first place came about because of a conflict between Verizon and Comcast over who should bear the costs of the increased bandwidth needed to access Netflix, and the case of Cogent Communications who, in another dispute simply shut down its internet service. In both cases, what the customer wanted was irrelevant.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

-The issue here is the need of ISPs to make money out of you. Ending net neutrality is intended to lock everything other than government and the emergency services behind a pay wall. Rupert Murdoch for years has fumed at the existence of free content on the web believing everything must be paid for, and not just once but even after you get into the website, and there is no doubt Murdoch is one of the keenest enthusiasts for internet firewalls. The graphs provided by Ben in LA are perfect illustrations of this.

-The key point is this: would you pay to access Hung Angels? Steve might not want to charge a fee to unlock a firewall, but is there anything once net neutrality goes, to prevent Verizon or Comcast insisting that you pay an extra monthly charge of $10 to visit your most popular websites? And, how does this affect individuals who run web sites or blogs that are either free for anyone to access, or in the case of many 'internet performers' we know on Hung Angels, charge a small monthly fee? It appears that in addition to their fee, you may have to pay extra to the ISP to access that site. I can't see many people paying to access Hung Angels, and some who currently pay a fee to performers' websites may choose to not to, reducing the revenue so much it becomes commercially a waste of time.

-Bear in mind that having refused to fill over 100 posts in the justice system when Obama was President, the Republican Party is now approving white, conservative and often unqualified men to be guardians of your justice system. One -Brett Talley (Alabama)- only qualified as a lawyer three years ago, has never tried a case, and has blogged in favour of the Ku Klux Klan. Thomas Farr in South Carolina is aggressive in his determination to Stop Black People Voting.

Another, Jeff Mateer (Texas) is not ashamed to air his prejudices: “Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, all right. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate,” adding at another time that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, that marriage equality is a “challenge” for Christians, and that transgender children are part of Satan's plan'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/22/federal-court-judicial-nominations-donald-trump
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/19/16504104/trump-jeff-mateer-lgbtq

-When the time comes to use the law to either shut down internet porn, or price it beyond the reach of most consumers by forcing ISPs to levy an additional fee, the Conservatives will use their presence across the US justice system to bring the US in line with the morals of sub-Saharan Africa and Russia, crushing free speech much as the President wants to crush all and any news outlet that criticizes him.

This is not about free markets at all, it is the Conservative dream of a USA beholden unto God and his laws, and his chosen one in the White House. All you are required to do, is to be obedient and pay for everything you want to see.

[smalltownguy]

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.
Yes guys it ain't gonna happen .This is a waste of time and money enjoy life and remember porn is a drug

[Ts RedVeX]

1040407

This is soooo real, by the way :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8

[chupapau]

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.

Wow, you were on the internet before it existed?????

[chupapau]

Stavros,

I seriously appreciate your effort to bring people to talk about stuff that really matters, and to point people out those seemingly little thing that are actually made seemingly little to hide the big sledgehammer behind it. However seeing the reactions of certain people, I can only think of the following :

Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon, it will strut wildly across the board, crap on it, and walk off with an air as if it has won the argument.

I suggest handing them out poisoned pellets and telling them its viagra.

[giovanni_hotel]

I expect access to porn to cost more. Just like you can purchase premium movies from your cable provider, ISPs are going to require you to pay a fee to surf for certain material considered 'adult'.

Porn is the biggest money maker on the interwebz other than online retail and for years the ISPs were cut out of the deal.
Now they can charge you for high speed access to surf the NEt to find a ,gif of your favorite transchick getting her cock sucked.

Tiers of service is definitely coming, following the cable TV model.
It will suck hard until a Democratic POTUS is elected, he can appoint his own FCC chairs and reverse this shit.

The idiots who voted for Trump are the gift that keeps on giving.
Sort of like venereal disease.

[Torris]

Wow, you were on the internet before it existed?????


I remember when you had to download file fragments and use UUencode to put them files together for a pic

Praise Anu for Netscape and the whole right click save as phenomenon

Then came the Usenet groups hierarchy. Somewhere in a shoebox I have a couple dozen Zip disks full of porn photos

[Ben in LA]

I remember when you had to download file fragments and use UUencode to put them files together for a pic

Praise Anu for Netscape and the whole right click save as phenomenon

Then came the Usenet groups hierarchy. Somewhere in a shoebox I have a couple dozen Zip disks full of porn photos
Time to put that Flickr account to good use huh? :)

[Ben in LA]

C'mon guys. Does anyone really think anything will stop porn? I've been downloading shit since the eighties. Although it did take about 5 to 10 minutes to download one picture back then. But the point is, stopping porn is like stopping drugs. It ain't gonna happen.
Nothing will “stop porn”, but it WILL be more expensive to access it.

[MacJae]

While the scenario of selling bundled "packages" would be in line with what they do for TV, it's also likely that the ISPs would adopt a more indirect strategy for squeezing people for profit -- by going after the content providers, like they tried with Netflix.

Basically, websites and other services might be forced into paying an amount proportional to the traffic they generate. If they don't, they'd get cut off or slowed down. This would generate more revenue for the ISPs while deflecting consumer ire towards the content sites ("why is this site so slow? I'll go somewhere else" "why are these guys raising prices on me?"). This approach would effectively give ISPs a piece of the pie from paysites and ad sites alike. And it would most likely hurt smaller and personal sites the most.

Removing net neutrality has nothing to do with the "free market." That's a buzzword they use to conceal the fact that it's purely rent-seeking behavior they're engaging in. It's more like a form of feudalism than it is capitalism, especially in those parts of the U.S. where there is virtually no competition.

[luvzbig1s]

Yes it very well could Plus if you are a gamer you might as well forget it

[gaysian71]

Nothing will “stop porn”, but it WILL be more expensive to access it.

But its,already gotten more expensive. Just a few years ago you could get a Comcast 100mbps connection for $150.00 and a static up address for an additional 10 bucks. Now it's 200.00 for the same internet connection and 25 bucks for a static up address.

[Ts RedVeX]

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

[MacJae]

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

Removing "restrictions and regulations" doesn't necessarily lead to more competition. If you have a choice between two ISPs, one of which allows access to YouTube but not Netflix, and one that is the other way around, they aren't selling quite the same product.

Additionally, the U.S. market for ISPs is non-competitive across large areas of the country due to under-regulation. The major ISPs own the broadband infrastructure, building more is expensive (and redundant in many cases; having a dozen lines providing the same service to your house is a waste if you only need one), and since the market hasn't been regulated to provide for local loop unbundling in the same way it has in swathes of Europe and the UK (where there is effectively a much more competitive market due to proper government regulations), there effectively is little or no competition because the options are so limited.


This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

Because the companies that own the infrastructure have relatively little incentive to invest in infrastructure, when it's much easier for them to squeeze consumers and companies for money. Effective competition in this field requires effective regulation to enable it. As long as that's not the case, the U.S. (unlike Europe, where the EU has regulated for a more effective market) is effectively not even a free market, but a duopoly.

But regardless of the lack of competition, the conceptual problem with removal of net neutrality is that it effectively grants ISPs the power of censorship if they want to. To borrow the use of the "communist" hyperbole that gets thrown around, I don't think anyone here would like to live with censorship like they get in China or North Korea either, even if the censors are corporate. While that also touches on a debate about the power that information companies like Google and Facebook wield, there's no reason to add to the potential number of information hurdles people must face. That information should be equally free to consumers is the core of net neutrality. Removing it actually weakens the protection of freedom of speech. (That doesn't mean I think that this move alone will do much overall, but it could easily be part of a slippery slope.)

[Gillian]

Good post ... :iagree:

[giovanni_hotel]

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!


In what world is one ISP provider going to make less profit just to have more customers than its rival???
Whatever cable and internet service provider you use to access the internet, they're going to screw you for the almighty dollar.

Where most of us live there's only about 2 or 3 major ISP providers anyway. There is no competition, it's all been consolidated.

I bet you're the type of person who thinks toll booths are cool too.

[GroobySteven]

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

[smalltownguy]

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

and so does net neutrality will affect differently in uk & usa . bravo :party:

[Toadily]

This is just another thing that the "Trump experiment" will have to be reversed once the country sees the mistake, this will maybe open the eyes of the dumbest Trump supporters. He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters.
This has corruption written all over it, he emptied the swamp so he could fill it with his predators the others were not corrupt enough
He has proven once again he is the worst President ever.
1040575

[Ts RedVeX]

I know that in primary schools they usually teach 1-dimensional thinking in mathematics classes, but as soon as you go to a higher school you find out that there is also another another dimension, and they teach you about vectors. Then you go to a uni, an it turns out that you can have n-dimensional spaces and matrices..

Simply because you use Internet for Netflix and not Youtube, or vice versa, does not mean that there needs to be a law telling your ISP to enable both, so that your neighbour, who wants to use Internet from the same ISP as you for Youtube will also be happy. All you need is two different ISPs and you can use one, and your neighbour can use the other. This is why you are totally wrong saying that you do not want multiple lines connected to your house, for you may one day decide you want to go on Youtube too. Moreover, having separate lines for Netflix and Youtube, apart from making ISPs independent from eachother, means that you and your neighbour are not going to lag one-another's connections while using your services of choice. Of course, in a free market, rather sooner than later, a third, fourth and an "nth" ISP will emerge, which is going to allow streaming from both youtube and Netflix, which will force your and your neighbour's ISP to either adapt and enable both services, or close down all together. That is how free market works without any written laws, restrictions or "rights". Needless to say, if a new line is to be built in the ground, then it is definitely not going to be a copper wire, but an optic-fiber one. The speeds offered by that technology are incomparable to those offered by metal wires, and only for that reason people will probably chose the new ISPs as soon as their services are available, who are going to be connecting that technology to customers' home rather than only to a hub a couple of kilometres away, and then sell it by bullshit advertising it as "fiber". I hope you see that the problem of ISPs "lack of incentive to invest in infrastructure" disappears by itself at this point.

If you only have two ISPs in wherever you live, then it is most likely due to over-regulation rather than under regulation. If you read Stavros's original post, it says that this Federal Communications Commission are debating scrapping internet neutrality, not implementing it. This means that this internet neutrality is the reason why you have not a competitive market and only 2 ISPs to chose from, rather than what you suggest. Scrapping that communist law is key to making the market more free to ISPs and development of their services towards new, faster technologies.

As to the concept of letting ISPs "do what they want", I cannot see anything wrong with someone who establishes a company running it as he likes. That is what freedom is all about.

I agree that probably nobody here would like to be censored and that is exactly why I think scrapping this "internet neutrality" is a step forward to less censorship and not the other way around. Of course, it is only a drop in the ocean compared to how many other regulations need to be scrapped. And scrapping regulations is what Trump had promised before becoming president, so in this case, he is a man of his word, and that deserves respect if you take a look at what is happening in politics these days.

[buttslinger]

...... He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters......

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.

His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.
As I understand it this rule will just make it difficult and slow to get on google or gmail if your Provider has an interest with Microsoft, say. When they hook up cable to your house, it comes wide open. It costs them (you) money to block the good channels so you will pay them more. This is more of that.
I have most of my utilities automatically paid because they are so regulated, no way would they cheat me. But not Verizon, they will rob you blind if you don't keep an eye on them.

[filghy2]

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

And the only thing that has prevented us from having this utopia is a pesky rule that all traffic must be treated equally? Yeah right.

[luvzbig1s]

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.

His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.
As I understand it this rule will just make it difficult and slow to get on google or gmail if your Provider has an interest with Microsoft, say. When they hook up cable to your house, it comes wide open. It costs them (you) money to block the good channels so you will pay them more. This is more of that.
I have most of my utilities automatically paid because they are so regulated, no way would they cheat me. But not Verizon, they will rob you blind if you don't keep an eye on them.

And yet when the 2020 elections come around somehow everything he has done will be the Democrats fault and all of the ones that he has hurt will vote from him again, I find it funny as to how 'Christians" actually believe that Republicans are going to stop abortions. That will never happen simply because it is the major talking point that they have for that entire voting block. What are they going to do once that is gone. Tell the "Christians" that God wants them to make to rich richer??

[MrFanti]

It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...

[Ts RedVeX]

The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. - A. Fayser
It is not going to come back. The only way is forward and it is not democracy...

[luvzbig1s]

It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...

But we know where free market control ends up. More money in the pockets of business and less money in the pocket of the working class

[MrFanti]

But we know where free market control ends up. More money in the pockets of business and less money in the pocket of the working class
Depends....look at what happened to deregulation of the US Airlines......It opened up more business opportunities and jobs. You sank or floated depending upon how business savvy you were...

[Torris]

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.

His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.


This isn’t a personal attack, but...

Don’t kid yourself. Poverty and inequality expanded under Obama. I say that as a Stein supporter not a Trumper

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/during-obamas-presidency-wealth-inequality-has-increased-and-poverty-levels-are-higher/

Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.

Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight

Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.

[flabbybody]

can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest

[smalltownguy]

can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest

very true..indeed

[smalltownguy]

instead of net neutrality ..they should give out some extra benefit plans :party:

[Lester316]

The problem in my view with this issue is it gets thrown together with overall political beliefs for many people. Some people are praising Trump saying by pushing for this he is a man of his word others are pointing out they believe completely the opposite; but really rather than backing one political side overall just look at the issue on its own and anyone with a logical mind can see Steven's explanation of how things work makes the most sense.

As Steven much more eloquently put here in the UK we have some competition (it is actually hampered somewhat by one company being in control of most of the infrastructure repairs but we have a selection of providers to choose from in most areas regardless); currently European laws enforce neutrality and we also have access to varied and competitive pricing, speeds and data allowances. In the USA certain companies hold a monopoly over infrastructure and supply in major areas and the customer has no real choice between competing offerings of price, speed or data allowances but instead in many cases has to settle for what they can get with no real options to change supplier or negotiate on price. Currently quite clearly one of these is good and one is bad.

Ended neutrality in the USA under these conditions doesn't enable a more competitive market for the consumer it creates a more monopolised market for the supplier and in that circumstance all customers (regardless of in what way, for exactly what service or which websites you like to visit) will pay more. Don't be fooled into thinking ending neutrality is a progressive step towards a fairer market or access or whatever it isn't.

In simpler terms.. Image a world where everyone really likes muffins in fact they are addicted to them. Some people think that everyone should be allowed to bake muffins but some others think that if one person just happens to own all the ovens in their city then of course they should be the only person allowed to bake muffins; so we should change the law and let them charge whatever they want for muffins right? And if one person likes muffins more than another well they can make that person pay more for their muffins of course.. doesn't sound so bad really does it, it's progressive sort of and fair (I know just put up with my bad analogy)? Of course no one person is going to own all the ovens in a city anyhow, in fact I bet loads of people will invest in ovens because that's how free markets work.

OH... apparently not.. actually 2 people own all the ovens and have divided up where the ovens are really neatly so they don't get in each others' way and now muffins... well they cost a fucking fortune. And you know how some people can only eat stuff that is gluten free or sugar free or are allergic to other ingredients well you'll never believe this but because they want something extra or different their muffins cost even more. Didn't see that coming..

(for anyone who wants to point out "everyone owns an oven"; use your imagination - in muffin law world they don't they can't afford one as someone else bought them all. Much like in net-neutrality abolished world not everyone will be able to afford to get online either at all or fully. But hey in a country where some people think free at the point of service but tax payer funded state-provided health-care for seriously ill people is wrong nothing surprises me).

[buttslinger]

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money....[/CENTER]
Don’t kid yourself. Poverty and inequality expanded under Obama.
Yeah, in states with Republican Governors.
Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
I was really shocked when I first heard that Republicans didn't like being talked down to.
It's a debate!! Don't take it personally that Bush wrecked the economy of the entire world!!
Hannity does nothing but trash liberals. Like a child would.
Look at any Trump Rally.
How can you think anything but "white trash?"
Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight
Hillary lost in part because Conservative Media has targeted her ENEMY NUMBER ONE for twenty years.

Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
I disagree. It was the racists.
I hear where you're coming from, all my Mom's family live down South, and if I grew up and lived there I would probably agree 100% to everything you say. PRIDE can be a tough sin to swallow.

I confess I have no idea how net neutrality will affect my world or THE world. I'm pretty stupid. In fact I have a disability that limits the bloodflow to my brain.
But I do know that Trump is trying to undo everything Obama did not for Joe Sixpack, he's doing it for Daddy Warbucks.

Why don't you guys come down to the politics section?

[Torris]

Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?

Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

[MrFanti]

Quite a few Sanders supporters voted Trump instead of Hillary.
Democrats need to figure how to get those folks back too....


Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?

Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

[Stavros]

Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?
Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

Presumably in the same way that Democrats who voted for Reagan switched back when they voted for Bill Clinton. The Democrats need candidates that inspire, that give hope, that have coherent policy alternatives.

[Stavros]

can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest

There are a number of conflicting issues here.
The basic principle behind net neutrality, as I understand it, is that a consumer should be able to access web content equally regardless of the number of times a site is visited and the bandwidth needed to access it. For example, under net neutrality it makes no difference to the cost of the service provided by the ISP if Dave in Spokane reads the main newspapers every day but only reads his friend John Doe's blog once a month.

Here are some of the arguments:
1) Increased revenue after the end of net neutrality will be used to invest in the service.
What the ISPs opposed to net neutrality want is to charge more for popular websites that eat up bandwidth adding to the cost of the service, if that is actually the case. In this way, the commercial gain from the increased revenue will pay for the ongoing investment in the service, a standard argument across industry but not one that is always realised in fact. Increased profits may just go to the senior execs in bonus payments or the shareholders/stockholders. What would investment look like? Capital expenditure on the basic infrastructure is so high it is hard to see Comcast or Verizon spending a Billion $ to open new lines to consumers in rural areas of Washington and Oregon.

2) Ending Net Neutrality will improve competition between rival ISPs
As has been pointed out in posts above, ending net neutrality does not increase competition if that is defined as the consumer having more ISPs to choose from, as the reality for most Americans is that such competition does not exist, the market being dominated by only a few companies with consumers unable to switch if they don't like the service from one, because the alternative ISP has no feed in that area.

3) Ending Net Neutrality is about monetizing clicks not offering a better service
The aim behind the end of net neutrality is to make more money from the internet, it is as simple as that. As flabbybody puts it -shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
It is a clever question, but it assumes that there is a coherent and fair way of grading internet content and that the system's consumption of speed/bandwidth and related issues should be the measures used to determine price.
This may be a valid technological point, but is it morally a fair one?
I don't use up bandwidth to play internet games, but I may check the BBC website and online newspapers every hour when I am awake and the original point I was making was that if the ISP uses/develops the software to monitor web browsing to estimate the commercial gain, and notes how many times a day I visit HungAngels, the end of net neutrality could, in theory (if I lived in the USA), lead them to ask me to pay more to visit this site rather than others even though I am already paying more for internet access in the USA than I do in the UK.

In the end it would not in fact be about the speeds or bandwidth but the choices consumers make. And people asked to pay for every site they visit may choose not to, either because they resent being asked to pay for something that used to be free, or because they can only afford a limited number of websites. This in turn may hurt the smaller independent owners of sites rather than the TV streaming or music-streaming sites. With no constant revenue coming in to help fund the content, independent performers of the kind we know on HungAngels would shut down.

One final point -some consumers may be complaining about slow speeds when it is their ageing computer that is at fault not the ISP; but my conclusion is that in the absence of real competition among ISPs in the USA, net neutrality protects the consumer, and ending it does not guarantee a better service for them, merely higher profits for corporations.

[Ben in LA]

Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
Off-topic, but since many of those same “deplorables” are defending pedophiles such as Roy Moore and accused rapists such as trump himself, what SHOULD we call them?


Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight.
Oh and the rich conservatives are actually gonna help Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat with that “tax cut” and taking away their health insurance? How are those coal jobs coming? Who’s paying for that wall? Certainly not Mexico.


Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
White trash DID help elect trump. So did voter suppression.

Oh...and using liberal as an insult? My thesaurus suggest these synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, easy-going, laissez-faire.

Ok, I must be a liberal. At least I didn’t vote for a narcissistic, xenophobic, Nazi-supporting, pedophile-defending liar who whines when he doesn’t get his way. Never thought I’d see an orange snowflake.

And back on topic: that extra money the ISPs will be making from the increased costs passed on to the customer will NOT go into improving the existing infrastructure; it’ll most likely go straight into their pockets or an off-shore account. Free-market, baby.

[giovanni_hotel]

Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.

Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.

Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.

Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.

[giovanni_hotel]

It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...


Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.

[MrFanti]

Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.

How many layers should the rules be? Look all the rules in North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union....
Britain wasn't too happy with the EU either....And the USA wasn't too happy with Britain in about 1776 or so....

[Ben in LA]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168) it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

1040736

[smalltownguy]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168) it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

1040736

it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians

[Ben in LA]

it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians

The point is that killing net neutrality will insure what he was scared Obama would do could happen: silence one viewpoint so that the other can reach more individuals. Kinda like what Sinclair Broadcasting wants to do (look it up).

[Stavros]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168) it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.


There is a simple explanation Ben, -he never understood what Net Neutrality means, as is also argued here-

The tweet suggested that, as of November 2014, Trump did not know what “net neutrality” meant. The Fairness Doctrine, eliminated in 1987, was an FCC regulation that required television broadcasters to air multiple perspectives on controversial topics. The now-defunct doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality, which requires internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally, and does not regulate a website’s content, conservative or otherwise.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-transition-team-wants-to-end-net-neutrality

[Ts RedVeX]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

[smalltownguy]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

and what made you think that they will not block certain sites ?

[Lester316]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

The point for the people in the states is that there is no competitive free market it is as simple as that. Once you remove any regulation from a market that is almost 100% monopolised to start with those companies are just given an even firmer grip on what they have control of; they will be able to increase costs and use all sorts of justifications for it (including collaboration to keep prices static once they have increased costs to make sure in the places where supplier switching is an option it just doesn't happen). Meanwhile the new competitors that could have rivalled them are so far behind in terms of infrastructure investment that it will be an age before they can catch up.

Take the current UK household energy supply market as a comparison. Currently there are a "big 6" soon to be 5 it seems that dominate the market; regulation is relatively weak (shockingly 4 of these companies are owned by European firms and SSE may soon merge with one of those) prices fluctuate a little but the general trend is that consumers in the UK pay a hell of a lot more for their energy than consumers in the USA for example. For years there have been rumblings and discussions that price-fixing and collusion exist between these companies and they have all been also been strongly opposed to the changes introduced (easier supplier switching for example) and the possibility of increased government legislation that could set a price caps or at least protect the consumer from unjustified price rises. I don't know anyone here who is strongly behind the idea of removing laws that would make these companies stronger that would simply be insane.

Yes as you have said "less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation" but sometimes we need that bureaucracy (correctly focused of course) to stop huge corporations ripping us off. The little bit of tax we all might pay could actually save us a hell of a lot more in the long run particularily when you include products that have become almost 100% necessary for people to earn a living or survive. Much like electricity which most normal businesses need in order to operate competitively priced internet access has become a must have for many businesses over the last few years; they simply wouldn't be able to trade were they priced out it by glaringly crazy costs from market dominating providers. I've read some of your posts where you compare people's views to communist if they oppose the end of neutrality; I'm sorry but you are clearly misguided on the issue and are overstating peoples' desire for fair and healthy competition as communist. It's not a perfect comparison but in USA where reduced legislation would mean 1 or 2 companies could dominate and control the supply of something a consumer needed that sounds a hell of a lot more like a totalitarian (parallels with communism) existence than a free market to me.

[buttslinger]

Seems like these threads always get down to US v. THEM, maybe if the Spanish Catholics had landed on Plymouth Rock everything would be different, our nature is our nature.
My 8th grade teacher explained pure capitalism as:
"If I give everyone in class a gas station in September, by next June one kid will own all the gas stations"
Before Henry Fonda started the Unions, nobody owned a house, because there was no such thing as job security.
It does all come down to where you draw the line, and I think Gerrymandering is criminal.
I also blame Conservative Media for all this shit. I saw Judge Janine blasting Democrats for sexual misconduct the other night, Fox News is the definition of sexual misconduct, fuckin Roger Ailes.
It really doesn't matter what Net Neutrality says, if it's even vaguely legal, some businessman is going to middleman himself in-between you and your internet and become a billionaire.
Same with the new tax code.......Tax break for the middle class?...gimme a break.
It's all up to Mueller and his team of Untouchables now-
TRUTH TO POWER!!!
Or, as Jimi Hendrix said
"the power of love trumps the love of power"
Generally I think if you can talk someone into something you can talk them out of it, but I swear, Conservative Media has brainwashed so many minds over so long a period via pure propaganda, as was said a few posts back, these people will continue to vote against their own interests time after time.
Eisenhower had to march the German Civilians through the Concentration Camps after WWII because he believed they would say it never happened if he didn't.
How can anyone on HUNG ANGELS champion the Conservative Media???

FUCK TRUMP!!!!!

[MacJae]

Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed.

The purpose of the 'useless law' (actually, a regulation) is to ensure what you're saying there. Without that rule in place, there's nothing requiring the ISPs to do that. The reason people think they will start slowing or even blocking sites is the same reason that the rule was put in place to begin with; it was because the ISPs *did* do things like block sites in order to shake them down for money, and the rule was instated to make sure they did not, so that everyone's data would be treated equally.

http://adage.com/article/media/comcast-draws-customer-ire-putting-netflix-addicts-a-meter/302395/

Now that the rule is being removed, they'll probably be back to doing it. I think they are also more likely to shake down companies selling services over the internet than their customers, because it's less visible and they can shift the blame for their poor service over to those companies.

So, no, from a consumer perspective, the law is not 'useless' by any stretch. It also doesn't really require any additional government 'bureaucracy' or 'red tape' to maintain. If they are found to be in violation, the affected parties are likely to report it.

On the other hand, the companies would be likely require additional corporate bureaucracy in order to manage their efforts at providing customers a worse service so that they can earn more money. In other words: Someone would get jobs to make things worse for everyone but the ISPs.


That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.

But we aren't even talking about a competitive free market. We're talking about the United States, which does not have a competitive free market in ISP services, and is unlikely to get that in any near future. They are acting like they do because they are engaging in rent-seeking feudal behavior, not in free market capitalist competition. The U.S. needs to do what the EU has done to create more competition.

The present net neutrality framework hasn't stifled competition, innovation or investment. It was put in place a couple of years ago because of the way the ISPs were using their local monopolies. The market was just as shitty before that, and the rule was designed to prevent the ISPs from abusing their market dominance.

As for why there isn't competition and it isn't a free market, imagine the following example: A 'town' with four households and two ISPs. Each ISP has two customers. Each ISP has wires going to two houses. If they want to try to take the other ISP's customers, they must first put in place new cables to each house. That's expensive. And if one of them start doing it, the other one can do so too. The end result will either be (1) that one drives the other out of business, becoming a monopoly; or, more likely (2) that customers cross over, but both end up with two, and all they've achieved is spending a lot on putting in place new cables and probably lowering their prices, causing a double loss.

Now imagine that the whole of the U.S. is that town of four, dominated by two giant ISPs. They have no interest in competing too hard with each other. And it's a huge market which is far too expensive for any outside entity to compete in, apart from possibly on a local scale.

In general, the purpose of net neutrality is to protect consumers and to maintain the internet as being open to people in general. Net neutrality is the opposite of what they're doing in China and other repressive regimes where the internet is being heavily censored. The removal of net neutrality as will take place in the U.S. will actually enable corporations to censor or manipulate the internet. First and foremost to make more money, not for political ends, though it would theoretically be possible for them to do so and they might even do it if it makes them more money. ('Nope, the only news site you can get to with this ISP is Breitbart/Huffington Post.')

[Torris]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168) it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.

1040736

I believe Trump has dementia. Not to excuse his behavior. Supposedly he spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling that they won’t accept him as legit

[JerzeyBtm]

Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.

[Torris]

Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.

Could this lead to non-profit ISP’s?

If Verizon and Comcast engage in throttling would that open up opportunities for an ISP that offers a Pre-2018 era net experience?

[skirtrustler]

... he [Trump] spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling ...

The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.

————

Back on thread. Remember the internet is far from neutral already, and neither it is a single homogenous network. The original ARPA net design (which I remember ...) would simply not handle the traffic today, and thus the emergence of ‘border gateways’ and internet exchange points that wormhole between parts of the internet. These are concentrated around the major cities. In EU it is London, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Dublin to a lesser extent. similarly the US.

It is these IXP or wormholes, and the routes they advertise that underpin the fast ‘super highway’ that we have today,and why the tube sites actually work fast enough. Although these exchanges have to be neutral, they are NOT neutral in what infrastructure they connect. Rather like building a three lane motorway to one shopping centre (Facebook, google, AWS, Azure etc) or distribution park (e.g. Akamai) and leaving a dirt track to another: the road itself is neutral, but the road builders are not. Which is why facebook and google etc are building their own infrastructure. This is how telcos can offer ‘free Netflix’ or other ‘go binge’ type deals.

Question is if anyone has deep enough pockets to make a real difference?

[luvzbig1s]

Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.

Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.

Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.

Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.

Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed

[giovanni_hotel]

Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed

Hillary won the popular vote AMONG THOSE WHO DECIDED TO VOTE by 3 million.

Is that specific enough for you??

Everyone knows in the USA a major percentage of eligible voters simply choose not to vote.

If 90+% of all Americans voted in general elections, no Republican would ever get elected POTUS.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=skirtrustler;1804284]The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.
/QUOTE]

The allegation is that it was the Prostitutes in the hotel room who pissed on the bed Obama had slept in.
Rest of your post an interesting angle to the debate.

[Ts RedVeX]

The fact that it is in their interest to provide you with the best "internet experience" which includes access to any site you want to see. Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1804340]

Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.
--Where do you stand on child pornography, or websites dedicated to using violence to overthrow a government and giving zealots instructions/guidance on the best way to kill lots of people?

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.
--What happens when the market fails, or when providers so monopolise the market consumers have no choice and no protection from any malpractice by those providers?

[Ts RedVeX]

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites with content of that type just like content to any other website. If you are a paedophile or an eager firebrand then you may indeed be in favour of keeping net neutrality in power.

There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services. As soon as there appears a group of people who require something else, emerge new companies who meet that group's needs. Free market does not fail consumers - ever. In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

[Jimmyhung1]

I suppose it's all a matter of balance between personal freedom and protecting the innocent. Have to hope the people enforcing it have the same ideology and don't abuse it.

[skirtrustler]

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites ... just like content to any other website.


This is indeed true, the ISP may be neutral but if they Connect to IXP that are connected better to content provider X than content provider Y then the result is that users will get a better experience of X than Y.

This also provides the opportunity for the ISP to offer traffic to X at a discount to Y. This is how it works today. It is just that some traffic is better ‘connected’: thus users are getting some services either free or with higher performance.

Issue is that the IXP are expensive to set up and run, and under current rules have little flexibility in how they recover their costs for the bulk (streaming video) traffic. The interconnection of IXP is also a mess. One aspect of the net neutrality discussion is to enable these IXP to recover their costs and structure their interconnect proportional to the traffic that is driving their capacity: I.e. free streaming video will suffer, while bulk traffic paying an interconnect exchange fee will get priority.

What this is likely to mean is that paid for video content will get priority over ‘free content’, and thus we can expect the advertising driven free porn site xhamster / pornhub model to be challenged or have to forego 4K video quality, while ‘free Netflix 4K bandwidth’ type models to rise. I doubt that any of us will notice anything other than more free video bundles.

[skirtrustler]

As an addendum .. a major problem is that the protocol that supports all of this interconnection at the technical core of the internet and this discussion, whereby people advertise ‘routes’, was written on the back of three paper napkins in a restaurant.

If you are bored and in geek mode then Google on ‘BGP’ .. aka the ‘three napkins protocol’. Then write a paper to explain how you would re-engineer internet backbone route advertising to deal with different traffic priorities. ...
... then explain in 200 words to the politicians.

[Tapatio]

net neutrality is internet communism

This is a very bad take and shows a complete lack of understanding re: Net Neutrality and also communism.

[Tapatio]

Free market does not fail consumers - ever.

lmao

[Lester316]

There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services.[...] Free market does not fail consumers - ever. [...] In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

If you can't see that such logic doesn't apply in every situation you will never get it. With the current political climate in the USA issues such as ending neutrality are actually motivated by a group of politicians who want to increase the control that certain large corporations have over things such as access to varied media outlets and other services. We are witnessing the increasing monopolisation of services the public use by using the decreased regulation to tailor the service to the desires of the supplier not the consumer - the free market will not exist in the way it should. It is a move closer to fascist existence in a country where personal freedom has been the backbone of what the country was built upon. Free markets fail consumers utterly all the time if those with enough money are allowed dominate owing to a lack of regulation.

You have some kind of unrealistic fairy-tale ideal of how free markets and capitalism should work in your head where the regulations and laws that prevent exactly the things you are clearly opposed to (fascist/communist ideologies becoming more powerful) aren't required. The real world doesn't work that way. Decades ago writers were coming up with fictions that showed the possible dystopian futures where mega-corporations who controlled things like media access existed (think The Running Man as an example); we're getting closer to that type of fantasy becoming a reality with each little step of a law or regulation being removed if the world were to work following your unfettered and unchecked idea of how free markets should work.

[Ts RedVeX]

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

[Torris]

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

Or as we Post-Progressive #Demexit Berniebros might say - socialize the risk. Privatize the profit

Obama’s No Bankster Left Behind is proof of your post Ts RedVex

[Stavros]

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites with content of that type just like content to any other website. If you are a paedophile or an eager firebrand then you may indeed be in favour of keeping net neutrality in power.
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services. As soon as there appears a group of people who require something else, emerge new companies who meet that group's needs. Free market does not fail consumers - ever. In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

You have dodged the issue I raised, which is not that regulation is halting competition, but that it is being used to prevent criminal activity, and that regulations that attempt to prevent the broadcast of child pornography, that attempt to prevent the sale of illegal drugs and weapons, that are used by terrorists to engage in and encourage acts of mass murder, were in place before the Net Neutrality provision, exist now, and will continue to exist if Net Neutrality is discarded.
You have dodged it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that the State may have good cause to regulate the internet with regard to the issue noted above. In the same way you claim if free markets fail it is because they do not exist, which makes one wonder why you are defending what you claim to be a free market proposition when on your own evidence as well as evidence from the USA there is no free market in internet provision, but a regulated market, or for that matter, a rigged market.

You say there is nothing wrong with monopolies and that they will cease to exist when alternative suppliers enter the market, yet the historical evidence suggests the opposite is the case. It was precisely because Rockefeller's 'Octopus' used its tentacles to grab most of the USA's oil and gas resources for itself that anti-trust legislation broke up the Standard Oil empire in 1911; and the Bell Telephone empire was broken up in 1982 having dominated the US market for most of the 20th century. You need to explain how it was that it was left to government to create the conditions for competition in the petroleum and telecommunications markets in the US, because it is clear that the markets themselves failed to do it. Why did the USA at the height of its powers as a capitalist project pass the 'Sherman Act'? Was it because John Sherman and Benjamin Harrison were Communists?

[Lester316]

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

I'm beginning to think that you aren't getting involved in a debate but are simply taking a delight in being contrary; you've contradicted your own arguments or evaded questions from Stavros specifically on so many points that either you have no grasp of what the reality is or you are just arguing for arguing's sake and don't really care what you say.

[Torris]

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

[Ts RedVeX]

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.

Monopolies only exist if governments enable their existence.

As to free markets, here is a nice vid explaining pretty much what I have been trying to explain on here to you - also why democracy is one of the worst systems you can have in a country. One of the "two winos who tell a professor how to bring his children up, because there are more of them" also makes an appearance at one point xD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AIew3RN4R4&t=2s

[GroobySteven]

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.


1041136

[GroobySteven]

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?


Comcast do this a lot. They slow down or limit the amount of bandwidth on different types of users or from different places. So when our servers were all in Amsterdam, some users on Comcast (and other providers) would get worse speeds to our content than other users, despite being on the same backbones coming across the Atlantic. They won't admit they do this - but they do.
We've since created hubs in Dallas and Miami to counteract this, so that pretty much everyone in N.America gets similar/good speeds.

[skirtrustler]

They slow down or limit the amount of bandwidth on different types of users or from different places.

Throttling. There are three variants of throttling. (1) the ISP don’t buy enough transit bandwidth, e.g across the pond, so the traffic has to compete, (2) the ISP or transit provider stop the traffic negotiating its ‘window size’ (how much in flight unacknowledged traffic is allowed), which favours local services; and (3) the ISP or transit provider explicitly act in a non-neutral way by prioritising some traffic over others.

On the servers I run we have seen both 1 and 2, and as GroobySteven says you have to move your servers nearer the user (deals with (2)) or onto a high capacity route via well connected IXP .. AZURE / AWS / Softlayer etc, or use a CDN such as Akamai. Deals with (1).

Example: I can see someone with AT&T in Texas getting a crap speed because of the route and transit engineering used to get to very well connected servers in London docklands, while someone in Seattle is running at 10Mbit/s at the same time. Nothing explicitly sinister, just US ISP crap engineering.

The net neutrality debate is all about (3) : the deliberate prioritisation or choking of some traffic.

[giovanni_hotel]

The fact that it is in their interest to provide you with the best "internet experience" which includes access to any site you want to see. Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol

[Tapatio]

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

I know a chick who’s into that.

[Ts RedVeX]

monopolies promote competition in a free market lol you are so dumb :d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruRyoo2xiE

[filghy2]

I'm beginning to think that you aren't getting involved in a debate but are simply taking a delight in being contrary; you've contradicted your own arguments or evaded questions from Stavros specifically on so many points that either you have no grasp of what the reality is or you are just arguing for arguing's sake and don't really care what you say.

No, RedVex is a true zealot with a fixation on one idea. As with all zealots, argument is futile. If you want to see where this thread is headed, just check out these ones. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?48732-Climate-change-could-mean-the-extinction-of-our-species/page147
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?73366-The-FAST-Approaching-Gun-Ban/page178

[GroobySteven]

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol

Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

[MrFanti]

Monopolies started off as small businesses & grew through savvy business minded people.
Look at what Grooby started out as and look at it now....

[davejones65]

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

yea trump sucks capt obvious but fuck obama voters and bush, clinton and bush voters for all the shitty years they had too.

[MrFanti]

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.

Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

[giovanni_hotel]

Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

Where I live, brick and mortar retailers are closing it seems almost every month, all because of the dominance of Amazon online in the retail market, as well as Walmart.

Secondary markets are not the same as competitive businesses arising to challenge the dominant companies in a specific market.

I can't believe there's actually a discussion right now about the impact of monopolies on the overall economy.

Amazon and Walmart both control pricing in retail and I've yet to see anyone able to challenge their market share.

Small companies grow into monopolies more often than not from breaking some form of antitrust law, either through mergers with their competition or price fixing.

No one becomes a monopoly because they 'accidentally' worked harder.

[MrFanti]

Where I live, brick and mortar retailers are closing it seems almost every month, all because of the dominance of Amazon online in the retail market, as well as Walmart.



Do you stick to your principles and make the extra effort to support your local brick n' mortar stores or no?

I do.
I've spent thousands of dollars in photography equipment at my local brick n' mortar store instead of buying from the giants of B&H or Adorama...

[MrFanti]

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.

Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

Addendum: These are the Sanders supporters that the next Democrat candidate must figure out how to win over.
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarandon-hillary-clinton-was-very-dangerous-and-her-fans-still-troll-me-722648


SUSAN SARANDON: HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE BEEN A 'VERY DANGEROUS' PRESIDENT

[smalltownguy]

Addendum: These are the Sanders supporters that the next Democrat candidate must figure out how to win over.
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarandon-hillary-clinton-was-very-dangerous-and-her-fans-still-troll-me-722648

win over her ass.....:banana:

[smalltownguy]

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol


Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

monopolies by nature still rules.....competition:party:

[giovanni_hotel]

win over her ass.....:banana:

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.

That's delusional/pathological thinking.

It's easy to say let the whole thing burn down when you personally aren't in the path of the inferno.

[MrFanti]

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.

That's delusional/pathological thinking.

It's easy to say let the whole thing burn down when you personally aren't in the path of the inferno.

Hillary's problem was that she ignored the middle class. Both BIDEN and SANDERS recognized this.
Biden (who I like more than Hillary) didn't run but IMHO, would have beat Trump hand down and Sanders who could have won the primaries were it not for the DNC slanting the primaries in favor of Hillary.

If Biden had run, (which I emphasize again would have slam dunked Trump), he wouldn't have got past the primaries either due to the DNC slanting the primaries in favor of Hillary.

Bottom Line: If the DNC hadn't been "owned" by Clinton, then Biden would have probably ran and defeated Trump and/or Sanders would have defeated Hillary and very well Trump.

[MrFanti]

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.



And IMHO, the USA would be better off with Biden over Hillary.

[Stavros]

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.
Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.
The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

There is a strong argument that complacency in the Democrat Party weakened their overall campaign, but it doesn't explain how Sanders, who does not sit as a Democrat in Congress, was allowed on to the ticket in the first place. You have a strange situation in the USA where someone who is not a member of a party can nevertheless run for its top job. Sanders was never going to be nominated, he was there to undermine Hillary Clinton.

Incredibly in the circumstances, you allow no influence at all on voters of the hundreds of thousands of negative Clinton implants in social media -most of it 'fake news'- that originated from the bot factory in Russia and the extent to which the Republican candidate received money and 'assistance' from the Russians in violation of the law. The election was won small margins in a few states that tipped the balance in the Electoral College. The Republican candidate twice in one day publicly called on Wikileaks and the Russians to help his campaign- when did you last hear a Presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign beg for help from foreign governments?

[Stavros]

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.
Monopolies only exist if governments enable their existence.
As to free markets, here is a nice vid explaining pretty much what I have been trying to explain on here to you - also why democracy is one of the worst systems you can have in a country. One of the "two winos who tell a professor how to bring his children up, because there are more of them" also makes an appearance at one point xD


You are against regulation on principle which is why you cannot bring yourself to support the regulation of the internet, this is not a new argument in libertarian thought although even they used to -perhaps still do- argue that everything should be allowed as long as it does not cause harm to others. And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down and why most that exist do so in the 'dark web' where the people who visit them are hard core supporters least likely to inform law enforcement. So your justification is purely ideological, and bears no relation to facts and real situations.

Again, I referred you to two specific and well-known cases of the State intervening to end monopolies that the market did not end, yet you continue to insist monopolies do not emerge from those same markets in spite of the evidence that it does in just about every economics text book that has been published since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and maybe before that..

Your opposition to democracy as usual comes with no coherent reason, you link a tedious video nearly two hours long of a notorious 'entrepreneur' Peter Schiff which tells us nothing about your position. There is plenty of material out there on those opposed to democracy because they believe voters are not sufficiently well-informed about what it is that they are voting for, but you ignore the other argument which in the USA has become part of the voter suppression movement in certain states which is designed to preserve democracy for White people for whom 'God, Family and Country' are their core beliefs, the Bible rather than the Constitution their political rule book. Voter Suppression is designed to shut out the Blacks, the Latinos and the Asians, it is a White Supremacist cause, but unlike your vague position, does not mind if the voters are semi-literate and worship the memorial statues and the flag of anti-American Confederate Terrorists.

[MrFanti]

There is a strong argument that complacency in the Democrat Party weakened their overall campaign, but it doesn't explain how Sanders, who does not sit as a Democrat in Congress, was allowed on to the ticket in the first place.

I know this doesn't quite answer your question but here's a quick and dirty as to what happened on both sides.

Trump and Sanders rose quickly because both Republicans and Democrats were getting tired of their "career politicians" doing nothing. Folks also seem to forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and Independent.

So "the people" basically sided with anti-establishment individuals - hence the rise of both Trump and Sanders respectively.

What also swayed the vote in favor of Trump was the middle class independents.
Both Sanders and Trump catered to them whereas Hillary ignored them. Add to that the Sanders segment (middle class) that didn't like Hillary nor how the DNC treated Sanders and you have the recipe for the election of Trump.

My personal opinion is that my favorite Joe Biden, had he ran, would have smashed Trump - but.....Hillary's DNC primaries machine would have smashed Biden.....

[Stavros]

MrFanti I agree with some of your post, but the public alienation from the Washington machine is not new. Both Carter and Reagan ran as Presidents who were not part of the system that produced Vietnam and Watergate, and may have won their support because the deep, structural issues that have strangled middle class income growth have been developing since the end of 'traditional manufacture' in the 1960s, but appear to be worse now than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
There was a tremendous degree of optimism when Clinton was elected with the 'peace dividend' of the end of Cold War confrontation in his pocket, and he also presided over or played a role in peace treaties in the Middle East, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Machine politics can sometimes produce positive results, even if Clinton's reckless behaviour is now returning to haunt him. That most voters supported Hillary Clinton thus suggests that the divide between people who trust and do not trust Washington has grown, but has not delivered a knock-out blow to traditional politics as, apart from the loud-mouth in the Oval Office, it is business as usual with the Republican Party committed to reversing all of Obama's policies and tax cutting, and de-regulating wherever they can.

You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.

None of which is relevant to the thread, as tends to happen.

[Ts RedVeX]

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

[giovanni_hotel]

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.


Karl Marks????

You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.

This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh

Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.

[Ts RedVeX]

nope :)

[Lester316]

Karl Marks????

You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.

This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh

Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.

To be honest I think Stavros and yourself might as well give up arguing with RedVex; she is clearly just arguing to antagonise, using buzzwords and phrases that will provoke reactions and constantly shifts parts of her argument to suit winding people up basically - hence why I'm not bothering any more. Well either that or she is utterly deluded and actually believes some of that drivel about communism and not regulating economies because allowing monopolies to do whatever they like would be best.

Either way (and I had to learn my lesson with this during this thread) if we choose to keep arguing with a moron - regardless of the fact no rational argument will ever change their mind - we are simply on the train to moronville to join them.

[Ts RedVeX]

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333

Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.

[buttslinger]

Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.
Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?
She and a handful of Senators have forgotten more about how Washington works than Trump ever will. That's what you want. Making Obama's changes rock solid.
She would have fed the middle class like no other candidate alive today.
The fact that the Republicans and Russians despise her so much is proof enough for me.
I very much fear that this twenty trillion dollar National Debt might doom us all no matter what, unless some miracle happens.
And I don't think Mike Pence is that miracle.
Oh well, sadder words were never penned, what could have been. Alas and Alack.
We're fucked now. Net Neutrality is going to be the least of our worries.


https://preview.ibb.co/n7s2k6/00.jpg (https://ibb.co/hU5Nk6)
gif upload 20mb (https://imgbb.com/)

[Lester316]

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333

Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.

As stated I'm done with arguing with you. If your idea of how things should work ever comes to pass then good luck to you.

[MrFanti]

You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.
.

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

[buttslinger]

.....As stated I'm done with arguing with you.....

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

[Lester316]

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

Or that 10 people can have different opinions. Sometimes it's easier to say what you mean succinctly rather than using fortune cookie vernacular...

[Torris]

Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.



Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?


https://preview.ibb.co/n7s2k6/00.jpg (https://ibb.co/hU5Nk6)
gif upload 20mb (https://imgbb.com/)

You should read Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal. It explains 2016 perfectly

[Stavros]

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

[MrFanti]

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

Okay.
The Obama administration while still in office was notified of Russian activity - but did nothing.

Not sure what you're insinuating but I'm not a Republican...

[Stavros]

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go:
Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.


The point being that by isolating these websites from the open internet, it was easier for law enforcement to infiltrate them and if you read your own link it states quite clearly-

However, child abuse investigators, including a team from Ceop, had already infiltrated the network and were posing as paedophiles to gather intelligence.

So when you write, Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat

-I refer you back to the evidence -law enforcement, infiltrating the website, gathered information on its members, and sent it to police forces around the world. It really is quite easy to understand is does not need to be smeared with juvenile insults.

[blackchubby38]

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

[Stavros]

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

It is always the case that people who believe there are too many people in the world never include themselves in the figures, just as people who dismiss voters as morons never define themselves as a moron when they vote.

If indeed you have learned anything about the career of John D. Rockefeller, or Cornelius Vanderbilt, or Andrew Carnegie and John Pierpoint Morgan, then you will have learned something about the way in which capitalism developed in the USA from the end of the Civil War to the onset of global war in 1914.
But I doubt it, as you do not read to learn, it seems, but to reinforce your interpretation of the world in which anyone who does not abide by your definition of free markets is by definition a communist. In this way you dismiss the evidence that unregulated capitalism creates monopolies, and having stated in an earlier post it was caused by the state now it seems monopoly capitalism is the fault of communism, a remark so ignorant I am surprised you even thought of it But by one of those amusing tricks that unmasks the inner harlequin, you end up supporting one of Karl Marx's weakest arguments -namely, that as feudalism gave way to capitalism, so capitalism will give way to communism, give or take a class struggle or two, or three in this triunal world. Marx saw it as an iron law of history, and you seem to agree. Maybe growing up in Poland in the 1980s has had a more profound impact on your view of the world than you realise.

And, as usual, the core argument of the thread has been diverted into something else.

[MrFanti]

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

That's what I've saying to him for the last 7 or so posting of mine....

[Stavros]

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

Is there a single reason? Maybe the answer lies in a mixture of causes of which the Russian is one, but MrFanti does not even refer to them.

If there is any relevance of the above to the thread in question, it may lie in the long-standing anxieties that governments have with the open internet. They don't like it, because the horizontal spread of free speech is that much harder to control. With ISPs in possession of the software that can monitor individual browsing habits and emails, and with so many people using so few ISPs, the fall-out from the Russia investigations in the US Elections of 2016 and the way in which social media was attacked by Bots, implies that in the future legislators may seek the means to exert more political control over web content. Just as I wondered out loud, not knowing the answer, if the end of Net Neutrality threatened free access to Hung Angels, so I wonder if the end of Net Neutrality could mark the end of web neutrality in general. Of all the administrations the USA has had in recent years, the current one presents the greatest challenge to -it may even be a threat- to the validity of the Constitution as the source of law. Time is running out for freedom in the USA as the Christian Evangelists and Confederate Terrorists circle Washington. Cue the music, the flags, the drums.

[buttslinger]

You should read Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal. It explains 2016 perfectly
Thanks Torris, I've never heard of it, but I'll give it a look.

[Lester316]

As a Brit and having experienced the Brexit vote situation I would suggest that when it comes to the influence on voting from outside entities (such as Russia in the case of the American election) I think we need to be careful not to overstate the influence of fake headlines and such.

Brexit is a good example. In my opinion most people who I knew that turned out to vote had made their mind up well in advance of voting. Those that I knew who chose remain often stated they felt the country was stronger as part of the EU, felt we needed and still need an influx of foreign labour to keep certain industries and public services afloat and were often generally in a reasonable place in life (ie: in stable employment, benefiting from further education and/or financially secure and able to go on things like holidays abroad on a regular basis). Those I knew that chose Brexit often felt less European and more British; wanted the country to govern itself; perhaps felt jobs were hard to come by for friends, family and children and were in some cases struggling themselves (in debt, sometimes quite working class or felt that they were and were lucky if they were in a place to afford any disposable income like spending).

The one thing most of them had in common is that they weren't being swayed by posts on social media (real or fake) or other crazy claims by either political group such as "if we leave the future is so uncertain" or "if we stay the country will have less money to spend on health care" for example. Those that didn't bother to vote at all generally tending to be suffering from apathy trusting the views of no politicians at all on either side and quite simply believing that in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't really make a difference.

Post-vote and the Remain camp constantly shouts out that the people were fooled, duped and sold a lie whilst the Brexit camp shouts it's all taking too long and that those trying to cling to a hope of a second vote are undemocratic. Honestly I think it's done now and regardless of how long it takes (ages no doubt because bureaucracy always does and this is about as big an example as it gets) and all in all people got what they asked for; they asked for a vote, there was a vote and if people think lies spread by Russians on social media really made a difference they are deluded. After all if we believe the stories then Russia was pro-Brexit but we know that the trend of social media users (in the UK of course) is to be in the younger voting demographic which was also polled to be most likely to vote remain.

My point in all of this is that social media fake news doesn't win elections; it may influence the vote in some small way but it is real life that dictates people's decisions. The Brexit vote really came down to case of the haves vs the have-not's I believe; those that wanted something to change because they felt life couldn't get much worse outnumbered those that were quite happy with the status-quo. But that is hardly a shock. Apply similar logic to Trump being voted in and the question really is what was most important to the people that voted for him and not Hilary; I doubt it was fake media posts made by Russians, instead most likely it was something much more personal. For those less well off maybe they felt excluded from improvements made in recent years, are from middle America and scared as the country becomes more liberal and accepting of other ethnic backgrounds, sexual persuasions and genders or were so poor they felt simply something else might be better. For those that are financially better off that voted Trump most likely they were voting for a republican regardless. And for some others perhaps they were like many in the UK who had become anti-politic and just wanted someone who didn't represent what they had seen for years and years (in this case a Clinton).

Regardless it was all most likely because of something much more personal than anything the Russian's cooked up and spread through media or social media.

(I know this was off topic; point that out if you like but I think the interference by Russians issue gets overstated far too much and wanted to air my views).

[skirtrustler]

Getting back on topic... LOL


throttling: the act of strangling by restricting airflow through the windpipe

Will the last surviving member please turn out the lights.

[Stavros]

As a Brit and having experienced the Brexit vote situation I would suggest that when it comes to the influence on voting from outside entities (such as Russia in the case of the American election) I think we need to be careful not to overstate the influence of fake headlines and such.
My point in all of this is that social media fake news doesn't win elections; it may influence the vote in some small way but it is real life that dictates people's decisions. Apply similar logic to Trump being voted in and the question really is what was most important to the people that voted for him and not Hilary; I doubt it was fake media posts made by Russians, instead most likely it was something much more personal.
Regardless it was all most likely because of something much more personal than anything the Russian's cooked up and spread through media or social media.
(I know this was off topic; point that out if you like but I think the interference by Russians issue gets overstated far too much and wanted to air my views).

I do agree with you on these points. I don't use social media (other than this forum) and so have no personal experience of Facebook and things like that, and I am speculating on the actual impact on social media the Russians might have had as well as the real or assumed damage caused by the FBI re-opening investigations into the email server. The margins of victory were very small in some states, that is confirmed. Nevertheless, the additional issue may not be the result of the election, but the allegation that the Russians were directly or indirectly involved in the Republican campaign through the movement of money from Russia to the US, through Russian-sourced anti-Clinton 'news stories', the Wikileaks publications and so on.

[Stavros]

Getting back on topic... LOL
Will the last surviving member please turn out the lights.

Will the end of Net Neutrality usher in a dark new world?

[smalltownguy]

Will the end of Net Neutrality usher in a dark new world?

hell yeah ..we will !!!!!!

[Ts RedVeX]

The two paragraphs read:

The members of the network went into a private channel, boylover.net, and then used its secret systems to share films and images of abused children, said Rob Wainwright, director of European police agency Europol.
However, child abuse investigators, including a team from Ceop, had already infiltrated the network and were posing as paedophiles to gather intelligence


Which means the investigators (...) infiltrated (...) before Europol's director said (...)

Stavros once again did not und3rstand what he had read xd

Oh and communim is growing in America and Europe. So Marx's weakest argument is proven.

[buttslinger]

....Stavros once again did not und3rstand what he had read xd
Oh and communim is growing in America and Europe. So Marx's weakest argument is proven.

Nobody truly understands what another writes,
Communim is not what should happen, it's what will happen, according to Marx.
The Marshall plan went over to Japan after WWII and taught the Japanese how to run a business, The Japanese listened, while at home, we didn't. Too many bosses.
Bezos Buffet and Gates now are worth as much as the bottom 50% of the US.
It should be up to the Government to "throttle" the laws to break up the Monopolies. THAT would stimulate the economy.
With the exception of healthcare, because nobody gets turned away from the ER.
The USA isn't rich because it's smart, it's rich because we bombed all our competition to Hell in WWII.
Selling ice to Eskimos might be genius for a door to door salesman, but when Trump chooses sides in Mgmt/Employee arbitration, the whole world is about to go to hell*
*2008

[buttslinger]

Nobody truly understands what another writes, ..... the whole world is about to go to hell*
*2008

Scheesh, even for me that post was a snake eating it's tail.
I swear I would not be surprised if Trump and Tillerson are getting direct orders from Moscow.

[filghy2]

I think we can make it official - this thread has lost the plot completely.

Don't keep feeding the pests by responding to them guys. It only encourages them to keep coming back.

[Ts RedVeX]

So you say the same government who should not be trusted because it has made possible by its idiotic regulations the very existence of so many monopolies, is now supposed to be trusted to make them disappear with more idiotic regulations... :dead:
That is insanity. You really are a deluded bunch, to say the least...

[Ben in LA]

Two more “cartoons” that illustrate why net neutrality is needed.
1042403
1042404

[morim]

fuck obama!!!!

[filghy2]

fuck obama!!!!

I think you made typo when you entered your user name.

[Ts RedVeX]

A cartoon why internet neutrality isn't needed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNtYmdZ-4c

[Stavros]

The Federal Communications Commission made its decision today to repeal the Net Neutrality provision that was passed during the Obama Presidency.

As I am not an American I cannot know how this will affect consumers in the US -the judgement of the New York Times in its report is that

Despite all the uproar, it is unclear how much will change for internet users. The rules were essentially a protective measure, largely meant to prevent telecom companies from favoring some sites over others. And major telecom companies have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I guess 'watch this space' may be the best position to take on this right now. One hopes HA members in the US will keep us informed of the reality of this change for them.

[Ben in LA]

Promises don’t mean shit when those with the most power are making them.

[lifeisfiction]

The whole thing will just go to court. They will probably get a order depending the circumstances to keep some or all things as is till the courts can make a decision. Some government agency actions can be challenged in court. So it's far from over.

[buttslinger]

All I know is what they tell me, they know that and act accordingly.
Trump is deregulating everything he can, he brags about it, to some extent I think it's good that huge rich corporations are in the USA, but only when they're on the leash, not unleashed.