test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The FCC decides the fate of Net Neutrality today!

2»

Comments

  • tunicate515#4416 tunicate515 Member Posts: 30 Arc User
    Yeah so here is the thing. I remember before there was ever any net neutrality rules in place. And guess what?

    I wasn't being nickle and dimmed for everything. I wasn't being noticeably throttled.

    I guess some people have really bad memories.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    > @tunicate515#4416 said:
    > Yeah so here is the thing. I remember before there was ever any net neutrality rules in place. And guess what?
    >
    > I wasn't being nickle and dimmed for everything. I wasn't being noticeably throttled.
    >
    > I guess some people have really bad memories.

    No, it just hadn't happened yet. What prompted the passage of the net neutrality rules to begin with was that several major telecom companies with ISP holdings got caught under oath stating that they were planning to do exactly what net neutrality advocates keep predicting will happen.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    edited December 2017
    @angrytarg: The article the guy you responded to was referring to is from a group called the Heritage Foundation. It's a right-libertarian extremist think tank funded by the Koch brothers (oil money) that also wants to get rid of environmental regulations and what little social safety net the US has.

    /Deathtotheeditmonster
    Post edited by starswordc on
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,929 Arc User
    I wasn't being nickle and dimmed for everything. I wasn't being noticeably throttled.

    Yet.

    There is nothing stopping internet providers from doing that now. You may very soon be finding yourself having to pay a premium fee to even be able to access Google.
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • potentialbff#9168 potentialbff Member Posts: 16 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    You may very soon be finding yourself having to pay a premium fee to even be able to access Google.

    I also support Net Neutrality, but don't be ridiculous. Google wants all of your personal information and isn't going to do anything that would turn people away to some other free service. There are plenty of completely realistic reasons to support NN, so there is no need to resort to nonsense like that.
  • There are 2 types of people who support net neutrality.

    Type 1 are the uniformed who believe the scare tactics like you will have to pay to use google or twitter, or that internet speed will go back to dial up days, or whatever. They hear a nice sounding term like "net neutrality" and think it must obviously be a good thing without ever considering what could go wrong.

    Type 2 are the people who really understand. Once the government is allowed to regulate something, they can start censoring things they don't like by sticking some current buzzword label on it. The type 2 people are the dangerous ones with a long term goal of eventually silencing their opponents or covering up things that they don't want exposed.

    Dystopian futures start with the government regulating the means by which people communicate freely. Removing those regulations is never a bad thing.
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,929 Arc User
    I also support Net Neutrality, but don't be ridiculous. Google wants all of your personal information and isn't going to do anything that would turn people away to some other free service. There are plenty of completely realistic reasons to support NN, so there is no need to resort to nonsense like that.

    You're assuming it would be Google looking to charge the premium and not an ISP with a competing search engine they want to promote.
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • detheaterdetheater Member Posts: 71 Arc User
    sthe91 wrote: »
    I disagree that the end of these net neutrality rules will end in the death of the Internet and democracy as we know it. I was around when these rules were not in place and we did fine and the Internet did not die. In fact I liked Youtube (before it got bought by Google) at that time as well as Facebook (not as much now). Here is an article about what the mainstream media and others don't tell you about the benefits of the 2015 net neutrality rules ending. Keep in mind two of the corporations wanting it to remain instead of being repealed are Google and Facebook. So to claim this would be a win for big corporations is false. Also, not all corporations are evil some actually do good and follow the rule of law. Check out heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/debunking-the-lefts-myths-net-neutrality for another perspective on what is actually going on when these rules are repealed. You don't have to agree with the author, this is just another view to consider instead of this conversation being one-sided. Thanks.

    Not to be overly critical of the article you linked and are using to say that this is simply a matter of the “sky is falling” for a large majority of the population, but please do not cite an article featured on the Heritage Foundation’s website as “proof” of anything. Heritage is one of the most conservative leaning organization in the US. That would be like someone offering an article for the Daily Kos as proof. I would say the same thing. I will offer you an article from the tech website The Verge if you would like a tech industry view (probably a large percentage of gamers).

    https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed

    Now, let me address exactly what is wrong with the article you posted.

    First, the author is comparing apples and oranges. “Imagine a law that says you have to pay sticker price for a new car, and you’ll get the idea.” That is not at all what net neutrality says. What net neutrality says is you can offer a car with a V6 or a V8 at different costs, but if I choose the V6 you can’t limit my car to only driving 500 miles a day.

    The article he posted from the LA Times actually seemed more afraid that the new ruling doesn’t lay out enough regulation rather than actually supporting his viewpoint.

    I found this probably the most entertaining line in the author’s article: “But there is no evidence such anti-competitive behavior ever took place before the present rules were adopted in 2015. In the words of President Trump “WRONG!”

    Comcast did this to Netflix which is what sparked the debate back in 2014; and was one of the reasons why the net neutrality ruling was determined to be necessary.

    https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

    https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/

    Since then, Verizon did it to YouTube and Netflix under the guise of a “test” for video optimization.

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/

    I am not trying to support one side of the political spectrum or the other. I am trying to protect what I see in my informed opinion as a clear and present danger to two of my favorite pastime. This isn’t about partisan politics… This is about gaming. This is about streaming. This is about fair and EQUAL access to the internet for ALL.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,334 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    For me, like George Carlin, I don't believe a **** thing the government says. Too many lies and too many **** to make me believe anything they say anymore.

    To me a politician is a special interest BOOT LICKER.

    Plenty of other countries to live in on this planet if this one doesn't suit you.

    Other countries do the same thing. Remember when Tony Blair was essentially Bush's "yes man"?
    And one should not have to leave....one should be able to live in a corruption free place, as any sensible person should.

    And, as I said, like Mr. Carlin...I don't believe a single thing any politician other government monkey says. I go by this rule: One can tell when someone in authority is lying, because their lips are moving. Sorry I don't have your mindset, but I don't trust anyone in a position of power, and the for "love it or leave it!" lecture, you can can it.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,929 Arc User
    Then run for political office and change it.
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited December 2017
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @ferroequus said:
    > Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

    Kinda the people's fault for considering this a either-or scenario. Even the US allows for more parties than two.
    The US actually HAS more than two parties. It's just that the big spending donors support those two.

    It's like with the minnows and whales thing in MMOs.... The guys who spend the most make their voices heard loudest.
    Type 2 are the people who really understand. Once the government is allowed to regulate something, they can start censoring things they don't like by sticking some current buzzword label on it. The type 2 people are the dangerous ones with a long term goal of eventually silencing their opponents or covering up things that they don't want exposed.

    Dystopian futures start with the government regulating the means by which people communicate freely. Removing those regulations is never a bad thing.
    And this is what I was alluding to earlier. NN is a big-brother style regulation that REQUIRES the government to monitor things that realistically shouldn't be their concern.

    Edits for the edit throne! \o/
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    textex
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,533 Arc User
    Wasn't the US government originally designed as a government without restrictive government control? It almost seems like the Founders of the US were anti-government and believe government to be a necessary evil. There is good reason why freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are the 1st and 2nd amendments.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    For me, like George Carlin, I don't believe a **** thing the government says. Too many lies and too many **** to make me believe anything they say anymore.

    To me a politician is a special interest BOOT LICKER.

    Plenty of other countries to live in on this planet if this one doesn't suit you.

    Other countries do the same thing. Remember when Tony Blair was essentially Bush's "yes man"?
    And one should not have to leave....one should be able to live in a corruption free place, as any sensible person should.
    Since you bring up Britain: the European Union has net neutrality. So if you live in the UK, better pay attention, given Brexit. (The infographic of "Portuguese Internet" that's been making the rounds is specifically of a wireless carrier's options to buy additional gigs on a limited data plan. It was originally cited as a visual aid as what the Internet might look like without net neutrality but was misinterpreted by clickbait writers.)
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @ferroequus said:
    > Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

    Kinda the people's fault for considering this a either-or scenario. Even the US allows for more parties than two.
    The US actually HAS more than two parties. It's just that the big spending donors support those two.
    No, we've had basically a two-party system going back to the founding of the union. After the Constitutional Convention we had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists duking it out over ratification, then it became the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans during the Washington Administration. The Federalists collapsed sometime in the antebellum years and were replaced by the Whigs for a while, the DRs rebranded themselves as the Democrats under Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson, then the modern Republicans (running primarily as the anti-secession, unified nation party) ran as a third party, won with Lincoln, and the Whigs collapsed. And it's been D versus R ever since.

    It's arguable that the structure of the Constitution implicitly favors a two-party system. Just looking at the presidency, unlike in other countries such as France which have runoffs between the top two vote-getters, in the United States if nobody gets at least a 50%+1 majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the election. There's a movement to start "instant runoffs" by means of ranked-choice ballots at the state level, but that doesn't affect the electoral college.

    Big money in politics really didn't get its start until William Jennings Bryan ran as a Democrat against William McKinley in 1896 and lost: the Democrats spent about $300,000 in 1896 dollars, the Republicans spent $4 million, first time either party had broken seven figures.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,334 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Then run for political office and change it.

    No money, no special interest groups to back me, and all the good politicians/candidates get killed....oh, sorry....commit suicide, as those who spoke against a certain lady last year.

    And here's a shock....presidents are on a need to know basis....there's so many levels of clearance above the president, Carter talked about this before. Presidents are NOT the be all, end all of the American political ladder, sorry to tell you.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,334 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Wasn't the US government originally designed as a government without restrictive government control? It almost seems like the Founders of the US were anti-government and believe government to be a necessary evil. There is good reason why freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are the 1st and 2nd amendments.

    Yep, and why the politicans and their special interest masters wanna take both away.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,950 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Wasn't the US government originally designed as a government without restrictive government control? It almost seems like the Founders of the US were anti-government and believe government to be a necessary evil. There is good reason why freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are the 1st and 2nd amendments.

    The Founding Fathers did design the Constitution so that the various branches would balance each others' powers so that no one branch could become tyrannical*, but how much government is actually necessary is another argument that started before the thing was even ratified. Jefferson said "you can only do what the Constitution says you can", Hamilton said "if the Constitution doesn't say you can't do it, you can do it". And to be honest the guys who say "we should govern as the founders intended" frequently have no idea what the hell they're talking about: to name one example, at the start of the republic corporations were only allowed to exist as corporations for a set period of years.

    It's also worth noting in regards to the Second Amendment specifically, what the structure of militaries was back then and the key phrase "well-regulated militia" that is so often skipped over. The US had very little standing land military (the Navy and Marines were another story, being necessary to fend off pirates in peacetime). We did have West Point to train officers, but the muscle of the Army was raised state by state as militias (which also handled law enforcement and defense against such nasties as Native Americans having the temerity to try and get their land back), and there was little to no central logistics apparatus: each militia supplied its own equipment.

    * Although the Supreme Court is a little iffy IMHO. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has an idea I like for a majority of states to be able to pass a resolution to overturn a SCOTUS ruling, although, to be absolutely clear, I do not like what Abbott himself would probably want to do with it.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,334 Arc User
    I agree with this fellow.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited December 2017
    starswordc wrote:
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @ferroequus said:
    > Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

    Kinda the people's fault for considering this a either-or scenario. Even the US allows for more parties than two.
    The US actually HAS more than two parties. It's just that the big spending donors support those two.
    No, we've had basically a two-party system going back to the founding of the union. After the Constitutional Convention we had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists duking it out over ratification, then it became the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans during the Washington Administration. The Federalists collapsed sometime in the antebellum years and were replaced by the Whigs for a while, the DRs rebranded themselves as the Democrats under Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson, then the modern Republicans (running primarily as the anti-secession, unified nation party) ran as a third party, won with Lincoln, and the Whigs collapsed. And it's been D versus R ever since.

    It's arguable that the structure of the Constitution implicitly favors a two-party system. Just looking at the presidency, unlike in other countries such as France which have runoffs between the top two vote-getters, in the United States if nobody gets at least a 50%+1 majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives decides the election. There's a movement to start "instant runoffs" by means of ranked-choice ballots at the state level, but that doesn't affect the electoral college.

    Big money in politics really didn't get its start until William Jennings Bryan ran as a Democrat against William McKinley in 1896 and lost: the Democrats spent about $300,000 in 1896 dollars, the Republicans spent $4 million, first time either party had broken seven figures.
    George Washington's take on it was that political parties were, at best, a necessary evil... at best. He once said he thought they represented the "death of Democracy".

    Practical realities aside... the law is not written to endorse any specific number of parties. The current system exist because the people funding the political parties like it this way. :/

    You mentioned that the Whigs collapsed but now why or how. The Whig party collapsed because the members disagreed on the slavery issue and many (such as Abraham Lincoln) felt it shouldn't be allowed. Lincoln later became the first Republican president.

    As an interesting historical footnote, the anti-slavery issue is part of why the US war for independence happened. Back when it was called the "Province of Georgia" slavery of any kind was banned by provincial law because the founder(James Edward Oglethorpe) of the province felt it was morally wrong. Which was also part of why he left England.... The first condemnation of slavery published in the US was actually in 1688 and was published by the Quakers. (Yes the Quakers had a lot of influence back then.)
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 7,036 Community Moderator
    43CdGW8.png
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of PWE/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of PWE/Cryptic
    Contact Customer Support --> https://support.arcgames.com
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online? Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
This discussion has been closed.