Big Telecom's astroturf campaign against Net Neutrality

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/...ty-grover-afp/

Discuss

[mookiemookie]

Slides 7-8 calls for the campaign to target “libertarian minded internet users and video gamers”

I like think the truly hardcore internet users such as these people are savvy enough to see through the lies and bulls**t that the industry spinmeisters and PR groups are trying to shovel.

It's sad to see that any sort of regulation at all....anything that's even slightly to the left of pure anarchy....is painted with the "ZOMG GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!" brush by the hysterical loons.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I like think the truly hardcore internet users such as these people are savvy enough to see through the lies and bulls**t that the industry spinmeisters and PR groups are trying to shovel.

It's sad to see that any sort of regulation at all....anything that's even slightly to the left of pure anarchy....is painted with the "ZOMG GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!" brush by the hysterical loons.

Well, you would believe the retarded spam I hear via mic and chat in various video games from both sides. I think some video gamers can be very gullible.

[SteamWake]

I guess the fact that the supreme court shot this down as unconstitunal is irrelevant.

But that doesent stop the agenda.. hell just make it a public utility then they dont have to bother with that pesky law.

It's nothing more than a way to 'control' the content available on the internet.

After all according to Mr. Obama too much information is bad.

If you guys cannot see what is afoot here you never will untill its too late.

Just one more layer of control.

Oh yea and 'thinkprogress.org' LOL well at least they will still be around.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I guess the fact that the supreme court shot this down as unconstitunal is irrelevant.

But that doesent stop the agenda.. hell just make it a public utility then they dont have to bother with that pesky law.

It's nothing more than a way to 'control' the content available on the internet.

After all according to Mr. Obama too much information is bad.

If you guys cannot see what is afoot here you never will untill its too late.

Just one more layer of control.

Oh yea and 'thinkprogress.org' LOL well at least they will still be around.

You're so bass-ackwards on this it's laughable. Mandating that ISPs treat all internet content the same is controlling content? More like NOT controlling content! What kind of mental contortion-ism do you have to go through to reach that conclusion? They're proposing to do the exact OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

[SteamWake]

Unh huh.. yes of course..

For every fox news there must be a msnbc... oh wait there already is.

So why the push for 'fairness'?

As I said before it is just one more layer of control.

Mandating that ISPs treat all internet content the same

Main Entry: 1man·date
Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌdāt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put — more at manual, do
Date: 1501
1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Why is that?

[Sailor Steve]

Actually there have been several. Seven years ago you started one yourself.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...Net+Neutrality

[Onkel Neal]

Good time for a merge, let's have some discussion about it. I don't really know what it is.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Good time for a merge, let's have some discussion about it. I don't really know what it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...hy_is_there_a/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

...

Good explanation. Also the discussion going on in the comments there is interesting as well.

[propbeanie]

Basically, the feds stepped into the internet (which they gave away, btw), and mandate (regulate) that User A (who does 3d work and online gaming from home) gets the same bandwidth on his DSL as User B gets (who only does email and bookface), and User C (who has dial-up internet), gets the same, with User A and User B paying for the upgrade for User C. Equality. Besides the 911 "fees" that are on my phone bill (a good idea), there are all sorts of other federally mandated little "fees" on there (most are bad ideas), for me to help pay for this, that and the other. Then there's those little phone company "fees" that help pay for them to pay the feds, and line their pockets while they're at it...

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by propbeanie

Basically, the feds stepped into the internet (which they gave away, btw), and mandate (regulate) that User A (who does 3d work and online gaming from home) gets the same bandwidth on his DSL as User B gets (who only does email and bookface), and User C (who has dial-up internet), gets the same, with User A and User B paying for the upgrade for User C. Equality. Besides the 911 "fees" that are on my phone bill (a good idea), there are all sorts of other federally mandated little "fees" on there (most are bad ideas), for me to help pay for this, that and the other. Then there's those little phone company "fees" that help pay for them to pay the feds, and line their pockets while they're at it...

That's not it at all....

First off, you cannot mandate bandwidth faster than is physically capable. It goes against the laws of physics. You cannot mandate that a dial up line would have the same bandwidth as a fiber line. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, nobody would pay for fiber and we'd all go back to dial up, since we can't speed up dial up, but can slow down fiber.

The bandwidth we are talking about is on the Tcom level. Some sites would pay the Tcom companies a fee to have their data pushed through faster than their competitors.

It's like we would be creating an express lane on the internet highway, but it is only accessible via toll.

So why don't the competitors pay you ask?

Because a lot of the first adopters of the system could easily have exclusivity rights in the bandwidth contracts. They could specify in the contract that all their competitors would not be able to use that tcom companies high speed lanes.

Think it can't happen? Here's a analog: ATT and the iphone. When the iphone was first released, it was exclusively on the ATT network. By contract. So if somebody wanted to use the latest in tech (a certain website lets say), they had to use a very specific provider.