The FCC just KILLED Net Neutrality

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Microsoft did the same, if anyone actually wants fibre to the home locate a large public cloud data center and buy as close to it as possible lol.

 

That's also not counting the complete culture difference between the two countries too. Japan is very happy with a tightly controlled rail system for all types of travel, local and inter city where in the US there is a much different culture. Road trips, caravaning, spur of the moment travel etc and multiple different car culture groups, totally different public wants from a transportation network. Also no matter how fast you make a train it's not going to beat a plane over a reasonable distance and even factoring in the cost of aircraft it's probably cheaper than the rail lines and support infrastructure.

Ah, yeah, it might have been MS buying off the local Redmond residents for putting up with them being there.

 

On Japan & Rail, the issues is Oil and Cars. Japan has no Oil and Americans, until very recently, had built more cars than anyone. Especially in 1950. It simply was never economical to run cars in Japan until much later, especially given the state of the Japanese Economy in the post-war period. This is the reason their native car industry produced cars little larger than boxes and they're the world-leader in Motorcycle production. Motorcycles make a lot more economic sense in most of the world. (Related to that, Americans are also the world-leaders in extraction technology. Countries optimize for their local conditions, a point lost on most people.)

 

Trains make perfect economic sense in two regards: 1) Within a dense city, especially when elevated and 2) Over a range of 50km to 500km. They lose to cars in utility, always, but at fairly specific ranges they are faster than airplanes. In fact, they're also more passenger dense and safer. This is why the only profitable Train line in the USA is NYC to Washington, DC. It's just the right distance, between two places with major city transport systems, and with just enough passengers to make it viable.  Most of Japan is about that distance. Especially Osaka to Tokyo. 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

2) Over a range of 50km to 500km.

Yea was thinking distances a fair amount greater than 500km, planes have the whole ascent and decent inefficiency so if the distance is too short some other form of transport is better. And then their is the airport factor... don't need to say much more on that as we all know how much of a pain those are lol.

 

On the safety aspect flying is still the safest form of transportation though.

Really have to like motorcycles heh.

[Taf the Ghost]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea was thinking distances a fair amount greater than 500km, planes have the whole ascent and decent inefficiency so if the distance is too short some other form of transport is better. And then their is the airport factor... don't need to say much more on that as we all know how much of a pain those are lol.

 

On the safety aspect flying is still the safest form of transportation though.

Really have to like motorcycles heh.

I believe that Japanese would point out that no one has ever died in a Shinkansen rail accident, but I get your point.

 

Motorcycles are the primary mode of transport in much of the world, even if most Westerners view them as rolling death machines.

[lobster_zoidberg]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea was thinking distances a fair amount greater than 500km, planes have the whole ascent and decent inefficiency so if the distance is too short some other form of transport is better. And then their is the airport factor... don't need to say much more on that as we all know how much of a pain those are lol.

 

On the safety aspect flying is still the safest form of transportation though.

Really have to like motorcycles heh.

why the hell is the ferry death rate so high

[leadeater]

Just now, lobster_zoidberg said:

why the hell is the ferry death rate so high

They go so slowly people jump off and try and swim for it?

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

They go so slowly people jump off and try and swim for it?

Lol.

 

I mean if it was cruises then sure, it's more understandable cause old people do like doing cruises but ferries, I can't even begin to imagine how so many people are killed on them.

 

That's inane.

[pjwhit19]

Just wanted to remind some people why ISPs got put under Title II. 

 

https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/23/real-evil-isp-inserted-advertising/

 

 

The FCC tried several times to control ISP behavior with out using Title II but where are struck down in court. The Court eventually said the only way the FCC could fix these issues is if they labels ISPs as Title II. 

 

The most insidious part about the end of Net Neutrality is that you will not be able to tell what ISPs are changing. They can remove post from your Facebook feed. Block Tweets. Remove content or entire websites from the internet. 

 

They Can and Have in the past manipulated webpages at a very basic levels. They can even get access to encrypted your websites. They can replace you website certificate with there own. As they have access to the connection between you and them. They are the man in the middle. 

 

This is not about fast lanes. This is about companies like Comcast impersonation the site or service you where connected to and inserting there own packets. Which they did do. 

 

I mean they where replacing web adds on other sites pages with here own.

[asus killer]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yea was thinking distances a fair amount greater than 500km, planes have the whole ascent and decent inefficiency so if the distance is too short some other form of transport is better. And then their is the airport factor... don't need to say much more on that as we all know how much of a pain those are lol.

 

On the safety aspect flying is still the safest form of transportation though.

Really have to like motorcycles heh.

pardon my ignorance but what is "lbn"

[Daniel-DuDa]

Hi guys,

 

I didn't read every single post on this topic so I'm not sure that the "Portuguese screen shot" was explained or not. So being Portuguese myself, I'm going to explain it and how poorly used it was for a proof or fact or whatever it was used for.

 

The screen shot as you know is from "meo" website a portuguse ISP. I don't really know how the other ISP around the world really work but in Portugal mobile bandwidth is quite limited, to be honest I don't even know if we have a unlimited mobile data offer on the market. For instance my mobile service is pre-paid and I have the following services per month:

• 2000 minutes call time for every mobile or fixed number in the country;
• 2000 sms for every mobile number in the country;
• I think I have around 500 minutes of call time for any other number of the European Union and
• 500 MB of Data usage.

Now, I know that 500 MB is ridiculous, but yet I barely use mobile data on my phone and there are certain apps which I do not consume that data for example, messenger, whatsup and some more. With that said I can subscribe to one of those services on the screen shot and get 10 GB extra for Data usage (don't know if it's only the first month or the actual plan) and without use the 10,5 GB of data on the apps included on those services. If you for instance are connected to your home Wi-Fi network you are basically free to go wherever you want on the internet without worrying to pay more or getting out of data. 

 

That screen shot is only targeting mobile bandwidth.

 

[Daniel-DuDa]

8 minutes ago, Daniel-DuDa said:

Hi guys,

 

I didn't read every single post on this topic so I'm not sure that the "Portuguese screen shot" was explained or not. So being Portuguese myself, I'm going to explain it and how poorly used it was for a proof or fact or whatever it was used for.

 

The screen shot as you know is from "meo" website a portuguse ISP. I don't really know how the other ISP around the world really work but in Portugal mobile bandwidth is quite limited, to be honest I don't even know if we have a unlimited mobile data offer on the market. For instance my mobile service is pre-paid and I have the following services per month:

• 2000 minutes call time for every mobile or fixed number in the country;
• 2000 sms for every mobile number in the country;
• I think I have around 500 minutes of call time for any other number of the European Union and
• 500 MB of Data usage.

Now, I know that 500 MB is ridiculous, but yet I barely use mobile data on my phone and there are certain apps which I do not consume that data for example, messenger, whatsup and some more. With that said I can subscribe to one of those services on the screen shot and get 10 GB extra for Data usage (don't know if it's only the first month or the actual plan) and without use the 10,5 GB of data on the apps included on those services. If you for instance are connected to your home Wi-Fi network you are basically free to go wherever you want on the internet without worrying to pay more or getting out of data. 

 

That screen shot is only targeting mobile bandwidth.

 

I just checked the actual page and actually the apps will consume the "10 GB" but not the 500 MB which is the base data of my mobile service.

BTW I have the lowest data usage plan on the market the average consumer has probably 1 to 5 GB per month... which is think it should be unlimited by now. Again what I sad is referred for mobile bandwidth only.  

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

pardon my ignorance but what is "lbn"

1 billion ( 1bn) , it's the miles traveled per death.  statistics like these need an intrinsic qualifier to legitimize the value across otherwise varying conditions.  

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I happened to see this thread just now. Dissect, analyse, agree and disagree accordingly : 

 

The main point of contention seems to be regarding whether ISPs can be held accountable or not for voluntary obligations under the FTC and what the exact role of the FTC is in the place of what the FCC did.  Does the FTC cover whatever the FCC formerly did or are freedoms truly eroded ? Some people earlier in the thread have disputed this claim, and I would prefer it if someone with the appropriate legal acumen could respond on this matter, preferably citing some legal precedents or what a future legal precedent is likely to result in..........

Catherine Sandoval, a Rhodes scholar, professor of law and commissioner for public utilities has said the new repeal would not give the FTC any power over ISP's if the consumer contract does not mention said conditions.   Because there is essentially nothing the FCC can do that will supersede current law.

 

Edit, unfortunately what that guy is saying is basically empty rhetoric,  yes the FTC can enforce an advertised contract and even to a degree bait and switch issues, but if the consumer signs a contract then that contract is valid and is not made invalid because the ISP made a promise to the FCC.

[Jsmith2211]

Please pay£999999 to access pronhub...

[DeScruff]

On 12/16/2017 at 8:08 AM, lobster_zoidberg said:

why the hell is the ferry death rate so high

Well the chart is goes by passenger miles traveled. My guess is that the amount of miles ferries have compared to the other transportation methods, is relatively low.

The amount of deaths per week in an airplane, and ferry can happen at the same rate, but if airplanes travel 10x the miles that ferries do the death rate/passenger miles will be 1/10 the size.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kumaresh said:

So what you're saying would be something along the lines of the ISPs promising and advertising something good to the consumer but hiding something nasty inside the contract. The consumer unknowingly signs the contract and then gets screwed over ? That sounds like some form of cheating. Existing consumers would have to renew their existing contacts with ISPs in light of such a contract change right ? And they might hide something in that contract. If even one educated individual found such a thing in the contract, wouldn't everybody find out about it and refuse outright to sign the contract ?

I think the issue is that people are confusing several different aspects of the law.  As I understand it, advertising one thing and selling another is false advertising, that is something the FTC can preside over.  However there is no law or authority that will protect a consumer who does not read a contract that they sign. This seems to be  fundamental component of business law in the US, Once you sign a contract then you agree to the terms, regardless of whether they are advertised or not.  

 

Comcast (for example) can advertise that they agree and follow the principals of NN,  And all this means is that some of their products must or they are committing false advertising, it does not mean all their products have to and it does not mean that they can't sell you a product that doesn't, especially if that product has such terms written up in the contract/service agreement. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

So this coming from reddit, let alone the fact that it's an anecdote on the internet:

 

Not sure what to make of this, but seriously guys call or handwrite respectfully to your reps if you want change, not bringing it to twitter or change.org

^{(yes, in hand writing, because copypaste is a lazy thing)}

 

EDIT: well guess what

I should stop slacking off, lol

This sounds too scary to be true.  (not saying it isn't).  I don't understand how the system can be so bad over there that this is happening. The worst we have had in Australia is that 2600 submissions to the government where intentionally mislabeled as correspondence and consequently not tabled in parliament.   

[Hellion]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, TheCherryKing said:

Protesting is protesting! This is one of the many protests here. 

This is a joke and exactly why the US government isn't taking what the citizens apparently want seriously.

 

In regards to the  boycott comment which I missed a couple days back, all corporations care about is money. You have to hit them where it hurts regardless if you have to make some sacrifices during that time. It's the big picture that matters. Clearly this isn't apparent to the majority of those whining on the inernet rather then actually doing something.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Hellion said:

You have to hit them where it hurts regardless if you have to make some sacrifices during that time.

 

 

Sadly for many Americans this means going without internet. Some sacrifices are just not possible. 

[Hellion]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Sadly for many Americans this means going without internet. Some sacrifices are just not possible. 

Mankind certainly never existed before the internet was invented, right?

 

There's a reason it's called a sacrifice.

 

More people need to prioritize principle over convenience. If this was truely as big of an issue as it's been made out to be americans would realize that.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Humans definitely never existed before the internet was invented, right?

 

You do realize that the internet is absolutely essentiall in this day and age for things like keeping your job, getting through school/college and maintaining a live connection between emergency, safety and security devices.

 

 Voting on ISP's with your wallet is as moot as raising a flag protest in much of the US. 

[TheCherryKing]

4 hours ago, Hellion said:

This is a joke and exactly why the US government isn't taking what the citizens apparently want seriously.

 

 

 

In regards to the  boycott comment which I missed a couple days back, all corporations care about is money. You have to hit them where it hurts regardless if you have to make some sacrifices during that time. It's the big picture that matters. Clearly this isn't apparent to the majority of those whining on the inernet rather then actually doing something.

 

 

 

 

 

Net neutrality does not, cannot, and will not stop all forms of corporate greed. Net neutrality requires all data to be treated equal so that certain sites can't be blocked or throttled or have a paywall. ISP's can raise the price of the ENTIRE internet service and throttle or block all sites if the user doesn't pay more. Technically that is treating data equally. 

[cj09beira]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

This sounds too scary to be true.  (not saying it isn't).  I don't understand how the system can be so bad over there that this is happening. The worst we have had in Australia is that 2600 submissions to the government where intentionally mislabeled as correspondence and consequently not tabled in parliament.   

considering its the same country where there isn't any id checks when voting, its not much surprising 

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

Net neutrality does not, cannot, and will not stop all forms of corporate greed. Net neutrality requires all data to be treated equal so that certain sites can't be blocked or throttled or have a paywall. ISP's can raise the price of the ENTIRE internet service and throttle or block all sites if the user doesn't pay more. Technically that is treating data equally. 

This last part "ISP's can raise the price of the ENTIRE internet service and throttle or block all sites if the user doesn't pay more. Technically that is treating data equally." Lol in what world would that be treating data equally. That's the complete opposite of treating data equally.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, cj09beira said:

considering its the same country where there isn't any id checks when voting, its not much surprising 

That's just fucked.  I get there are arguments against compulsory voting, but no id checks and using electronic voting machines is tantamount to asking for trouble. 

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

This last part "ISP's can raise the price of the ENTIRE internet service and throttle or block all sites if the user doesn't pay more. Technically that is treating data equally." Lol in what world would that be treating data equally. That's the complete opposite of treating data equally.

That is treating data equally. Instead of charging more for specific sites the ISP's will charge more for ALL sites.