Well, at this point I'm invested somewhat in Rogers Cable Internet. Here the lines are run either by Bell or Rogers. There are other providers, but they are tied into these two. Bell also built the telephone system. So they could even throttle that, not that they'd need to.
So sure there are third party providers, but they basically piggy back, and I think you miss the point of 'Net neutrality. It's not just for the resource rich and super capable - it's for everyone who uses the Internet.
If an innovative startup is throttled on all the main lines, in all reasonable practicality, they do not stand a chance. It's like saying if you do not like the electric company, build your own power grid. And while true, some folks might be in a position to throw up a power generating windmill, most are not. Moreover, in some regions legislation would prevent even that because the big providers have made sure. So it behooves major providers of basic and near basic services to act in fairness..
I get the idea of a free market place.. and for most things where there's open fair competition - and where there's nothing blocking startups - that's the best thing. But telecommunications is already highly regulated. So the regulations should be keeping the systems fair for everyone if they are going to allow the divers companies - big, medium and small - to do business on those systems.
Yeah, you can do what you want with your own website, that is a almost a completely separate issue from 'Net neutrality. So if Google decided their website would be bright purple on Tuesdays, every Tuesday, with loud blaring embedded audio screams to boot, that's Google's business.. and has nothing to do with the issue of 'Net neutrality.
Both FB and Google have their little widget snitches all over the Internet. But the domains of these widget snitches are generally known and can be deadsunk in your hosts file. I have a lot of Google spying deadsunk, and on some of my computers all of Facebook deadsunk. The only reason I haven't complete deadsunk Google's divers domains is that I like YouTube and need some Google stuff to work to enjoy YouTube. If there was anything that could be considered competition to YouTube I'd use it, but as it is, websites like DailyMotion et al. are markedly limited when compared to YouTube. Facebook, I use on one computer merely to log into then promptly out of my FB account. All the other computers here do not even know facebook.com and all the other snitchy FB domains even exist.
Making the issue a left / right or Dem / Rep issue, or an Obama / Trump issue doesn't help.
'Net neutrality helps everyone: i.e. a fair playing field. Take it away and innovators and dissenting opinion (left, right or otherwise) gets throttled into oblivion.
'Net neutrality is worth fighting for, both morally, and with dollars.
That's one company's set up, that's not the Internet. You can run your company, website, forum etc., however which way you want, the Internet, on the other hand, should be open and fair. 'And it is worth fighting for to have it that way.
But that's because they've been wary of regulators, not just in the U.S., who have indicated they are pro 'Net neutrality. Take that away though, and Google and the very few mega-corp companies that own 90% of the media will use their vast supply of cash to crush all competition and throttle every innovator. Some innovators look like they are doing well? Either sell out to the mega-corp (if the mega-corps are even interested in the innovation) or have their web traffic throttled so slow even a turtle wouldn't wait for the site to load.
"..videos being demonetized, certain subreddits being banned.."
Those two things have to do with the operation of specific websites. If you do not like how YouTube handles streaming video, try your hand at your own streaming video website. 'Net neutrality enables you to give it an honest shot.
But take away 'Net neutrality, then Google/YouTube pays the ISPs and those who own the wires to throttle your upstart, yet provide even more bandwidth for YouTube. That's would be the problem.
'Net neutrality means everyone works on a level playing field i.e. fairness, whereas the corporatists would like to see their own stuff have access to speedy lanes while innovators get throttled. What do you think would happen to a bunch of innovators' efforts if YouTube fully loaded in a millisecond while their new website took thirty seconds. They wouldn't stand a chance. That's the issue - and that's why you should morally support and financially support those fighting for 'Net neutrality.
What bugs me is that there so many enemies of freedom and so many enemies of 'Net neutrality. On one hand, every dictatorship wants to censor the Internet, and on the other, there are a few corporatists who want to kill it and turn it into a corporate media distribution system.
Everyone else on the planet wants a free and open Internet. Yet we seem to have to be fighting these anti-freedom forces endlessly. Well, I'm staying - not breaking - staying - and will be donating - yet again - to a pro 'Net neutrality group.
That was the narrative - perfectly in line with the Democrat's narrative - which was pushed day and night. Heck you'd think they passed notes, which is my point.
Canada is not insisting that, nor are the people living in the land called Canada insisting that. It's Bell that's asking that. And we didn't ask them to ask for that. No thanks Bell. I want a free and open Internet, and I certainly do not want the likes of Bell deciding what I can and cannot read. 'And no, I do not pirate: I rent my movies and I pay for my software et al. -- Free as in Freedom Internet.
I really really despise the idea of Canadian companies censoring the web on me -- yes to a free Internet -- free as in freedom and an open Internet.
And no, I do not pirate: I rent my movies and I pay for my software et al.
I have an account but do not post. If Facebook suited my purposes, I would make use of it. But to use it idly isn't good. Moreover, the company's behaviour is just way too nosy. Like Google, they attempt to track people all over the 'net - whether they have a FB account or no - something I do not like. On this machine here, FB, and many many of its tracking domains are dead sunk in my hosts file.
Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate. Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party.
For that reason alone, it is a good thing Trump won, regardless of what one thinks of him, his policies or his Twittering.
'Way back, western gov'ts, businesses, and the chatty classes sold us the idea that trading with oppressive and repressive regimes would open them up to freedom of speech and rights and so on. Many or most of these regimes just used the technology they acquired to tighten the screws.
Worse, we in the West have become lightly dependent on the economics from these nasty regimes. Worse yet, some western companies participate in the repressions directly.
It's really time for companies like FB, Microsoft, Google, Cisco et al. to take a stand and stand up to these bullies. 'And we should back them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at this point I'm invested somewhat in Rogers Cable Internet. Here the lines are run either by Bell or Rogers. There are other providers, but they are tied into these two. Bell also built the telephone system. So they could even throttle that, not that they'd need to. So sure there are third party providers, but they basically piggy back, and I think you miss the point of 'Net neutrality. It's not just for the resource rich and super capable - it's for everyone who uses the Internet. If an innovative startup is throttled on all the main lines, in all reasonable practicality, they do not stand a chance. It's like saying if you do not like the electric company, build your own power grid. And while true, some folks might be in a position to throw up a power generating windmill, most are not. Moreover, in some regions legislation would prevent even that because the big providers have made sure. So it behooves major providers of basic and near basic services to act in fairness ..
I get the idea of a free market place .. and for most things where there's open fair competition - and where there's nothing blocking startups - that's the best thing. But telecommunications is already highly regulated. So the regulations should be keeping the systems fair for everyone if they are going to allow the divers companies - big, medium and small - to do business on those systems.
Yeah, you can do what you want with your own website, that is a almost a completely separate issue from 'Net neutrality. So if Google decided their website would be bright purple on Tuesdays, every Tuesday, with loud blaring embedded audio screams to boot, that's Google's business .. and has nothing to do with the issue of 'Net neutrality.
Both FB and Google have their little widget snitches all over the Internet. But the domains of these widget snitches are generally known and can be deadsunk in your hosts file. I have a lot of Google spying deadsunk, and on some of my computers all of Facebook deadsunk. The only reason I haven't complete deadsunk Google's divers domains is that I like YouTube and need some Google stuff to work to enjoy YouTube. If there was anything that could be considered competition to YouTube I'd use it, but as it is, websites like DailyMotion et al. are markedly limited when compared to YouTube. Facebook, I use on one computer merely to log into then promptly out of my FB account. All the other computers here do not even know facebook.com and all the other snitchy FB domains even exist.
Making the issue a left / right or Dem / Rep issue, or an Obama / Trump issue doesn't help. 'Net neutrality helps everyone: i.e. a fair playing field. Take it away and innovators and dissenting opinion (left, right or otherwise) gets throttled into oblivion. 'Net neutrality is worth fighting for, both morally, and with dollars.
So true. There's ground with blood soaked into from people who fought so that we can speak, text and write freely.
That's one company's set up, that's not the Internet. You can run your company, website, forum etc., however which way you want, the Internet, on the other hand, should be open and fair. 'And it is worth fighting for to have it that way.
That,or one could actively support - both morally and financially - those who are fighting for 'Net neutrality.
But that's because they've been wary of regulators, not just in the U.S., who have indicated they are pro 'Net neutrality. Take that away though, and Google and the very few mega-corp companies that own 90% of the media will use their vast supply of cash to crush all competition and throttle every innovator. Some innovators look like they are doing well? Either sell out to the mega-corp (if the mega-corps are even interested in the innovation) or have their web traffic throttled so slow even a turtle wouldn't wait for the site to load.
"..videos being demonetized, certain subreddits being banned.." Those two things have to do with the operation of specific websites. If you do not like how YouTube handles streaming video, try your hand at your own streaming video website. 'Net neutrality enables you to give it an honest shot. But take away 'Net neutrality, then Google/YouTube pays the ISPs and those who own the wires to throttle your upstart, yet provide even more bandwidth for YouTube. That's would be the problem. 'Net neutrality means everyone works on a level playing field i.e. fairness, whereas the corporatists would like to see their own stuff have access to speedy lanes while innovators get throttled. What do you think would happen to a bunch of innovators' efforts if YouTube fully loaded in a millisecond while their new website took thirty seconds. They wouldn't stand a chance. That's the issue - and that's why you should morally support and financially support those fighting for 'Net neutrality.
What bugs me is that there so many enemies of freedom and so many enemies of 'Net neutrality. On one hand, every dictatorship wants to censor the Internet, and on the other, there are a few corporatists who want to kill it and turn it into a corporate media distribution system. Everyone else on the planet wants a free and open Internet. Yet we seem to have to be fighting these anti-freedom forces endlessly. Well, I'm staying - not breaking - staying - and will be donating - yet again - to a pro 'Net neutrality group.
Yes you can since 2008.
Someone took the red pill. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that the land's real courts were usurped by commercial courts.
That was the narrative - perfectly in line with the Democrat's narrative - which was pushed day and night. Heck you'd think they passed notes, which is my point.
You can't have both a free (free as in freedom) Internet and censorship. I want a free internet.
Don't British people want freedom? Isn't there a political party there that is anti-censorship?
Freedom of Internet at its best!!! 'Worth saying twice.
Censorship is so wrong.
You remember that, eh? Me too.
Canada is not insisting that, nor are the people living in the land called Canada insisting that. It's Bell that's asking that. And we didn't ask them to ask for that. No thanks Bell. I want a free and open Internet, and I certainly do not want the likes of Bell deciding what I can and cannot read. 'And no, I do not pirate: I rent my movies and I pay for my software et al. -- Free as in Freedom Internet.
I really really despise the idea of Canadian companies censoring the web on me -- yes to a free Internet -- free as in freedom and an open Internet. And no, I do not pirate: I rent my movies and I pay for my software et al.
I have an account but do not post. If Facebook suited my purposes, I would make use of it. But to use it idly isn't good. Moreover, the company's behaviour is just way too nosy. Like Google, they attempt to track people all over the 'net - whether they have a FB account or no - something I do not like. On this machine here, FB, and many many of its tracking domains are dead sunk in my hosts file.
Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate. Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party. For that reason alone, it is a good thing Trump won, regardless of what one thinks of him, his policies or his Twittering.
@ guppie "something should have been done about these issues years ago" .. .. you think?
@ Impy It's more than just censorship or even surveillance - they will use FB to find dissent, then arrest, prosecute and persecute.
'Way back, western gov'ts, businesses, and the chatty classes sold us the idea that trading with oppressive and repressive regimes would open them up to freedom of speech and rights and so on. Many or most of these regimes just used the technology they acquired to tighten the screws. Worse, we in the West have become lightly dependent on the economics from these nasty regimes. Worse yet, some western companies participate in the repressions directly. It's really time for companies like FB, Microsoft, Google, Cisco et al. to take a stand and stand up to these bullies. 'And we should back them.