Darou said:
not really as others pointed out this is not first time this has been tried, new actor in the leadership/figurehead role but the actual power pushing the repeal is the same one as before, republican party leadership that are desperate in keeping the members of the other party and non-affiliated moderates suppressed and geting a cheap win. the is not about money because it would hit the economy hard as well. it benefits no one economically in the midterm/longterm. Any profit gained in the short term would be lost quickly again.

Yeah, good point.


Having net neutrality is good for content providers like Netflix and bad for ISPs. Not having net neutrality is good for ISPs and bad for content providers. As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race. There's been a ton of propaganda in favor of net neutrality though, so now everyone thinks it's the only thing standing between us and disaster. The horror stories about what's going to happen if we lose it are completely implausible. We didn't even have these rules in place until 2015. is going back to the way things were in 2014 really that scary?

I oppose net neutrality just on general principle. Letting the government set the rules for how businesses operate has never worked out well in the past. Why would this be the one time that they get things right? Why would this be the one time we manage to avoid regulatory capture and crony corporatism? A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

Granberia
Contributor
6 months ago
2015 animal_humanoid apron blush clothing dragon dragon_humanoid female granberia green_scales hair hi_res humanoid looking_at_viewer monster_girl monster_girl_(genre) monster_girl_quest naked_apron red_hair scales simple_background solo standing tau_1111 video_games yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 15
User: Granberia
Date: September 02, 2017

Del_Coocnat said:
As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race.

Of course. Why would it matter to the consumer whether they can access sites like netflix, youtube, or e621, without paying extra to ISP or moving out since the ISPs in their region don't allow godless sites. Net neutrality it's clearly a case of liberal agenda. \s


Del_Coocnat said:
Having net neutrality is good for content providers like Netflix and bad for ISPs. Not having net neutrality is good for ISPs and bad for content providers. As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race. There's been a ton of propaganda in favor of net neutrality though, so now everyone thinks it's the only thing standing between us and disaster. The horror stories about what's going to happen if we lose it are completely implausible. We didn't even have these rules in place until 2015. is going back to the way things were in 2014 really that scary?

I oppose net neutrality just on general principle. Letting the government set the rules for how businesses operate has never worked out well in the past. Why would this be the one time that they get things right? Why would this be the one time we manage to avoid regulatory capture and crony corporatism? A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

To start your assumption that we're all just consumers here falls flat. Anyone who takes commissions or otherwise sells goods and services is no longer just a consumer, they're running a business. To maintain their income both they and their customer base need unrestricted access to the apps and sites used to advertise, communicate, and sell. "Content providers" are not only major sites like Netflix (who will not be hurt regardless) but independent small businesses.

As far as going back to before net neutrality- the rule was put in place because abuse was happening. You had ISPs quietly blocking or slowing applications and websites they didn't like including file sharing programs, VOIP services (including Skype and FaceTime), and websites promoting labour strikes.

True, it's unlikely that most people using restricted apps and sites will both notice and know where to put the blame. If, say, connection Telegram is slowed down noticeably, the assumption of many users is going to be that it's an issue of the app itself. Meanwhile another chat app connected to the ISP is given priority. Now for someone selling commissions on Telegram, if everyone migrates to the ISP chat, it's a net neutral. But if each ISP has their own prioritized chat service and a different list of restricted services, the audience is going to be fractured and this will affect business.


Del_Coocnat said:
A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

Well, I would maybe go with you, if not for my own internet history.

See, I live in a kinda rural area. I"m approximately 2 or 3 miles from the city limits of the nearest city. (let me be clear, I'm still pretty suburban out here: If I went out into my yard, I could hit about 2 or 3 of my neighbor's houses with thrown rocks.) ... said city is the county seat. We're part of a major metropolitan area, just on the edge of it. We're surrounded by rural areas further out from the major city, but we're still a big town over here.

What I"m saying is, we should have pretty good services out here.

We don't. about 8 years ago, I was stuck on *dial up internet*. It was government regulations that 'forced' us to have access to high speed internet.

Our 'high speed internet' was, as of 2 years ago, 6 Mb/s limited to 150GB downloaded per month.

Finally, just about 2 years ago, we finally got another option ( 100 Mb/s with no bandwidth cap, for basically the same price) and now I don't have to sweat about if I have enough bandwidth to watch youtube, or delay downloading a new game I bought until next month because, gosh, I just don't have the bandwidth for that.

Competition's a great idea. It honestly is. (I've never been happier than when a new grocery store moved into town and started competing with the local walmart) But the problem is, companies fight over cities. Companies fight over densely populated urban areas where expanding into a new area can lead to thousands of new customers. Us outside the cities? Nope. Our original ISP still calls us up every couple of weeks and tries to convince us to buy their services again. They haven't improved anything. They don't care about us. We're not 'worth' upgrading anything for.

After all, for everyone who switched like we did, you've got a ton of people who didn't know, were unaware what he difference was, or just didn't want to change, because they understand what they're working with with the old company.

*shrugs*

I'd be all for it, if I thought that most of us had a choice. I, technically, have a choice. I could go back to the slow, crappy internet with the tight bandwidth cap. But that's not really competition, is it?


I contacted my representatives. 1 of the 3 I spoke with said they would defend net neutrality, and another said they would consider it (and I'm still going to be calling them every day). The last one hasn't responded, but I'm still going to light up their phone lines every day until December 14th.

The point is that this is the most danger that the Internet has been in since it was created. Why wouldn't you pull out all of the stops to defend something that is so dear to you?

People laugh at me, sure....but so many others are beginning to hear about this. If they pass this, it won't be because people didn't take a stand. I just hope that our representatives will actually choose to give a shit.


Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?


fox_whisper85 said:
Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Nope.


fox_whisper85 said:
Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Yes. Because it has.

People a few years ago never called senators, never thought to participate. These days, we are. we're spreading information, we're making things known.

There is no single source of information for people these days. there is no six o'clock news everyone watches, or morning newpaper that everyone reads. We're spread out. We all have our different news sources we trust, and there is news from around the world pouring in.

Any single post, or article may reach some people, but it won't reach everyone.

And if only some people know about something, others say "well I've never heard about that.." and decide it's not important.

We say these thigns over and over again because it's important to give everyoen the chance to hear the message. Because we can't control if you've heard about it once, or 1000 times. We can't control if who you heard it from. We can't control the message you heard was spun either.

We repeat it to make sure you hear it. I was chatting with a lady early who hadn't heard about this stuff. She has an online store. Not everyone heard about these things. I was talking with my uncle who'd only heard the 'official' statement about how it was a great thing that would help everyone.. It didn't take long to point out the other half and he seemed pretty horrified by it.

It's annoying, I know. I hate seeing the same messages over and over again. But it's *important..


fox_whisper85 said:
Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Sitting on our asses and doing nothing will help us more, you say?


Volphied said:
Sitting on our asses and doing nothing will help us more, you say?

Do you think those in power will listen to us?


fox_whisper85 said:
Do you think those in power will listen to us?

While siting on asses, no.


DelurC said:
While siting on asses, no.

So what if we voice our concerns and they still don't listen, what then?


fox whisper, those in power do listen, because the sustainability of their power or money depends on the satisfaction of the people. Of course 1 person in many cases wont effect much but a vocal group will and it only takes 1 person to create such a group. The other key is persistence, if they dont listen then you follow thru and boycott or have them elected out of office and campaign for it... among other things...

Do you have a agenda in parroting pointlessness?


fox_whisper85 said:
So what if we voice our concerns and they still don't listen, what then?

When those that are chosen to serve the people do not serve the people, appropriate course of action is to remove them.


I've been watching this thread very closely, trying to avoid saying something that's already been said, but I do have to agree with both sides of the argument here (as in, e621). Nothing's going to change if we sit around on our asses, but at the same time, the government's got a bad track record for ignoring it's constituents.

What that means is that we need to get louder. I wrote a couple of letters to my governors back in 2015 about net-neutrality, and I just got some static boilerplate response back every time. Seriously, the same letter with same exact wording each time. I've tried to talk to Dean Heller [R] and Harry Reid [D]. Mr Reid seemed very interested in passing the law, whereas Mr Heller was not.

If I weren't so busy job-hunting, I would be doing what IndigoHeat is doing.


DelurC said:
When those that are chosen to serve the people do not serve the people, appropriate course of action is to remove them.

If it were only that easy.


fox_whisper85 said:
If it were only that easy.

Is it not?


Darou said:
fox whisper, those in power do listen, because the sustainability of their power or money depends on the satisfaction of the people. Of course 1 person in many cases wont effect much but a vocal group will and it only takes 1 person to create such a group. The other key is persistence, if they dont listen then you follow thru and boycott or have them elected out of office and campaign for it... among other things...

Do you have a agenda in parroting pointlessness?

You would be surprised just how little electives actually care about the goals that working class people have to go though. You know, being completely detached from the daily struggles of others and all. Moreover, their support is often not solely from common people, but large powerful entities like big business that can finance and directly support political movements.

Also, I don't really care about net neutrality anyway. Verizon already arbitrarily adds funds to a ludicrously high bill anyway, so either we limit what we use or get rid of it entirely. I've gone years without internet with mixed results so I'm pretty sure we'll survive.


20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
I've been watching this thread very closely, trying to avoid saying something that's already been said, but I do have to agree with both sides of the argument here (as in, e621). Nothing's going to change if we sit around on our asses, but at the same time, the government's got a bad track record for ignoring it's constituents.

What that means is that we need to get louder. I wrote a couple of letters to my governors back in 2015 about net-neutrality, and I just got some static boilerplate response back every time. Seriously, the same letter with same exact wording each time. I've tried to talk to Dean Heller [R] and Harry Reid [D]. Mr Reid seemed very interested in passing the law, whereas Mr Heller was not.

If I weren't so busy job-hunting, I would be doing what IndigoHeat is doing.

To be frank, I'm not doing as much as some other people are doing at this moment. I just make a phone call a day and mention it wherever (and whenever) it's appropriate. I'm not going to be taking part in the protests because of work, but I'd really love to.


fox_whisper85 said:
If it were only that easy.

Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.


Aanyi said:
I've gone years without internet with mixed results so I'm pretty sure we'll survive.

Those times are in the past. Did you know that schools as low as elementary up to universities revolve their schoolwork around the internet? In fact, a big lot of courses and majors are required to use the internet exclusively (i.e. tech majors like computer science, graphic designers, etc). Students, or just people in general, shouldn't have to pay an extra shiny penny just to learn, and they already do with how costly tuition/bills are. As technology advances forward, so does the majority of people.


The FCC as well as Pai have deliberately chosen to altogether ignore all comments sent their way. They're dead set on taking Net Neutrality from the USA to make more money.
You have to get your representatives, people in congress or whoever's one step above the damn FCC to give them a slap and kick them in the balls. The FCC's only afraid of legal action, and I believe you all have the right to have some powerful figure take legal action against them for taking away some of your basic rights as American citizens. That's right. The Internet nowadays is a crucial mean for people to inform themselves and express themselves, no matter how niche some consider it. No Net Neutrality, no expression and information. That's basically censorship, taking your freedom away.
Is there nothing you can do to get the law to punch the FCC in the face ?
I think there is.

I live in France and Net Neutrality is vastly supported by our own non-evil equivalent of the FCC here, the ARCEP.
However if y'all in the United States lose Net Nutella I won't be able to visit sites like e621 that will most likely fucking die, and the long distance relationships I maintain with people in the USA that I really care about will be most likely impossible to go on proper as they'll have to pay mountains of money they don't have to stay in touch with me.

Don't let them do this.


Volphied said:
Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.

And the fun part is that it's never easy. If you want to get shit done, you have to battle through it and get it done. Nothing is easy. People taking their time out of their day to bring attention to an issue that needs addressing. And I loathe the popular notion that "protesters don't have jobs". Not everyone has a job that is full-time, 9-to-5, or even daily.


Waba said:
Those times are in the past. Did you know that schools as low as elementary up to universities revolve their schoolwork around the internet? In fact, a big lot of courses and majors are required to use the internet exclusively (i.e. tech majors like computer science, graphic designers, etc). Students, or just people in general, shouldn't have to pay an extra shiny penny just to learn, and they already do with how costly tuition/bills are. As technology advances forward, so does the majority of people.

Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.


Volphied said:
Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.

And what have you been doing to stop this, exactly?


Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway?

I really...

"I don't need it, so no one else does" isn't a very good arguement. Or at least, it's a horrifically selfish one.

I live in Alabama. My dad lives in Hawaii. My favorite uncle lives in Maine. My favorite aunt? California. Facebook's been pretty great, as far as letting me keep up with my family. I sure as hell haven't been able to go back and visit. I've bought christmas presents for my nieces and nephews via amazon. I *sell* my own books via amazon. Most of my reading? you guessed it. Amazon and other web outlets.

The internet IS pretty awful. Yeah, I've been there. I've seen the shitty parts. I lost a dear friend to the crappy part of the internet because people bullied him. I decided, after that happened, to cut that shit out of my life and y'know what? it works. You don't have to be a part of the shitty spaces if you don't want to be. My internet usage is generally pretty benevolent--except for the parts where I'm hearing about the shit going on in real life. And y'know what? my Alabama news papers and alabama news outlets aren't going to give me news that is relevant to me.

I mean. The internet isn't a requirement for life. Neither is TV, newspapers, radio or anything like that. All we *really* need is food, water and shelter, after all. We could go back to a hunter gatherer society. But once we start collecting together in permanent groups, we're going to start sharing news, gossip, rumours and information. and y'know what? tha'ts pretty cool. BUt we want ways to share this with others-- media forms. media can be controlled. Science leads to technological advances. Great. and that leads to the internet, which is the great communication tool.

it's what lets people in little towns without libraries look up youtube videos of actual real tigers and read about bugs, and why rainforests are neat. My lttle niece spends more time on the internet looking up information about ecology and animals than I ever did, and I lived in the library and was basically born a furry and treasured all bajillion issues of ranger rick I owned. She knows SO MUCH more than I ever did because she doesn't have access to just the dozen tiger books the library has, she has the world of knowledge before her fingertips. I thought I knew what every animal was was I was 10. She was chattering happily about Kinkajous to me the other day. I'd never heard of a kinkajou until a few years ago.

The internet can be fantastic, man. I want to protect it so I can talk to my family, look up doggo pictures, let my niece learn about exotic mammals and decide that she, a little girl, wants pet rats and pet snakes, and that she doesn't want a fancy Persian cat, but wants a little moggie from the shelter because there are homeless pets out there, and how she discovered that spiders are really pretty and aren't actually terrifying.

We don't need the internet to live. But it makes my life better. I can live without it--of course I can. but it makes my life *better*.

To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

wikipedia's great when you don't have the basis of information. I found myself wondering 'how the hell do sailboats even work? surely they are just bound to the whims of the wind? How does a boat go back and forth across an ocean if that's true??" ... thanks wikipedia for breaking that answer down for me, in a brief but effective way that answered my question without me having to remember it long enough to reach the library and look it up, and cross reference several different terms to try and understand what's going on.

Instant information isn't a bad thing. we do lack critical thinking, but oh honey.

Oh honey.

we have never, ever, ever as a society all known how to think critically.

Is it worse today than it was a few decades ago? hard to say. we're all pretty biased on the matter. Would we benefit from being taught different things? absolutely. Standardized education as we teach it now is pretty shitty up and down across the board. It wasn't much better when I was a kid. It wasn't better when my dad was a kid (he's the one who got to high school before some one realized he couldn't read.) My husband's grandpa couldn't read at all. He dropped out after 3rd grade to go work. Did people before have a better understanding of how people work back then? Maybe!

But I can tell you that every generation has felt like society is dying, that things were better in the past. "smartphones are killing society, internet is killing society, MTV is killing society, rock music, television, movies, telephones, magazines, newspapers, books...!" ... it's always been this way and it always will. Even if you teach people to think, some people won't.

But, dude. if you'd like a better you, you could always just get off the internet yourself. I mean... you're *here*... with us. ... on the internet. You may even be happier for it! and if so, that's great :) I wish you all the best. But I'd like it if you could please try and support me and my world, which is better and more connected with the internet. Or at the very least, my little niece who's internet education is far richer than what her disinterested, underfunded public school teachers are giving her.


Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

The very fact that you are accessing this site, on the internet, for *free, yet you don't care about the issue is pure arrogance.

Also, using Wikipedia is always an automatic fail on assignments since high school.


Waba said:
The very fact that you are accessing this site, on the internet, for *free, yet you don't care about the issue is pure arrogance.

Also, using Wikipedia is always an automatic fail on assignments since high school.

It's a privilege that I know can be taken away from me at anytime. Having this mentality is moreso the result of apathy since I'm aware of the volatility the internet has and not particularly out of arrogance.

SnowWolf said:
I really...

"I don't need it, so no one else does" isn't a very good arguement. Or at least, it's a horrifically selfish one.

It was moreso a display of my contempt of the behavior on the internet more than anything else. I realize that the internet itself is a great tool when used in a way that benefits everyone involved, but it isn't. Obviously this doesn't detract from the advantages of the internet as a whole, but if the general environment of it wasn't as hostile as it is, I would probably be more inclined to defend net neutrality rather than do nothing.

Have a lot more I can say about this, but I'm tired as fuck so a condensed version of how I feel about it will do for now.


Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

Because we adapted so well with all the other great purges of information.