Jump to content

Burger King Explains Net Neutrality


Recommended Posts

Cute, too bad it’s not entirely analogous to what’s happening WRT net neutrality, those customers are all getting the same Whopper. That said, I’m not sure why consumers/users paying more for X+ speed and/or Y+ data caps doesn’t address the original real issue. Eliminating net neutrality outright could have the added effect of arbitrary preferential throttling (the angle BK is legitimately targeting), not the intended outcome. It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, could it be a good thing? Like limiting the drugs we push into our systems?

Knowledge, things like Wikipedia pages and discussions like these, are small, they will load fast regardless right? But big files, lithe the seventh rewatch of The Walking Dead, maybe that addict needs an arbitrary control like that to get off his ass and plant a garden or go sailing ...

Could it be the equivalent of digital methadone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rum Runner said:

Great stuff. A great way to explain corporate greed.

They forgot the part about the customers not coming back.  Lot's of choices in both fast food and internet access.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Dumbest thread of all time. Since when is it Un-American, immoral or illegal to charge a premium price for superior service

That's not the point though is it? The point is that your ISP can choose to throttle back a competing streaming service, block content it doesn't approve of (porn, religion, politics etc) and generally revoke the freedom that a buyer should have.

As I understand it, in many areas you only have one choice of ISP so even if you want to, you are stuck with the policies of one supplier.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Terrorvision said:

That's not the point though is it? The point is that your ISP can choose to throttle back a competing streaming service, block content it doesn't approve of (porn, religion, politics etc) and generally revoke the freedom that a buyer should have.

As I understand it, in many areas you only have one choice of ISP so even if you want to, you are stuck with the policies of one supplier.

 

The point is that Burger King is perfectly able to implement this very same thing any time it wants.  There is no government oversight preventing it from doing such.  Yet, for some reason, it doesn't.  I wonder why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

The point is that Burger King is perfectly able to implement this very same thing any time it wants.  There is no government oversight preventing it from doing such.  Yet, for some reason, it doesn't.  I wonder why.

Because they have to contend with competition.

On the other hand, an ISP often uses public right-of-ways, public infrastructure and often exists in a sole-source market. 

I can open a burger restaurant in a broken town for a few hundred bucks and a health inspection certificate. Good luck starting a competing ISP without public infrastructure for less than a few billion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hillary said:

And how exactly would they do that when everyone starts to use end to end encryption. Even if your list was not already protected by laws ... here let me give you an example. If the next restaurant you patronize does what is in that parody, what are you going to do? Yeah I thought so. You'll eat elsewhere. Give us free markets and it will take care of itself. 

Except that ISPs use public resources of phone lines, right-of-ways, airwaves, and cell towers accessed by public land. There is a reason why there is a Federal Communications Commission, but not a Federal Cheeseburger Commission.

Your free market thing is amusing ... free markets that piggy back on public resources. That's about as "free" as a pampered housecat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Except that ISPs use public resources of phone lines, right-of-ways, airwaves, and cell towers accessed by public land. There is a reason why there is a Federal Communications Commission, but not a Federal Cheeseburger Commission.

Your free market thing is amusing ... free markets that piggy back on public resources. That's about as "free" as a pampered housecat.

Really?  Maybe out where the BLM controls the majority of the land but elsewhere those lines and towers are generally on private land.  Occasionally on easements defined by cities but not public.

It's a real problem for tax collectors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Really?  Maybe out where the BLM controls the majority of the land but elsewhere those lines and towers are generally on private land.  Occasionally on easements defined by cities but not public.

It's a real problem for tax collectors.

Even when the towers are on private land, they use public frequencies. 

If an ISP used only their own fiber, that didn't cross public space, no wireless, then jzk's and Jack's Burger King analogy would be valid.

Interesting article about the church steeples. Those cell site leases are apparently good scratch if you can get them. I got to look at a cell site a few months ago, from a friend who does engineering on them. Remarkable, those things are. They have these high powered antennas with fuel cell power backup, lots of equipment, but then all the signals are combined and sent down a little fiber optic the system of a pencil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Because they have to contend with competition.

On the other hand, an ISP often uses public right-of-ways, public infrastructure and often exists in a sole-source market. 

I can open a burger restaurant in a broken town for a few hundred bucks and a health inspection certificate. Good luck starting a competing ISP without public infrastructure for less than a few billion.

There is plenty of competition among Internet providers.   And there is huge money to be made by undercutting any particular isp that decides to overcharge.   Government regulation is simply not necessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was actually about burgers and it was Obama that said you cunts had to have burgers with dogshit and no ketchup you’d be apoplectic. 

Because thats basically what your ISP will be serving you up, hot off the grill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terrorvision said:

If this was actually about burgers and it was Obama that said you cunts had to have burgers with dogshit and no ketchup you’d be apoplectic. 

Because thats basically what your ISP will be serving you up, hot off the grill. 

When will the ISPs be doing that?  I think this is as good a place as any to document said service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jzk said:

There is plenty of competition among Internet providers.   And there is huge money to be made by undercutting any particular isp that decides to overcharge.   Government regulation is simply not necessary. 

Plenty of competition in Boston and LA? Okay.

Plenty of competition in Rocktern, Montana or a few tens of thousands of other places? Nope. There isn't even cell service in a lot of places just a five minute drive from my house. No cable, no Power Line Communication. There is the phone line, twisted pair, ideally with a functional DSL. If you're well situated, satellite TV, maybe even satellite download with twisted pair upload. 

Government regulation is something that we the people have decided is necessary for the use of public resources like byways, access and airwaves.

You don't like it? Awesome, change the law. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Plenty of competition in Boston and LA? Okay.

Plenty of competition in Rocktern, Montana or a few tens of thousands of other places? Nope. There isn't even cell service in a lot of places just a five minute drive from my house. No cable, no Power Line Communication. There is the phone line, twisted pair, ideally with a functional DSL. If you're well situated, satellite TV, maybe even satellite download with twisted pair upload. 

Government regulation is something that we the people have decided is necessary for the use of public resources like byways, access and airwaves.

You don't like it? Awesome, change the law. Good luck.

We did change the law.  We repealed net neutrality.  How about that?

Government regulation is something that crony capitalists have decided is necessary to help them get an advantage over their competitors.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hillary said:

And how exactly would they do that when everyone starts to use end to end encryption. Blah, blah, blah.

Because the data is encrypted, not the origin or destination. Go look up how a router works dumbass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

We did change the law.  We repealed net neutrality.  How about that?

Government regulation is something that crony capitalists have decided is necessary to help them get an advantage over their competitors.  

No, you didn't change the law. There is still massive oversight and control of public resources like airwaves. The changes in net neutrality are just slightly adjusting the flavors of ice cream in the giant banana split of government oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

No, you didn't change the law. There is still massive oversight and control of public resources like airwaves. The changes in net neutrality are just slightly adjusting the flavors of ice cream in the giant banana split of government oversight.

The repeal of net neutrality did not "change the law?" 

Who knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

A peer sharing distribution method and VPN's  dumberass

You don't have control of the routers dumbass. Outside of my (ISP) network you're going to get throttled if you try that dumbass. Go back and attend another class at MIT. See if you can keep up this time. You're an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jzk said:

The repeal of net neutrality did not "change the law?" 

Who knew?

We were discussing the right and need of government to regulate industries that exploit a public resource. That ability was not removed.

A few decades ago, the rules were changed to allow Americans to use the 11 meter wavelengths without being licensed. That didn't remove the FCC's control of that wavelength, it just changed the rules. The rules could change again to completely commercialize that band.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

I trust that public pressure and the threat of a legislative backlash will keep the net open and free. 

Umm, did you happen to notice that even though NN enjoyed broad support from just about everyone, it got trashed? That's what happens when dictators install cronies. Enjoy paying for your "Premium Service" Jackov.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Umm, did you happen to notice that even though NN enjoyed broad support from just about everyone, it got trashed? That's what happens when dictators install cronies. Enjoy paying for your "Premium Service" Jackov.

 

When does this premium service begin?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640815074/verizon-throttled-firefighters-data-as-mendocino-wildfire-raged-fire-chief-says

Just days after the massive Mendocino Complex Fire ignited in Northern California, fire officials were getting desperate in their emails to Verizon Wireless. As Santa Clara County firefighters mobilized, they discovered that Internet access had slowed to a crawl on the vehicle they were using to coordinate their response.

"Please work with us," Daniel Farrelly, a systems analyst for the Santa Clara Fire Department, entreated the company in an email dated July 30. "All we need is a plan that does not offer throttling or caps of any kind."

A few hours later, a Verizon accounts manager suggested they get an upgrade.

Verizon says it was just a combination of poor plan choice by the firefighters and poor customer service not to allow faster data speed during a public emergency.    Santa Claire government argues that restricting data flow to pigeon speed unless the customer pays his ransom maximizes profits and is the intent of the Trump rule.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fire Department Joins Net Neutrality Suit After Verizon Cuts Data During Wildfire

 

<snip>

A California fire department that’s repeatedly had its mobile data speeds throttled by Verizon while responding to wildfires, rendering devices virtually unusable, has submitted its experience as evidence in support of a lawsuit to restore net neutrality at the federal level.

Santa Clara County Fire Department Chief Anthony Bowden made the declaration in an addendum filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals Monday that Verizon has restricted mobile data speeds on an “unlimited” device in an emergency response vehicle on at least three occasions since 2017, apparently pledging after every incident it wouldn’t do so again.

The department relies on the device to “track, organize, and prioritize routing of resources from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed,” Bowden said. The device typically uses between 5 and 10 gigabytes a day during emergencies.

Once data exceeds 25G of use within a month, however, Verizon slows transfer rates to 0.05 percent of the normal speed, reducing it by a factor of 200, frantic emails between the fire department and Verizon show. (Verizon owns HuffPost’s parent company, Oath.)

This happened most recently amid…

<snip>

 

More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fire-department-verizon-data-throttled-net-neutrality_us_5b7d7346e4b0348585fc755c

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Fire Department Joins Net Neutrality Suit After Verizon Cuts Data During Wildfire

 

<snip>

A California fire department that’s repeatedly had its mobile data speeds throttled by Verizon while responding to wildfires, rendering devices virtually unusable, has submitted its experience as evidence in support of a lawsuit to restore net neutrality at the federal level.

Santa Clara County Fire Department Chief Anthony Bowden made the declaration in an addendum filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals Monday that Verizon has restricted mobile data speeds on an “unlimited” device in an emergency response vehicle on at least three occasions since 2017, apparently pledging after every incident it wouldn’t do so again.

The department relies on the device to “track, organize, and prioritize routing of resources from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed,” Bowden said. The device typically uses between 5 and 10 gigabytes a day during emergencies.

Once data exceeds 25G of use within a month, however, Verizon slows transfer rates to 0.05 percent of the normal speed, reducing it by a factor of 200, frantic emails between the fire department and Verizon show. (Verizon owns HuffPost’s parent company, Oath.)

This happened most recently amid…

<snip>

 

More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fire-department-verizon-data-throttled-net-neutrality_us_5b7d7346e4b0348585fc755c

YCMTSU.......   who lets this happen? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Fire Department Joins Net Neutrality Suit After Verizon Cuts Data During Wildfire

 

<snip>

A California fire department that’s repeatedly had its mobile data speeds throttled by Verizon while responding to wildfires, rendering devices virtually unusable, has submitted its experience as evidence in support of a lawsuit to restore net neutrality at the federal level.

Santa Clara County Fire Department Chief Anthony Bowden made the declaration in an addendum filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals Monday that Verizon has restricted mobile data speeds on an “unlimited” device in an emergency response vehicle on at least three occasions since 2017, apparently pledging after every incident it wouldn’t do so again.

The department relies on the device to “track, organize, and prioritize routing of resources from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed,” Bowden said. The device typically uses between 5 and 10 gigabytes a day during emergencies.

Once data exceeds 25G of use within a month, however, Verizon slows transfer rates to 0.05 percent of the normal speed, reducing it by a factor of 200, frantic emails between the fire department and Verizon show. (Verizon owns HuffPost’s parent company, Oath.)

This happened most recently amid…

<snip>

 

More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fire-department-verizon-data-throttled-net-neutrality_us_5b7d7346e4b0348585fc755c

Well, gosh

Why didn't the firefighters just change to a different, competing, provider? I'm sure the free market has an answer to this problem.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, gosh

Why didn't the firefighters just change to a different, competing, provider? I'm sure the free market has an answer to this problem.

-DSK

It's probable the FD had no say. Most likely the local govt solicits bids for ph/Internet service for all govt depts and functions, and awards a contract to lowest bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lark said:

A few hours later, a Verizon accounts manager suggested they get an upgrade.

Ya think?

7 hours ago, RKoch said:

Santa Clara County Fire Department Chief Anthony Bowden made the declaration in an addendum filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals Monday that Verizon has restricted mobile data speeds on an “unlimited” device in an emergency response vehicle on at least three occasions since 2017, apparently pledging after every incident it wouldn’t do so again.

The department relies on the device to “track, organize, and prioritize routing of resources from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed,” Bowden said. The device typically uses between 5 and 10 gigabytes a day during emergencies.

Once data exceeds 25G of use within a month, however, Verizon slows transfer rates to 0.05 percent of the normal speed, reducing it by a factor of 200, frantic emails between the fire department and Verizon show.

Or, if you know you're going to use that much in just a couple of days, you buy the appropriate plan for your usage.

Or just repeatedly say "it's an emergency" when you discover once again that your plan is obviously too small. Then fail to upgrade and wait for another emergency.

We have "unlimited" data on our satellite internet service. And once we reach the data limit of our plan, the wait times also become unlimited.

5G is coming and it can't happen soon enough for me. Satellite has an inherent latency problem and it'll probably never pay to run a coax cable out here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 8:22 AM, mikewof said:

In a way, could it be a good thing? Like limiting the drugs we push into our systems?

Knowledge, things like Wikipedia pages and discussions like these, are small, they will load fast regardless right? But big files, lithe the seventh rewatch of The Walking Dead, maybe that addict needs an arbitrary control like that to get off his ass and plant a garden or go sailing ...

Could it be the equivalent of digital methadone?

Sort of like you're a natural inhibitor of intelligent thought?  Perhaps........

Anyways.  What most people DON'T realize and the FCC has been very keen to hide is that the Net Neutrality repeal didn't just repeal net neutrality. 

The relevant clause was buried halfway into the article:

"Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior."

So basically, not net neutrality, but the ability to complain about Verizon screwing with customers which was removed along with "net neutrality".

Our friend Ajit Pai didn't just remove net neutrality.  He removed our ability to file official complaints about it.  So without complaints, there is no real problem that they need to acknowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices.

I wonder what's "unjust and/or unreasonable" here?

If the state of emergency justifies a taking as a public use, we have an amendment about that. There should be just compensation. Meaning, market price. Meaning, don't buy the cheapest plan and then expect the data limits of the more expensive plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

Personally my internet speeds have gone up and my bill is 1/3 less then last year. 

Yeah, our speeds will go up for things like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, but that speed may then come at the expense of then slowing my personal video feed of what's happening at my county courthouse to dial-up speeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, our speeds will go up for things like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, but that speed may then come at the expense of then slowing my personal video feed of what's happening at my county courthouse to dial-up speeds.

You mean routers will continue to prioritize traffic, just as has always been done? The horror. We probably need bureaucrats to tell them how to do it better. That's how innovation happens, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean routers will continue to prioritize traffic, just as has always been done? The horror. We probably need bureaucrats to tell them how to do it better. That's how innovation happens, right?

I think that routers don't take speed away from Mary to pay Paul. You don't see a problem with monopolization there? What about blazing fast speeds for Amazon, but 300 baud phone cradle speeds for your website that has the antique fishing reels?

Last time I looked at network map, the internet uses a whole lot of public resources to make it work, everything from public land access, public switches, access to public airwaves, protection from Homeland Security, and it's built on DARPA IP.

You have no issue with the wholesale privatization of that resource? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I think that routers don't take speed away from Mary to pay Paul. You don't see a problem with monopolization there? What about blazing fast speeds for Amazon, but 300 baud phone cradle speeds for your website that has the antique fishing reels?

Last time I looked at network map, the internet uses a whole lot of public resources to make it work, everything from public land access, public switches, access to public airwaves, protection from Homeland Security, and it's built on DARPA IP.

You have no issue with the wholesale privatization of that resource? 

Libertarian theory states that people act in their best self-interest. Not swinish greed and stubborn contrariness. 

The stubborn and blind way Libertarian s argue ... ... about almost anything.......... demonstrates the blind stubborn contrariness which disproves Libertarian theory

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As attractive as it is, the libertarian system simply does not work in a society. There is no example of such in the world. Those who desire such can create it in their own private world. Move to the mountains, a basement, or whatever. They just cannot be a beneficial member of society.

The internet was created, and existed until recently, in the polar opposite of a libertarian system. Academia, socialized support...all those twiddlers working together...all the useful bits are open source...etc etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The big mistake in Libertarianism, Imperialism, Consevatism, Liberalism, Anarchism, Authoritarianism, Disestablishmentarianism, Socialism and the rest is when the followers become convinced that their 'ism should be applied universally.

All of these 'isms work best in measured dosages, in a well mixed fish stew of 'isms ... a Moqueca, where any mix but rigidity tends to make structural meal.

Moquecaism.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Libertarian theory states that people act in their best self-interest. Not swinish greed and stubborn contrariness. 

The stubborn and blind way Libertarian s argue ... ... about almost anything.......... demonstrates the blind stubborn contrariness which disproves Libertarian theory

-DSK

 

That's why I claim to be an anarchist but really, I'm just an apathetic cynic....

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I think that routers don't take speed away from Mary to pay Paul.

They do prioritize traffic and if the fire department paid for a plan appropriate to their usage they would be the priority.

 

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

You don't see a problem with monopolization there? What about blazing fast speeds for Amazon, but 300 baud phone cradle speeds for your website that has the antique fishing reels? 

Last time I looked at network map, the internet uses a whole lot of public resources to make it work, everything from public land access, public switches, access to public airwaves, protection from Homeland Security, and it's built on DARPA IP.

You have no issue with the wholesale privatization of that resource? 

Not sure what "public switches" you're talking about but the fact that lines must cross federal land doesn't make everything a federal matter.

 

16 hours ago, daddle said:

The internet was created, and existed until recently, in the polar opposite of a libertarian system.

Latecomer, huh? When I arrived on the net in the 1990's it was crawling with libertarian early adopters. We were attracted to the lack of censorship most of all and that remains true. Well, unless one wants to talk bad about certain TeamD policies, but mostly true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

They do prioritize traffic and if the fire department paid for a plan appropriate to their usage they would be the priority.

Not sure what "public switches" you're talking about but the fact that lines must cross federal land doesn't make everything a federal matter.

Communications still use switches, optical fiber and leeways that are on public land and they use bandwidth that is owned by the public. Even further, your cell phone or most any wireless device couldn't work without constant frequency calibrations from NIST, and often with satellites that use public resources, even public geostationary parking spots.

Anarchy is all well and good in a political sense, but if you think that it would work in a frequency or orbital sense, then you know nothing about wireless communication and orbits.

Lose the idea of "Federal" and simply recognize that WE own the public resources around us we allow these corporations to use them, if they follow our rules.

And Normy, they LOVE it, whether or not you understand that, because it allows them to conduct business in an organized way and make lots of money. The alternative for them would be a never-ending spectrum arms war, where every antenna that wanted its signal received would have to keep pumping ever-higher power to overwhelm the other spectrum anarchists. Digital communication would be nearly impossible.

Yes, they love the rules, but they want their cake and they want to eat it too ... they want the public control of the spectrum and the public resources like NIST for which they don't have to pay, but they also want enough control to be able to eliminate competition.

And like an obedient Libertarian, you seem to think that's just hunky-dory. Their wet dream is to have a nation of voters like that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 11:55 PM, mikewof said:

Holy shit, that's awesome.

Burger King must have had buy-in on that, they had to. And that makes Burger King fucking brilliant. They have my fast food business from this moment forward. They took a stand. Fuck yes.

They'd have mine too if they didn't make such shitty burgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They'd have mine too if they didn't make such shitty burgers.

Off the subject, but I am actually curious ... how does their chicken, burgers, fries, shakes, etc., compare to other $1 to $4 fast food venues? I've never had one of their burgers. My son likes a local chain we have here called Good Times, but they seem to have much lower fixed costs than Burger King, or McDonalds or Wendy's,  (no eat-in dining, no national advertising) so their food is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Off the subject, but I am actually curious ... how does their chicken, burgers, fries, shakes, etc., compare to other $1 to $4 fast food venues? I've never had one of their burgers. My son likes a local chain we have here called Good Times, but they seem to have much lower fixed costs than Burger King, or McDonalds or Wendy's,  (no eat-in dining, no national advertising) so their food is better.

When BK showed up on the North Shore decades ago we gave them a few tries (they had a playroom for little kids).

I was unimpressed and haven't been back for probably 30 years.

If I want a fast burger I go to A&W.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Latecomer, huh? When I arrived on the net in the 1990's it was crawling with libertarian early adopters. We were attracted to the lack of censorship most of all and that remains true. Well, unless one wants to talk bad about certain TeamD policies, but mostly true.

Sure libertarians were attracted to the internet. Why not? Libertarians have adopted the highways, post office, currency, military security, etc etc to great hypocritical advantage. But the internet did not spring from a libertarian culture. Unlikely anything widely useful has.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daddle said:

Sure libertarians were attracted to the internet. Why not? Libertarians have adopted the highways, post office, currency, military security, etc etc to great hypocritical advantage. But the internet did not spring from a libertarian culture. Unlikely anything widely useful has.

FIFY

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Latecomer, huh? When I arrived on the net in the 1990's it was crawling with libertarian early adopters. We were attracted to the lack of censorship most of all and that remains true. Well, unless one wants to talk bad about certain TeamD policies, but mostly true.

Actually you're the latecomer - I was working for CSIRO Division of Computing Research and we, along with some of the universities, built the first real WAN in Australia back in the early 1980's. Then the gateways to the USA internet.

The whole thing started going downhill when it was opened up to fuckwits from bix.com and even worse, arseholes on line (aol.com) and others which had previously been heavily moderated walled gardens. You 'libertarian' types thought you now had the unfettered right to shit over everything and invented spam mail amongst other things. It hadn't been an issue when it was a bunch of universities and research organisations - that's why we all had open mail gateways etc etc to make life easy for our colleagues.

Now - look what's happened.

FKT

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Latecomer, huh? When I arrived on the net in the 1990's it was crawling with libertarian early adopters. We were attracted to the lack of censorship most of all and that remains true. Well, unless one wants to talk bad about certain TeamD policies, but mostly true.

Hilarious. Do never assume. I had a Bangpath UUCP address which I used for my programming work. About 50 years ago. That was how us budding democratic soclaiists sent messages before there were domain names. I acquired immunity to trolls on USENET forums.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

People have no idea how fast DSL was in the late 90s, early 2KS. If you used you university as you network provider and you spent hundreds of hours helping to set it up. You were the only DSL account for square miles. I didn't see any libertarians helping.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daddle said:

Sure libertarians were attracted to the internet. Why not? Libertarians have adopted the highways, post office, currency, military security, etc etc to great hypocritical advantage. But the internet did not spring from a libertarian culture. Unlikely anything widely useful has.

Widely used, at least.

Lots of internet innovation was porn driven. Getting payments, faster loading images, faster videos, etc were crucial and it was possible to find people who would pay, a major barrier to early innovation in other fields.

And when the censors come along, who defends porn like we do other speech?

Paying for and objecting to our nation's interventionist policies is the best I can do with respect to military security. What else should I be doing? Your other examples are kinda silly since only a few fringies really object to things like roads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lasal said:

People have no idea how fast DSL was in the late 90s, early 2KS. If you used you university as you network provider and you spent hundreds of hours helping to set it up. You were the only DSL account for square miles. I didn't see any libertarians helping.

Yeah - we had ISDN leased lines, DSL, microwave, all sorts of stuff. We kept ripping it out & upgrading.

The Libertarians were still discussing how many angels should pay for the privilege of buying a pinhead.

I'm quite fond of the Libertarian political POV, I just don't make the mistake of thinking that it actually works. Human beings are too contrary & selfish.

FKT

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I'm quite fond of the Libertarian political POV, I just don't make the mistake of thinking that it actually works.

Many of my elk want to hang me for saying libertarian ideas don't work well in areas like water management.

But there are lots of aspects to "it." For example, drug prohibition is a stupid policy that doesn't work and more libertarian approaches work better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

When BK showed up on the North Shore decades ago we gave them a few tries (they had a playroom for little kids).

I was unimpressed and haven't been back for probably 30 years.

If I want a fast burger I go to A&W.

I haven't seen an A&W in maybe 40 years. They used to have one here ... Babyburger, Brotherburger, Mamaburger, Papaburger. And they let us kids take home the little mini mugs from the root beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, daddle said:

Hilarious. Do never assume. I had a Bangpath UUCP address which I used for my programming work. About 50 years ago. That was how us budding democratic soclaiists sent messages before there were domain names. I acquired immunity to trolls on USENET forums.

I remember the Usenet, that was fun. I bought a dumb thing called a "domain name" back in the mid 1990s, back then you had to sit on the phone with some friendly kid in San Diego, give him your choices and he would run through them and see if they were available. I had managed to keep that original domain all these years. Some very friendly, very ambitious kid offered me 12 grand for it last week. Hmm ... nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

More broadband than ever

Quote

 

Other key findings of the report include the following, based on data through the end of 2017:

  • The number of Americans with access to 100 Mbps/10Mpbs fixed broadband
    increased by nearly 20%, from 244.3 million to 290.9 million.
  • The number of Americans with access to 250 Mbps/50 Mbps fixed broadband grew by
    over 45%, to 205.2 million, and the number of rural Americans with access to such
    service more than doubled.

 

 

There are rural Americans with 250 Mbps? Just as well I don't know where as I'm jealous enough to want to hurt them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Deregulation didn't end the internet as we know it
 

Quote

 

Today, by a 2-1 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided largely with the FCC, upholding the primary regulatory rollback as a valid exercise of its authority. In the nearly 200 page opinion, which is heavy on technical detail, the court wrote that while the challengers raised "numerous objections" aiming to show that the FCC's reclassification is "unreasonable," the judges found them "unconvincing."

The court raised several smaller issues related to public safety and "the regulation of pole attachments," and allowed for the possibility that states might implement their own net neutrality regulations. California has already enacted such a law, but had suspended enforcement pending the outcome of this case. And the court cautioned that its judgment was not an endorsement of the policy decision on the merits, but a judgment about its legality. 

The evidence for the Trump FCC's decision to roll back the Obama administration's regulatory expansion, however, is in the state of the internet itself: Broadband speeds are up, and the United States leads the world in overall data traffic. The internet, while imperfect, has not become the sluggish, apocalyptic, dysfunctional mess that net neutrality backers warned. 

 

200 pages? I often read court opinions because the political rhetoric surrounding them is so very far from what actually happened. Lots of ignorant people still think Citizens United was about the existence of corporate first amendment rights, an issue that wasn't before the court and on which all 9 agreed.

But 200 pages? Not this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...


NY AG finds nearly 82% of net neutrality comments to the FCC were fake

https://www.protocol.com/fcc-net-neutrality-fake-comments

Excerpt -

In a new report, New York Attorney General Letitia James found that of the more than 22 million public comments the Federal Communications Commission received in 2017 regarding the repeal of net neutrality protections, a whopping 18 million were fake. Millions of those comments, the report says, were funded by the broadband industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sean said:


NY AG finds nearly 82% of net neutrality comments to the FCC were fake

https://www.protocol.com/fcc-net-neutrality-fake-comments

Excerpt -

In a new report, New York Attorney General Letitia James found that of the more than 22 million public comments the Federal Communications Commission received in 2017 regarding the repeal of net neutrality protections, a whopping 18 million were fake. Millions of those comments, the report says, were funded by the broadband industry.

Can they take action on that? Someone needs to have their pee-pee whacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Can they take action on that? Someone needs to have their pee-pee whacked.

I would like to think so. Letitia James is on it, she’s not shy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sean said:


NY AG finds nearly 82% of net neutrality comments to the FCC were fake

https://www.protocol.com/fcc-net-neutrality-fake-comments

Excerpt -

In a new report, New York Attorney General Letitia James found that of the more than 22 million public comments the Federal Communications Commission received in 2017 regarding the repeal of net neutrality protections, a whopping 18 million were fake. Millions of those comments, the report says, were funded by the broadband industry.

Quote

The 18 million fake comments the FCC received did not solely oppose net neutrality. The 19-year-old college student cited in the report submitted 7.7 million comments in favor of net neutrality. "The FCC had few safeguards in place to detect or prevent millions of submissions from a single source," the report reads. "The OAG also identified another group of 1.6 million pro-neutrality comments that were submitted using fictitious identities, but has not determined the source of these comments."

Pretty laughable incompetence from the FCC there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Pretty laughable incompetence from the FCC there.

Hmm, seems they accomplished what they wanted with the assistance of that incompetence. So, competent incompetence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz&#x27;r said:

Hmm, seems they accomplished what they wanted with the assistance of that incompetence. So, competent incompetence?

I doubt they wanted 7.7 million comments from one person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

I doubt they wanted 7.7 million comments from one person.

as long as they have their 3:2 vote, what difference would it make?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

I doubt they wanted 7.7 million comments from one person.

No, they wanted to game the rules for allocating bandwidth so they could hit up corporate donors for contributions

Mission accomplished!

And that's a piece of fuckery that has not yet been undone AFAIK

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...