Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: "Today’s tech oligarchs are worse than the robber barons"

  1. #31
    I’ve found people are very confused about what net neutrality really is. My nephew had a long Facebook post about how he believed free market forces would regulate and prevent ISPs from actually throttling traffic. His think was that if your ISP did that you’d just join one that doesn’t and there would inevitably be one or more that do.

    The problem is when you request a website it is likely coming to you across multiple competing ISPs. So even if you are a centurylink customer, you are frequently using Comcast’s network.

    For example when I traceroute my servers for my business I’ll see hops across Comcast, centurylink and Cox. My home ISP is centurylink. If Comcast wants to throttle my server traffic without net neutrality they could even though I have no relationship to them.

    So you can see how market forces really can’t regulate this and reward the good actors.

    Conservative or liberal there is no reason to not support net neutrality as it really is what is best for consumers and actually all businesses.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I’ve found people are very confused about what net neutrality really is. My nephew had a long Facebook post about how he believed free market forces would regulate and prevent ISPs from actually throttling traffic. His think was that if your ISP did that you’d just join one that doesn’t and there would inevitably be one or more that do.

    The problem is when you request a website it is likely coming to you across multiple competing ISPs. So even if you are a centurylink customer, you are frequently using Comcast’s network.

    For example when I traceroute my servers for my business I’ll see hops across Comcast, centurylink and Cox. My home ISP is centurylink. If Comcast wants to throttle my server traffic without net neutrality they could even though I have no relationship to them.

    So you can see how market forces really can’t regulate this and reward the good actors.

    Conservative or liberal there is no reason to not support net neutrality as it really is what is best for consumers and actually all businesses.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Beyond that, most people are lucky to have 2 ISP choices. And often that’s not even a choice my old house my choice was Comcast or Centurylink...but only one provided high speeds, the other was very limited.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #33
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    This guy (AG of Missouri) won’t be the last politician to push this issue:

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...gating-google/

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #34
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    A libertarian view on net neutrality.

    Why Net Neutrality Was Mistaken from the Beginning

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/wh...m_medium=email

    What interests me about this issue is that I have Republican friends on both sides of the issue, and Democrat friends on both sides of the issue. That suggests to me that perhaps ultimately the best solution is going to be some kind of compromise.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    A libertarian view on net neutrality.

    Why Net Neutrality Was Mistaken from the Beginning

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/wh...m_medium=email

    What interests me about this issue is that I have Republican friends on both sides of the issue, and Democrat friends on both sides of the issue. That suggests to me that perhaps ultimately the best solution is going to be some kind of compromise.
    This is a tangent to the NN discussion, but I don't think people realize just how fragile the wild-west, unregulated Internet world really is. I'm spending more & more of my time with ITSec issues, which is becoming not just expensive, but rendering the technology itself as less effective / valuable.

    Here's an example everyone can relate to: How many of us answer our phones like we used to? How many times have you answered the phone, it looked like a local number, maybe somebody you know, and it turned out to be just another sales pitch from India, or the Philippines, or wherever? I don't answer my phone, 95% of the time, unless it's somebody in my Contacts.

    All the noise and hassle make phones are less valuable than they used to be.

    On NN, if there was a way to immediately punish abusers of throttling - did-incentivize the behavior - then we wouldn't need NN rules. But just as crooked stock brokers sense it's open season to prey on seniors under the Trump regime, those who are ready to jettison NN are either naïvely dogmatic against any regulation, or they stand to benefit from a more chaotic Internet world of predators and victims.

  6. #36
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    This fall, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives were hauled before a Congressional committee after being asked to investigate allegations of Russian meddling. Facebook admitted that 126 million of their users may have seen content produced and circulated anonymously by Russian operatives. Twitter admitted to working with 2,752 Russian accounts, and that 36,000 Russian bots tweeted 1.4 million times during the election. Google testified that 1,108 videos with 43 hours of content related to the Russian effort were uploaded on YouTube, and that Russians placed $4,700 worth of search and display ads on its network.

    But this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the kind of meddling the social media giants tolerated. And getting a grip on how to address these issues will be no small feat. The social media business model itself is flawed and unethical; the tech giants have usurped the role of traditional news media—without assuming any historic social responsibilities.


    https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  7. #37
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,710
    Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ounced-repeal/

  8. #38
    Huh. Imagine that.

    Perhaps the nation and all local governments can send Comcast a bill for all of the tax breaks and incentives they were given to install the backbone, and also get them to pay for the real estate for rights-of-way they were essentially gifted without going through the normal condemnation process. Those alone have to approach a trillion dollars.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by U-Ute View Post
    Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ounced-repeal/
    This is what I love about all online terms and policy statements, they’ll go on and on about protecting your data or not selling to third parties or pledging no paid prioritization or whatever else a consumer might be concerned about. They all also contain a statement along the lines of “we reserve the right to change this policy at any time for any reason without notice” basically voiding any promise.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    A free market analysis:

    Should Platforms Like Google and Facebook Be Regulated?

    http://pointsandfigures.com/2017/12/...-be-regulated/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  11. #41
    This doesn’t have to do with net neutrality but in my mind emphasizes its importance:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-...air-1512516707

    It doesn’t really matter who the bad actor(s) in this are it demonstrates that tech companies can shut each other off at expense of the consumer.

    We’ve talked about for profit issues of no net neutrality but what about the vengeance side? What if Comcast decides Netflix is a competitor and just refuses to serve them up to their clients?

    If you previously thought that wouldn’t happen, this dispute between two tech giants show it IS happening.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #42
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,710
    The funny thing about the internet is this: it routes around censorship.

    Someone will find a way to crack the Kindle and get the app back on just like someone will build a bridge between Comcast and Netflix if that happened.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by U-Ute View Post
    The funny thing about the internet is this: it routes around censorship.

    Someone will find a way to crack the Kindle and get the app back on just like someone will build a bridge between Comcast and Netflix if that happened.
    Yeah, but only 1% of Kindle owners will be able to follow the instructions to get the hack to work. Tech savvy people have no idea how wide the gulf is between them and the rest of the world.

  14. #44
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    This is slightly off-point but still relevant here. Also disturbing.

    Review: Social Media, Weaponized

    Excerpt:

    “Our information environment is sick,” warns David Patrikarakos. “We live in a world where facts are less important than narratives, where people emote rather than debate, and where algorithms shape our view of the world.” Even in war.

    Mr. Patrikarakos’s “War in 140 Characters” details a new kind of conflict that puts traditional military dominance at risk by weaponizing social media in ways that Silicon Valley’s digital optimists never imagined. The author, a London-based journalist, realized a few years ago that the wars he was covering in the Middle East and Ukraine were fought through social media as much as through physical warfare.

    The book offers vivid profiles of individuals on both sides of the online battlefield. One of them is a young Russian journalist who was out of work after Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 and occupied Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine following the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. Vitaly Bespalov was offered a high-paying job at a digital publisher. He was suspicious but joined the staff of the website worldukraine.com.ua anyway. He discovered that his job was to outrage Russian speakers in Ukraine and keep them on Mr. Putin’s side.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  15. #45
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,220
    End of Net Neutrality: What It Means for Consumers

    FCC’s rollback of telecom rules could raise prices, but nothing is certain

    Supporters of net neutrality warn that the end of the Obama-era rules will spell doom for internet freedom. Rather than treat all web traffic equally, telecom companies will be free to carve up the web into slow and fast “lanes,” costing consumers more time and money, they say.

    Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has played down the fears and said there are still rules in place to punish companies which harm consumers.

    The truth may be somewhere in the middle. Much is still unknown about how this will play out now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality.

    While the debate rolls on, here are some ways the FCC’s vote could impact you:

    Will consumers have to pay more for internet service or content?

    Don’t expect any immediate changes to your wireless bill or web subscriptions. But over the coming months and years, there are two ways the internet could become more expensive.

    In the near term, internet-service providers, or ISPs, could charge content providers like Netflix and Spotify for the privilege of streaming their videos and music over internet “fast lanes,” free of interruption. Those services could in turn pass on the added cost to consumers by raising their subscriptions a few bucks a month.

    So-called “paid prioritization” deals could be challenged by antitrust regulators if they are done to limit competition, rather than to pay for the cost of managing high-speed connections.

    Further out, the removal of net neutrality in theory could inhibit competition for services. With fewer companies competing to offer broadband and fewer websites delivering content, prices for all of these things could go up.

    Can service providers like Comcast and Verizon slow down video streaming?

    The largest ISPs say they have no plans to throttle website speeds. But they have before.

    In 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast had slowed access to BitTorrent because the peer-to-peer downloading site had “become a competitive threat to cable operators.” Comcast sued and had the order overturned, but the event created the impetus for the drafting of net-neutrality rules to prevent throttling.

    Will ISPs be able to censor content they don’t like?

    The biggest telco companies also own TV studios, websites and other businesses that compete for the attention of web users. Without net-neutrality protections, they could try to tip the playing field to their advantage by blocking access to sites with which they compete.

    This happened last year in Morocco, where telecommunications companies worked together to block access to web-calling services like Skype because it competed with their phone businesses.

    In the U.S., such a brazen move could provoke intervention by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, which both police unfair and anticompetitive business practices.

    What measures can people take to try to avoid having their internet slowed or censored?

    Read the fine print on user agreements. The FCC will require service providers to notify users if they block, slow down or give preferential treatment to any services.

    Are there any ways consumers might benefit from the rollback of net-neutrality rules?

    Some services have already become cheaper to consumers through so-called “zero rating” deals offered by wireless carriers. These deals include free access to high-bandwidth apps and sites like Netflix and HBO that don’t count toward a user’s mobile-data plan.

    Though critics say these deals violate the principles of net neutrality because they let carriers give preferential treatment to some services, the FCC said earlier this year that it wouldn’t target companies making such offers, especially because low-income people could benefit.

    Write to Douglas MacMillan at douglas.macmillan@wsj.com

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-...ers-1513275987



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •