Net Neutrality in Danger?

[JonA]

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension as his exact words were "All content flows through the internet without being interfered with,
based on the origin of the content.

Again - meaningless. Content has to be "interfered with" based on it's origin or the Internet wouldn't work.

What this means is Comcast cannot block my website from the viewing public if I criticize their business practices...

Are they currently allowed to do this? Were they before "net neutrality"?

... and that they are not allowed to treat my uploads any differently than anyone elses. Hence the word "Neutrality"

If all uploads were treated the same, the Internet wouldn't function. Your "net neutrality" is meaningless nonsense.

 

[LordKiran]

Again - meaningless. Content has to be "interfered with" based on it's origin or the Internet wouldn't work.

Are you purposely missing the point just to irritate people? because this has been explained to you at least three times now.

Are they currently allowed to do this? Were they before "net neutrality"?

No and yes.

If all uploads were treated the same, the Internet wouldn't function. Your "net neutrality" is meaningless nonsense.

Already explained to you, your willful ignorance is your own problem at this point.

 

[JonA]

The Internet isn't magic. All content is "interfered with" to some extent or another.

So again, if only the phrase "net neutrality" actually meant something...

Neutrality with respect to the specific content, using only the quantity and rate passed through the machine to determine service billing, and only applying rate insofar as it affects the universal availability of the service.

"Universal availability" is just a sub-fantasy of the larger fantasy of "net neutrality". If ISPs ensured "universal availability", the Internet wouldn't work.

 

[JonA]

...this has been explained to you at least three times now.

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

If all uploads were treated the same, the Internet wouldn't function. Your "net neutrality" is meaningless nonsense.

Already explained to you, your willful ignorance is your own problem at this point.

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

 

[LordKiran]

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

If all uploads were treated the same, the Internet wouldn't function. Your "net neutrality" is meaningless nonsense.

Already explained to you, your willful ignorance is your own problem at this point.

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

Ignoring people's explanations to repeat yourself isn't a rebuttle.

 

[another1]

Sorry for being off topic for a moment but this is a decent opportunity to mention something I think is extremely important. If it is possible to block things from particular net users, it SHOULD be done. Particularly in the case of children. An internet for kids only. That is what I'm talking about.

Adult internet should only be available to devices registered to adults. It would be very hard to determine who is using what, but they should at least try to start splitting things. Making it look like we're trying is almost as important as actually trying. It will take decades to make a kid-friendly internet, so people should fain interest soon. Things need to get going on this.

Growing up with adult internet is messing kids up in the head. Kids don't need this. Don't you think they deserve something separate? What are your thoughts?

 

[JonA]

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

If all uploads were treated the same, the Internet wouldn't function. Your "net neutrality" is meaningless nonsense.

Already explained to you, your willful ignorance is your own problem at this point.

Repeating your beliefs isn't an explanation.

Ignoring people's explanations to repeat yourself isn't a rebuttle.

There's nothing to rebut. "Net neutrality" is impossible as you wish to define it because your concept of "neutrality" is incompatible with the existence of the "net".

It's meaningless nonsense. A fantasy.

That's all.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry for being off topic for a moment but this is a decent opportunity to mention something I think is extremely important. If it is possible to block things from particular net users, it SHOULD be done. Particularly in the case of children. An internet for kids only. That is what I'm talking about.

Adult internet should only be available to devices registered to adults. It would be very hard to determine who is using what, but they should at least try to start splitting things. Making it look like we're trying is almost as important as actually trying. It will take decades to make a kid-friendly internet, so people should fain interest soon. Things need to get going on this.

Growing up with adult internet is messing kids up in the head. Kids don't need this. Don't you think they deserve something separate? What are your thoughts?

 

[bilby]

Sorry for being off topic for a moment but this is a decent opportunity to mention something I think is extremely important. If it is possible to block things from particular net users, it SHOULD be done. Particularly in the case of children. An internet for kids only. That is what I'm talking about.

Adult internet should only be available to devices registered to adults. It would be very hard to determine who is using what, but they should at least try to start splitting things. Making it look like we're trying is almost as important as actually trying. It will take decades to make a kid-friendly internet, so people should fain interest soon. Things need to get going on this.

Growing up with adult internet is messing kids up in the head. Kids don't need this. Don't you think they deserve something separate? What are your thoughts?

I think you are wrong on every count.

Not only is it not harmful for children to be exposed to the Internet; It is positively beneficial.

Censorship is usually stupid and harmful. Protecting children's innocence is a fetish of stunted adults with a bad case of false nostalgia. Children don't want or need to be protected from reality. Information is not harmful.

If you want to protect children, the Internet isn't the problem. People are. Giving children access to the Internet is a lot less dangerous than giving priests access to children.

 

[another1]

Not only is it not harmful for children to be exposed to the Internet; It is positively beneficial.

Of course the internet is beneficial for learning and meeting new little buddies. Playing video games and drawing. I'm not saying the internet is bad. I'm just saying that most of the people on it are bad. Oh and most of the material is bad as well.

Censorship is usually stupid and harmful.

The way we see censorship is stupid. The way we've been convinced that censorship is bad... that is harmful. For decades this idea that censorship is the devil has been reinforced. I've seen a spin on censorship since they started stamping things with that dumb parental guidance label. As if it would make a difference. All it did was confuse people as to what is right or wrong to expose children to. Now that censorship actually matters... it is too late. We all think it is the devil. Censorship is necessary, bilby. Now more than ever.

Protecting children's innocence is a fetish of stunted adults with a bad case of false nostalgia

That is the coldest thing I've seen you say. I shouldn't have to argue how screwed up that is.

Children don't want or need to be protected from reality.

Okay now I get it. You're just joking. Had me going for a second! You're exaggerating your Godlessness to turn things around in a clever way. I'm all about jokes and I can't knock you for using humor but we're talking about the minds of children, here. I know you're just as concerned as I am, and I know you don't really think that. How the hell could you?

Information is not harmful.

Information is USED. Information isn't harmful but it is used in devestating ways. Especially against children. You don't need to pretend you disagree with that.

If you want to protect children, the Internet isn't the problem.

The internet is a huge part of the problem. Why do you think they're becoming so screwy? The internet is greatly why. There is no such thing as "the problem", but take away their internet and watch their problems lessen by about 50%. You say people are the problem. They are! How can they let this go on? Take their damn phones away until we can figure out how to get them a safer internet!

Giving children access to the Internet is a lot less dangerous than giving priests access to children

Yes... because sexual conduct involving children is more likely to happen in Church than through the INTERNET (LOL).

I respectfully think you are wrong on every count. I do hope most of that was just joking around because it was cold and inconsiderate. I'm glad only a tiny fraction of adults think like that, and thank God you were kidding about most of it.

 

[bilby]

Of course the internet is beneficial for learning and meeting new little buddies. Playing video games and drawing. I'm not saying the internet is bad. I'm just saying that most of the people on it are bad. Oh and most of the material is bad as well.

Censorship is usually stupid and harmful.

The way we see censorship is stupid. The way we've been convinced that censorship is bad... that is harmful. For decades this idea that censorship is the devil has been reinforced. I've seen a spin on censorship since they started stamping things with that dumb parental guidance label. As if it would make a difference. All it did was confuse people as to what is right or wrong to expose children to. Now that censorship actually matters... it is too late. We all think it is the devil. Censorship is necessary, bilby. Now more than ever.

Protecting children's innocence is a fetish of stunted adults with a bad case of false nostalgia

That is the coldest thing I've seen you say. I shouldn't have to argue how screwed up that is.

Children don't want or need to be protected from reality.

Okay now I get it. You're just joking. Had me going for a second! You're exaggerating your Godlessness to turn things around in a clever way. I'm all about jokes and I can't knock you for using humor but we're talking about the minds of children, here. I know you're just as concerned as I am, and I know you don't really think that. How the hell could you?

Information is not harmful.

Information is USED. Information isn't harmful but it is used in devestating ways. Especially against children. You don't need to pretend you disagree with that.

If you want to protect children, the Internet isn't the problem.

The internet is a huge part of the problem. Why do you think they're becoming so screwy? The internet is greatly why. There is no such thing as "the problem", but take away their internet and watch their problems lessen by about 50%. You say people are the problem. They are! How can they let this go on? Take their damn phones away until we can figure out how to get them a safer internet!

Giving children access to the Internet is a lot less dangerous than giving priests access to children

Yes... because sexual conduct involving children is more likely to happen in Church than through the INTERNET (LOL).

It's no laughing matter. The vast majority of sexual assault on children is perpetuated by family and trusted friends of the parents - priests and uncles are FAR more dangerous than strangers.

That remains true no matter how much you might prefer to laugh it off.

I respectfully think you are wrong on every count. I do hope most of that was just joking around because it was cold and inconsiderate. I'm glad only a tiny fraction of adults think like that, and thank God you were kidding about most of it.

I'm not kidding about any of it. Your priorities are being distorted by your detachment from reality - which is yet another way in which apparently harmless moderate religion causes real harm in the real world.

 

[another1]

Was using sarcasm with the little (LOL) because you said this: Giving children access to the Internet is a lot less dangerous than giving priests access to children . In the future I will italicize sarcasm. Or should I italicize what I'm being sarcastic about? In this case, it was a comment detached from reality that caused my sarcasm. A comment made by you. I don't know about Catholic Churches, but in general... Churches are not unsafe for children. Everybody knows that.

Detachment from reality isn't exclusive to Religious (or Religion-obsessed) minds of course. There are better, more modern ways to detach - and much more quickly. No need to endure months of Church to check out of the actual world. No need to do much of anything, because it is all practically done for us. Passwords stored, preferences remembered and reality thoroughly avoided. And according to you - it is totally kid-friendly. You surprise me.

 

[bilby]

Was using sarcasm with the little (LOL) because you said this: Giving children access to the Internet is a lot less dangerous than giving priests access to children . In the future I will italicize sarcasm. Or should I italicize what I'm being sarcastic about? In this case, it was a comment detached from reality that caused my sarcasm. A comment made by you. I don't know about Catholic Churches, but in general... Churches are not unsafe for children. Everybody knows that.

It might be widely believed, but nobody KNOWS it - because it's not true.

Detachment from reality isn't exclusive to Religious (or Religion-obsessed) minds of course. There are better, more modern ways to detach - and much more quickly. No need to endure months of Church to check out of the actual world. No need to do much of anything, because it is all practically done for us. Passwords stored, preferences remembered and reality thoroughly avoided. And according to you - it is totally kid-friendly. You surprise me.

The Internet is not totally kid friendly - but only insofar as the world is not.

There is nothing unusually or exceptionally dangerous to children about the Internet as a whole.

The vast majority of dangers to children are close to home - family members and their trusted friends. Including priests, who are given dangerous levels of unquestioned access to children, because "everyone knows" you can trust them. "Everyone" is wrong. And Catholicism is merely the best publicised instance of the general rule.

 

[Juma]

Content has to be "interfered with" based on it's origin or the Internet wouldn't work.

Each packet should be transferred only according to its header. Not depending to content of payload or the purpose of the communication.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Sorry for being off topic for a moment but this is a decent opportunity to mention something I think is extremely important. If it is possible to block things from particular net users, it SHOULD be done. Particularly in the case of children. An internet for kids only. That is what I'm talking about.

Adult internet should only be available to devices registered to adults. It would be very hard to determine who is using what, but they should at least try to start splitting things. Making it look like we're trying is almost as important as actually trying. It will take decades to make a kid-friendly internet, so people should fain interest soon. Things need to get going on this.

Growing up with adult internet is messing kids up in the head. Kids don't need this. Don't you think they deserve something separate? What are your thoughts?

We filter (censor) the external stimuli to our children as best we can. This has always been a difficult task. The internet has made it near impossible. Just as a baby will inevitably cry from being passed around from one loving family member to another at a social gathering, just as a soldier will suffer from PTSD from close engagement with war, the quantity and content of what children experience on the internet should be filtered.

Is there evidence the internet is fucking our children up? I think the proper question is do we want children to be the test subjects in answering this question. We should want to raise emotionally intelligent children. That little genius will hardly be a value to society if he cannot bring himself to leave mom's basement.

 

[JonA]

Content has to be "interfered with" based on it's origin or the Internet wouldn't work.

Each packet should be transferred only according to its header. Not depending to content of payload or the purpose of the communication.

You're making a little more sense.

Now why do you believe "purpose of the communication" should play no role in determining, for example, the price an ISP charges or whether it allows the transmission at all?

Can you not think of even a single legitimate or useful reason for an ISP to discriminate against certain traffic for certain reasons?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Each packet should be transferred only according to its header. Not depending to content of payload or the purpose of the communication.

You're making a little more sense.

Now why do you believe "purpose of the communication" should play no role in determining, for example, the price an ISP charges or whether it allows the transmission at all?

Can you not think of even a single legitimate or useful reason for an ISP to discriminate against certain traffic for certain reasons?

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

 

[LordKiran]

You're making a little more sense.

Now why do you believe "purpose of the communication" should play no role in determining, for example, the price an ISP charges or whether it allows the transmission at all?

Can you not think of even a single legitimate or useful reason for an ISP to discriminate against certain traffic for certain reasons?

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

Also there's established precedence for this already, telegraphs followed the same rules.

 

[JonA]

You're making a little more sense.

Now why do you believe "purpose of the communication" should play no role in determining, for example, the price an ISP charges or whether it allows the transmission at all?

Can you not think of even a single legitimate or useful reason for an ISP to discriminate against certain traffic for certain reasons?

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

Huh?

How is that related to anything I asked you?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You're making a little more sense.

Now why do you believe "purpose of the communication" should play no role in determining, for example, the price an ISP charges or whether it allows the transmission at all?

Can you not think of even a single legitimate or useful reason for an ISP to discriminate against certain traffic for certain reasons?

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

Huh?

How is that related to anything I asked you?

I said no. You understand what No means, it answered your question.

Nope. I'm not required to pay for a person receiving a phone call I am making. They pay to receive, I pay to send, I do not pay for them to receive.

The MA Bells didn't use that pricing for phone calls, but cell phone companies did. But it's not the content that they care about. The MA bells try to solve it in a different way and still some cell plans solve it that way too. Do you know what they did? And another issue, TCP has a different mechanism that it makes it different than a standard phone call.

Lots of talk for, "I think that monopolies should exert whatever pressure on the market they feel entitled to."