Discussion:
the battle for the Internet: 2017-07-12
(too old to reply)
RS Wood
2017-07-12 13:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments/?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6856&test=signup-modal

Americans, take note of the below. Then click on the link above to get
involved. Reddit also has a link that takes you to a site where you
can spam the bejeezus out of Congress. BTW, Richard Stallman saw this
coming decades ago.

//--clip
The Federal Communications Commission is inviting public comments about
proposed rules that would gut net neutrality and hand over the internet
to big cable companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Send in YOUR comment in support of net neutrality now.

Here are some reasons why Mozi

lla cares about net neutrality — use these or any that express why you
care about this issue. Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech.

Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people and
perspectives online. Net neutrality has been called the "First
Amendment of the Internet." Net neutrality protects small businesses
and innovators who are just getting started.

Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could struggle to
reach new users. Investment in new ideas would dry up and only the big
companies would survive, stifling innovation. Net neutrality allows
consumers — not big companies — to choose what they watch & do online.

Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many videos
on Netflix in one day and throttle your Internet speeds, while keeping
their own video apps running smooth.
//--clip
--
RS Wood <***@therandymon.com>
Nyssa
2017-07-12 15:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-
comments/?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6856&test=signup-modal
Post by RS Wood
Americans, take note of the below. Then click on the link
above to get
involved. Reddit also has a link that takes you to a site
where you
can spam the bejeezus out of Congress. BTW, Richard
Stallman saw this coming decades ago.
//--clip
The Federal Communications Commission is inviting public
comments about proposed rules that would gut net
neutrality and hand over the internet to big cable
companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.
Send in YOUR comment in support of net neutrality now.
Here are some reasons why Mozi
lla cares about net neutrality ? use these or any that
express why you care about this issue. Net neutrality is
fundamental to free speech.
Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people
and perspectives online. Net neutrality has been called
the "First Amendment of the Internet." Net neutrality
protects small businesses and innovators who are just
getting started.
Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could
struggle to reach new users. Investment in new ideas would
dry up and only the big companies would survive, stifling
innovation. Net neutrality allows consumers ? not big
companies ? to choose what they watch & do online.
Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too
many videos on Netflix in one day and throttle your
Internet speeds, while keeping their own video apps
running smooth. //--clip
Unfortunately, the FCC has a history of ignoring public
comments even though they continue to solicit them.

They've done so in the past with matters relating to
spectrum and amateur radio, so I see no reason to believe
they'll suddenly pay attention to any on this topic.

Nyssa, who remembers previous FCC boondoggles
Huge
2017-07-12 16:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-07-12, Nyssa <***@flawlesslogic.com> wrote:

[45 lines snipped]
Post by Nyssa
They've done so in the past with matters relating to
spectrum and amateur radio,
Nobody GAS about amateur radio, apart from a few malodorous geeks with
such poor personal hygiene they have to talk to one another on
the radio. Most countries regulators would much rather amateur radio
Went Away.

And besides, "The Internet subsumed everything that was interesting about
Amateur radio." -- Phil Karn, KA9Q.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 47th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
Roger Blake
2017-07-14 01:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Huge
Nobody GAS about amateur radio, apart from a few malodorous geeks with
such poor personal hygiene they have to talk to one another on
the radio. Most countries regulators would much rather amateur radio
Went Away.
Well, I personally don't GAS about the internet. While convenient for some
things it's of no real importance.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge
2017-07-14 08:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Huge
Nobody GAS about amateur radio, apart from a few malodorous geeks with
such poor personal hygiene they have to talk to one another on
the radio. Most countries regulators would much rather amateur radio
Went Away.
Well, I personally don't GAS about the internet. While convenient for some
things it's of no real importance.
Oh, that's hysterical.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 49th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
Michael Black
2017-07-12 16:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments/?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6856&test=signup-modal
Americans, take note of the below. Then click on the link above to get
involved. Reddit also has a link that takes you to a site where you
can spam the bejeezus out of Congress. BTW, Richard Stallman saw this
coming decades ago.
//--clip
The Federal Communications Commission is inviting public comments about
proposed rules that would gut net neutrality and hand over the internet
to big cable companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.
Send in YOUR comment in support of net neutrality now.
Here are some reasons why Mozi
lla cares about net neutrality — use these or any that express why you
care about this issue. Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech.
Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people and
perspectives online. Net neutrality has been called the "First
Amendment of the Internet." Net neutrality protects small businesses
and innovators who are just getting started.
Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could struggle to
reach new users. Investment in new ideas would dry up and only the big
companies would survive, stifling innovation. Net neutrality allows
consumers — not big companies — to choose what they watch & do online.
Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many videos
on Netflix in one day and throttle your Internet speeds, while keeping
their own video apps running smooth.
This sounds like a scare tactic. I hit one site today that had some sort
of popup about it, fearmongering rather than explanation.

What's so revolutionary about video? If I wanted to watch something in a
serial fashion, I'd watch tv. Text is so much better, I still read a
newspaper every day, because you can jump around, sample a bit here and
then jump to the next article. TV, and video, means you sit through it,
since speeding up isn't the same as jumping around with text.

The internet was far more revolutionary before video arrived.

Is this really going to impact anything but high bandwidth stuff? I
ignored high bandwidth stuff until October of 2012, when I got DSL. I'd
still ignore it if I was on dialup. I do ignore most of it.

If this is more than high bandwidth stuff, then deal with that. Tell us
how "big corporations" will control things, and shut out the little guy.

I didnt' go to inet '96, but it did take place here in Montreal, and I saw
people come out of the Shatner building, look at the Fringe Festival beer
tent in the parking lot, and wonder 'what's going on there?". But I in
essence blogged the Fringe Festival that year, wirting something everyday
about what I'd seen. The internet then was alternative to old media, it
was intimate, it was a way around blockage, it was immediate, it was first
hand. ANd a bunch of the papers at inet '96 were concerned about the
commercialization of the internet, which at the time seemed a bit
premature since it was just in recent past at the time. But obviously
commerce won out, and a lot of small groups let them have their way, since
they ignored the internet until it was too late. Now they buy into
facebook and the like, never giving it a thought, because they weren't
around when the internet was different. They came because it was a cheap
way of reaching their audience, rather than something to participate in.

Michael
RS Wood
2017-07-12 18:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:59:06 -0400
Post by Michael Black
This sounds like a scare tactic. I hit one site today that had some sort
of popup about it, fearmongering rather than explanation.
What's so revolutionary about video? If I wanted to watch something in a
serial fashion, I'd watch tv. Text is so much better, I still read a
newspaper every day, because you can jump around, sample a bit here and
then jump to the next article. TV, and video, means you sit through it,
since speeding up isn't the same as jumping around with text.
It *is* a scare tactic. This isn't about how the proposed changes
would impact your low-bandwidth internet habits. It's about the fact
that once ISPs and big cable monopolies are given the authority to
choose which sites you can access (and at what price) they'll (A) never
give it back and (B) clamour for more power. Expect a proliferation of
packages that allow you "5-10 premium sites" and package deals, and all
that other bullshit the current internet (sorry, WWW) avoids.

As for internet vs WWW: non-WWW internet will continue as always,
probably, although any ISP could feasibly consider "FTP, NNTP, SSH,
etc." part of an "advanced internet bundle" and charge you extra for
"premium services."

In sum: this is bullshit.
The Real Bev
2017-07-12 19:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:59:06 -0400
Post by Michael Black
This sounds like a scare tactic. I hit one site today that had some sort
of popup about it, fearmongering rather than explanation.
What's so revolutionary about video? If I wanted to watch something in a
serial fashion, I'd watch tv. Text is so much better, I still read a
newspaper every day, because you can jump around, sample a bit here and
then jump to the next article. TV, and video, means you sit through it,
since speeding up isn't the same as jumping around with text.
It *is* a scare tactic. This isn't about how the proposed changes
would impact your low-bandwidth internet habits. It's about the fact
that once ISPs and big cable monopolies are given the authority to
choose which sites you can access (and at what price) they'll (A) never
give it back and (B) clamour for more power. Expect a proliferation of
packages that allow you "5-10 premium sites" and package deals, and all
that other bullshit the current internet (sorry, WWW) avoids.
As for internet vs WWW: non-WWW internet will continue as always,
probably, although any ISP could feasibly consider "FTP, NNTP, SSH,
etc." part of an "advanced internet bundle" and charge you extra for
"premium services."
In sum: this is bullshit.
Can we liken this to the beginning of pay TV vs. free OTA TV?
--
Cheers, Bev
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel
RS Wood
2017-07-12 19:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:01:20 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
Post by RS Wood
In sum: this is bullshit.
Can we liken this to the beginning of pay TV vs. free OTA TV?
Ha! Probably. And: remember when the promise of pay TV was, "it's
already paid for, so there are no advertisements"? That lasted about a
month, before you got to pay for TV and then watch adverts *anyway.*
--
RSWood <***@therandymon.com>
Rich
2017-07-12 21:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:01:20 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
Post by RS Wood
In sum: this is bullshit.
Can we liken this to the beginning of pay TV vs. free OTA TV?
Ha! Probably. And: remember when the promise of pay TV was, "it's
already paid for, so there are no advertisements"?
Now that is about a 40 year old blast from the past. Yep, I do
remember that "line of reasoning" for why one should sign up for this
"newfangled" cable-tv.
Post by RS Wood
That lasted about a month, before you got to pay for TV and then
watch adverts *anyway.*
Yep, seems about what I recollect now as well.
Marko Rauhamaa
2017-07-12 22:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich
Post by RS Wood
Ha! Probably. And: remember when the promise of pay TV was, "it's
already paid for, so there are no advertisements"?
Now that is about a 40 year old blast from the past. Yep, I do
remember that "line of reasoning" for why one should sign up for this
"newfangled" cable-tv.
Post by RS Wood
That lasted about a month, before you got to pay for TV and then
watch adverts *anyway.*
Yep, seems about what I recollect now as well.
Well, I don't have cable but I have OTA pay TV, and there are no
commercials.

To think of it, I don't think I see many ads anywhere. The main place
for ads is Google searches, and they have actually been useful.


Marko
Michael Black
2017-07-13 17:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Rich
Post by RS Wood
Ha! Probably. And: remember when the promise of pay TV was, "it's
already paid for, so there are no advertisements"?
Now that is about a 40 year old blast from the past. Yep, I do
remember that "line of reasoning" for why one should sign up for this
"newfangled" cable-tv.
Post by RS Wood
That lasted about a month, before you got to pay for TV and then
watch adverts *anyway.*
Yep, seems about what I recollect now as well.
Well, I don't have cable but I have OTA pay TV, and there are no
commercials.
I think it varies, but since I've not had cable since 1997, using the
money for internet access instead, I don't know.

My memory says there had been "premium" channels, the sort of thing that
started it all, and those were commercial free. But soon after, theys
tarted adding endless channels that were identical to over the air
channels, except covering a niche. So A&E wasn't that different from NBC,
except the specific programming. They did air older shows from NBC in the
eighties. So many or most cable channels are just niche commercial
channels, at least here in Canada (and I assume the US too).

Michael
Michael Black
2017-07-13 17:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Real Bev
Post by RS Wood
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:59:06 -0400
Post by Michael Black
This sounds like a scare tactic. I hit one site today that had some sort
of popup about it, fearmongering rather than explanation.
What's so revolutionary about video? If I wanted to watch something in a
serial fashion, I'd watch tv. Text is so much better, I still read a
newspaper every day, because you can jump around, sample a bit here and
then jump to the next article. TV, and video, means you sit through it,
since speeding up isn't the same as jumping around with text.
It *is* a scare tactic. This isn't about how the proposed changes
would impact your low-bandwidth internet habits. It's about the fact
that once ISPs and big cable monopolies are given the authority to
choose which sites you can access (and at what price) they'll (A) never
give it back and (B) clamour for more power. Expect a proliferation of
packages that allow you "5-10 premium sites" and package deals, and all
that other bullshit the current internet (sorry, WWW) avoids.
As for internet vs WWW: non-WWW internet will continue as always,
probably, although any ISP could feasibly consider "FTP, NNTP, SSH,
etc." part of an "advanced internet bundle" and charge you extra for
"premium services."
In sum: this is bullshit.
Can we liken this to the beginning of pay TV vs. free OTA TV?
WHy not just a reversion to AOL, Genie and the other online services?

Michael
Shadow
2017-07-13 18:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Black
Text is so much better, I still read a
newspaper every day, because you can jump around, sample a bit here and
then jump to the next article.
Not if your favorite newspaper is throttled.
That's the whole point. If Big Business gets to decide what
you can access, it's censorship. And censorship is power.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
RS Wood
2017-07-13 19:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:14:19 -0300
Post by Shadow
Not if your favorite newspaper is throttled.
That's the whole point. If Big Business gets to decide what
you can access, it's censorship. And censorship is power.
Bingo.
Johnny B Good
2017-07-14 16:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:33:32 -0400, RS Wood wrote:

====snip====

Damn these amercanisms to Hell and beyond!
Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many videos on
Netflix in one day and throttle your Internet speeds, while keeping
their own video apps running smooth.
The *CORRECT* word in this case (it's an adverb, dummy!) is *smoothly*.

I wish all the stupid americans who insist on substituting adverbs with
adjectives would simply FOaD... Apologies for that mini rant. I don't
*really* mean "FOaD"; that's just an unnecessary bit of hyperbole on my
part. I really meant "Why can't they be shipped off to an old style
Chinese attitude correction camp where they can be taught the correct
usage of adverbs.". :-)
--
Johnny B Good
RS Wood
2017-07-14 18:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:29:31 GMT
Post by Johnny B Good
The *CORRECT* word in this case (it's an adverb, dummy!) is *smoothly*.
No. It's *real smooth* or *so smooth, bitch*. Get with the times. ("smoove" also works.)

PS - that's not an Americanism, it's bad English. (It's incorrect/offensive in America as well).
Mike Spencer
2017-07-14 20:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Johnny B Good
I wish all the stupid americans who insist on substituting adverbs with
adjectives would simply FOaD.
So are you one of those people who insist that flowers smell nicely
or that barbecued steaks taste well?

Had a room mate once (yes, an American who, however, grew up in a
bilingual German-speaking household) who asserted same and similar.
Pigs is pigs and adverbs is adverbs and never the mane shall tweet. [1]

Grammar pedants, please call in.
Post by Johnny B Good
Apologies for that mini rant.
Chill, man. Done it myself. What is Usenet for, eh?

[1] How do you keep the birds from nesting in your horses' manes? Rub
them (the manes, not the birds) with yeast. Works every time.


Yeast is yeast and nest is nest and never the mane shall
tweet. [2]

[2] Yes, it's a slack day here.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Andreas Eder
2017-07-15 08:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Spencer
So are you one of those people who insist that flowers smell nicely
or that barbecued steaks taste well?
It has a different meaning; Maybe the flowers nicely smell, but the
smell is bad. And the steak may well taste good.

'Andreas

Loading...