Obama wants to make the internet a utility

crimsonaudio said:

Nope, I'm simply saying that they should be able to block traffic to certain sites if those sites are riddled with illegal content. I've said this over and over. Sites like BitTorrent are openly known to be massive IP theft sites - no snooping required. So if they choose to block access, I've no problem with it, just as I'd have zero issue if they chose to block a site that served child porn.

I'm not sure how you guys are missing what I'm saying here, I've said it the same way over and over. I've not once advocated packet snooping, mandatory filtering, etc - I've literally only said the company should be allowed to block sites that are riddled with IP theft if they choose to.

Click to expand...

the country of Thailand is riddled with illegal activities, drugs, underage prostitutes, child porn, you name it. Should Delta, United and other US Carriers not be allowed to fly American's there? Should Americans be free to go there?

When you say "should be able to block sites they choose" to or "block sites with illegal content", that internet is starting to look too much like the internet in countries with authoritarian governments for my liking.

CA, I just fundamentally disagree with you on this. The only role ISPs should have is providing me with a connection to a bunch of 1s and 0s, and that should be the end of their knowledge or concern.

Just like the power company can’t cut off power to an address as long as the pay their bill, even if illegal activity is happening because, that is a job for law enforcement. The internet should be treated the same IMO. Provide access and that is it. If I’m doing something illegal then go through the proper legal channels to stop it. Yes, that can be a very difficult task in this day and age but, just because it is difficult doesn’t mean we should allow the ISPs to act as law enforcement.

What would stop them from blocking more than just illegal content? Oh, this may not be illegal but, we morally disagree with it so BLOCKED. We don’t like this political view so all those sites BLOCKED. Those people said some mean things about us so BLOCKED. Netflix is our competitor so BLOCKED. What are you going to do about it, we are the only ISP option in your neighborhood so deal with it!

IMO, access to the internet should be a utility, just like power and landline phones. Charge me for my usage but, what I do with it is none of your business. As long as I’m paying my bill then why should you care. The way ISPs are going in this country is basically the next “Ma Bell” and it’s time for it to be broken down. Through lobbing they have created local monopolies where there is zero competition.

Most ISPs are also content providers which is a conflict of interest IMO. They shouldn’t be allowed to provide content and then turn around and decide what content you are allowed to see. What if Alabama Power also manufactured consumer appliances and said that their appliances would be exempt from your power bill but, GE appliances would now cost double?

Net Neutrality, at its most basic level, required all ISPs to view the internet as nothing more than 1s and 0s. All traffic is just equally created 1s and 0s. Not seen as Netflix, not as CNN, not as Hulu, not as FB, not as Tidefans, not as porn, not as Xfinity. Just seen as another form of electricity.




Also, stop picking on BitTorrent. First, it’s not a website, it’s software. Second torrent is a file type, again, not a website. Torrenting doesn’t use websites, it uses software like BitTorrent to create peer-to-peer networks. So it is not as simple as Comcast blocking X number of websites. They’d have to sniff traffic (because it’s encrypted) to determine if you are torrenting legal or illegal content or block peer-to-peer file sharing. Let’s ignore the fact that there are plenty of legal uses for file sharing, in the end it is pretty easy to circumvent these types of network blocks. Now you have to block the use of proxies but, now you’ve ....ed off millions of people who legally use proxies everyday. Well, just block the download of the initial torrent file. Fine but, I’ll just place it inside an encrypted zip/rar file. Now what, block all zip files?

There just isn’t a great efficient way to block illegal traffic without casting a net so wide that you also take down legal traffic. Just like drm doesn’t punish digital pirates because they crack everything, it just causes headaches for legal consumers. The folks sharing illegal stuff aren’t worried about all this because they will figure out a way to circumvent it all. It will just cause headaches for the rest of us.

2003TIDE said:

When you say "should be able to block sites they choose" to or "block sites with illegal content", that internet is starting to look too much like the internet in countries with authoritarian governments for my liking.

Click to expand...

That’s because one has been elected.

RollTARDIS said:

That’s because one has been elected.

Click to expand...

Does not compute.

If anybody thinks that doing away with net neutrality was a good idea just remember who proposed doing away with it. Nuff said.

NationalTitles16 said:

Does not compute.

Click to expand...

I think he's trying to point out that Trump's currently has shown the flair for authoritarian tendencies. You know silencing the press. Trying to cast doubt on other branches of the government, etc.

Bamaro said:

If anybody thinks that doing away with net neutrality was a good idea just remember who proposed doing away with it. Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is most of these rules go back to Bush. So they were republican ideas to begin with.

I’m not a tech guy and so I’m still wrapping my head around this. I found this article but I’m have trouble deciphering the nuances of it:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/t...-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio said:

That's cute, but there are tons of regulations that offer little benefit that both individuals and companies would love to see go away.

The reality is while I recognize the necessity of some regulation, I'm generally a 'let the market figure it out' guy. While there are some things that could happen that negatively impact people regarding the loss of net neutrality, I think most people's fears will never come to realization as a vast majority of US citizens have choices wrt ISPs. Competition almost always works to the benefit of the consumer.

Click to expand...

except, there isn't choice for most at least not for anything remotely considered fast. As I've said, I am all for a free market but there simply isn't one here

Really wish Obama made the internet a public utility now.

TIDE-HSV said:

That's just not true with broadband outside urban areas, Brad. Here in HSV, we have Comcast, WOW (lousy) and will soon have both Google fiber through Huntsville Utilities and ATT&T. AT&T is laying fiber now. However, outside HSV, in Madison County, the only choice is Charter's Spectrum. That's true in Decatur/Morgan County also, and even across the country. In most places, there is no competition, which is why net neutrality, in all it's forms, to blunt abuse, has been so important...

Click to expand...

You’re right wrt to the lack of choices in rural areas. In NW AL and parts of central AL there is only one choice- Centurylink. This is one of the worst ISPs in the country. They know they’re the only option and their customer service proves it.

rolltide_21 said:

You’re right wrt to the lack of choices in rural areas. In NW AL and parts of central AL there is only one choice- Centurylink. This is one of the worst ISPs in the country. They know they’re the only option and their customer service proves it.

Click to expand...

We had CenturyLink for a year or so after we moved back to Trussville. It was awful. Overpriced and the speeds were hilarious. We were paying for 15M and it would frequently drop to under 1. I complained constantly, but the fix never came. We switched to Charter after they came available in our hood so my wife would telecommute. Great decision. Customer service sucks and it's pricey, but it's reliable.

CenturyLink CEO, 1 million years gulag!

AUDub said:

We had CenturyLink for a year or so after we moved back to Trussville. It was awful. Overpriced and the speeds were hilarious. We were paying for 15M and it would frequently drop to under 1. I complained constantly, but the fix never came. We switched to Charter after they came available in our hood so my wife would telecommute. Great decision. Customer service sucks and it's pricey, but it's reliable.

Click to expand...

I have the 20 mb “bonded” connection. Averages around 15 or so. Im paying about $95 per month. Our local service guys are great but overloaded trying to cover 4 counties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk