Vote for Net Neutrality

[Prokofy Neva]

On 5/21/2018 at 5:32 PM, Qie Niangao said:

Net neutrality is doomed until US residents see what its repeal actually does to them. And that'll take a while because the first effects will be insidious. "Zero-rating" for example is a sugar-sweet deal for consumers -- at first. But repealling the regulation without a legislative replacement invites monopolies to block innovative content from ever competing with the incumbents' private label subscriptions. That's why the telecom/cable monopolies have been buying and merging with content producers as fast as they can, flooding congress (and state legislatures) with "lobbying" money, and successfully installing the most despicable shill ever to head the FCC.

Actually, if it were implemented, it would be "net neutrality" that would be doomed because people would see how it stops innovation, stops progress, stops free enterprise, and stops consumer freedom of choice, and doesn't do these things the ideologues think it will do, like improve literacy and employment in Appalachia or whatever, as the problems of these regions are a lot more complicated than just broadband, and giving broadband anywhere, in any demographic, leads to more consumption of MMORPGs and YouTubes, not improved education and employment, so let's not be ridiculous.

In fact, you have to explain why you can make your claims when we HAD "net neutrality" under Obama for some time.

Your notion that there is "innovative content" in...what, Mitch Kapor's failed cable TV project that was going to disseminate ripped content? What, exactly? RTV? And that it is competing with...what, Netflix? You're going to call Netflix "innovative content". Want to put out innovative content? Make it, and pay for it, like the news media has -- destroyed by your Internet. Hello!

Patai isn't a despicable shill. He's a perfectly qualified and decent human being who is no different than say, people of his background that work at Google, even, it's just through various life circumstances he ended up in this job -- which isn't only about "net neutrality" after all.

He's actually a very good example of an interesting demographic. Indians as a group have benefited from H1 visas and opportunities to work in America but that's only because their cynical Silicon Valley masters want British-styled educated minorities they can pay less, instead of domestic minorities they won't be able to pay less because they will lobby more for their rights as citizens. That's all that is about. All you net neutrality groupies don't want to look at the ecology that feeds your Silicon Valley.

So what's interesting now is that you see many more Indian people, now as the next generations are born here especially, are entering politics (in my district there is a young Indian running for councilman and there are hundreds of Indians in my housing complex who weren't here 15 years agp). And interestingly, they are not taking up leftist politics in knee-jerk fashion that you would think as putatively part of that great Third World the Soviets were always promoting. Instead, they even *gasp* become Republicans -- they are from conservative and religious backgrounds, after all. Go know! And they've also, like Russians or Poles, in some cases seen up close how socialism doesn't work, and don't root for it.

Imagine, that.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/16/2017 at 6:50 PM, Pamela Galli said:

 Yes that is to be expected when the KGB runs one’s country. 

So did you see any journalists murdered, lately? How about just journalists going to jail? OK, how about just a web site blocked. In America. In Russia, these things are annual, monthly, and daily occurrences, respectively. And I could go on. 

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/17/2017 at 5:23 AM, Phil Deakins said:

I have a few minutes to twiddle my thumbs before I go out, so I just thought I'd expand on this.

 

It's become clear that Prokofy is a very strong anti-socialist, and it seems to be that she swallows all the anti-socialist propaganda, which is undoubtedly the reason why she wrote that. She started off correctly in that the Labour party was voted out of office after years of being in power. But she was wrong that it was because socialism wasn't working. That wasn't true. At that time, the Labour party wasn't socialist. They were wearing the Conservative Party's clothes, which they did in an attempt to get elected, and it succeeded.

The next bit she wrote was also wrong. She said that the Liberals came to power, but they didn't. The Conservatives did, and they've been in office ever since. The Liberals haven't been in power since very early in the last century - roughy 100 years. Later in the last century, the Liberal party merged with a new party, the two together are called the Liberal Democrats,  but they haven't been in power either.

In the UK, we don't change the flavour of government every few years like the US changes the flavour of its president. Parties usually stay for quite a while, covering several general elections, which occur every 5 years or sometimes a little less than 5 years. It wasn't that socialism wasn't working here. We haven't had a socialist government for a very long time. We've had what amounts to Conservative A and Conservative B (Labour party) governments for decades. The changes come simply because the country fancies a change after many years of one party.

Jeremy Corbyn is a soclailist, but, as far as I know the propaganda that Prok posted about him is just that - anti-socialist propaganda that she's swallowed. I have to assume that, because she's declined to show any evidence.

 

There isn't anything I've "swallowed" dearie pie. I've been studying and observing these issues for years. Liberals indicated were indeed the Liberal Democrats and indeed they were in the coalition government.

What's astounding is that you can't see what's wrong with Jeremy Corbyn -- his grotesque anti-Semitism, pro-Putinism, apologis for Assad and all the rest. This is clear and obvious even to many in the Labour Party itself who have flocked out of it, and not just Jews. It's truly amazing that Second Life people can be in such a bubble, so out of touch, and only capable of cutting and pasting what they see on Sluniverse instead of reading actual newspapers. 

Why would I have to "show evidence" when a good lefty like you should be reading the Guardian, which I do, to keep informed, as a liberal, not leftist:

Here, here, here, here.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

As usual Prok has it completely backwards .. almost as if the point was simply to be a provocateur.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:57 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

1. Google and Facebook are not hardware providers, they provide a software... Neither of which is a monopoly.. Dont like Google, use Bing, or Yahoo. Dont like Facebook, use myspace or another chat like service... 

3. They most certainly are. In my county there is only Comcast for landline cable. The only way another service gets in is if they run their own lines. 

 

I suggest you go to Google's business web pages and see all the HARDWARE products they make for your home.

Google is indeed a monopoly. Nobody uses Yahoo, it's crap. Bing has some usage but it's tiny compared to Google. It's so small that Microsoft bombards you with offers of games and coupons and contests to try to earn points using their search to cash out for a restaurant meal or $5. So yes, monopollist.

The proposition at hand is a federal decision for the whole country. If your particular county only has Comcast, then fix it at your level without forcing the rest of the country into your socialism/socialist "choice".

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/15/2017 at 5:29 AM, Innula Zenovka said:

I don't understand.  If you're going to prosecute someone, there has to be a rule of some sort you can point to and say the defendant has broken.    

 

Again, if you want the court to remedy something, you have to be able to tell the court why the behaviour you complain of is unlawful.    You can't just tell the judge "I don't think this sort of thing should be allowed, so please put a stop to it."   You be able to point to the relevant law and say why the misconduct you allege is contrary to it.

I really don't understand how the American regulatory system works, in that the FCC clearly has far more autonomy than does Ofcom, the equivalent British regulatory body.  Here the regulations are made either by Parliament or by the appropriate Secretary of State, using powers that have been granted by Parliament.   Ofcom's role is to monitor and enforce compliance with regulations, not to make them (though it can certainly advise the Secretary of State that it thinks she should revise existing regulations or introduce new ones).    Clearly it's different in the USA but presumably the FCC were acting lawfully, since if they weren't there were, as you say, ways to remedy this in the courts.

It may very well be that American ISPs wouldn't dream of behaving in the way some supporters of net neutrality are suggesting they will if they're given half a chance, but in that case, what's the objection to having regulations that say that they aren't allowed to even if they want to, rather than simply rely on their good behaviour?

For what it's worth, I think it would have made far more sense for the FCC to ask the various ISPs what it is that they want to do that they're prevented from doing by existing regulations, and what they would like to see changed, and then take it from there.

 

 

 

America works on the precedent system, it's common law, not civil law, and not a magisterial system. It would take a long time to explain if you don't know the differences but they matter. Show me the cases -- because this is a precedent system. And they don't exist. So end of story.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:57 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

 

 

On 12/14/2017 at 10:48 AM, Parhelion Palou said:

So you're saying you prefer being controlled by corporations. Be happy -- that's more likely than us being controlled by the clowns in D.C. Eventually the Great AI will take over, but that's not for another couple decades.

So, Google isn't a corporation? It's a magical unicorn pasture? 

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/16/2017 at 6:19 AM, Klytyna said:

If you knew anything about infrastructure based technologies, or business, you'd know that 'investment' ALWAYS goes down...

Once you finish building a road from point A to point B, you don't tear it up and build it again, or build a second road 10 feet to the left of the first, you lower investment, and simply maintain the road, occasionally upgrading it a bit.

Once high speed glass fibre has been laid to Sleepy Buttburg, to connect it to the internet by Megabucks Internet inc, NO OTHER COMPANY is going to bother investing in laying cable there unless they absolutely have to, because 20 companies trying to build 20 separate & isolated continent spanning internets coast to coast, is, and I'm going to use a technical expression here...

AN EXAMPLE OF THE UNLICENCED  POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL QUANTITIES OF WEAPONS GRADE STUPIDITY BY MEMBERS OF THE FREE MARKET FALLACY FATHEAD CABAL
 

So I guess you're out of argument then if all you can do is write wild insulting stuff LOL

No, investment doesn't always go "down".  With something like that Internet and cell phones which are changing and developing dramatically, it may go up.

You should look at history, too

It's funny how ideologues like you love road analogies when they work for you. But you hate them when they don't.

For example, I wouldn't downgrade a four-lane highway to a two-lane highway so that "everyone can travel equally" because in some areas of the country, there are only two-lanes.

It's like Tor, where the cultists always talk about roads except...on RL highways you have a license plate and laws and cops who pull you over -- all things the Torians refused to admit into their unicorn park.

[Solar Legion]

Oh look, more blind rhetoric. 

[Paul Hexem]

You guys, arguing like one law is going to suddenly turn these corporations into charities or evil empires, or suddenly turn the US into a communist dictatorship...

[AzrealZen]

On 12/9/2017 at 11:24 PM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Maybe I'm dumb, but doesn't Net neutrality simply mean being able to access the entire internet without our ISP  throttling speeds from certain websites or blocking content entirely?

 

I was told the opposite. I think it's similar to the "clean air act" a thing that did the opposite of what you would assume it is about from the name. It ended pollution rules for clean air lol. Tricks of politicians upon the uniformed. Net Neutrality means blocking web sites and censorship I was told. All in the fine print. So to be for net neutrality, you would be against this political trick thing called that.

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, AzrealZen said:

I was told the opposite. I think it's similar to the "clean air act" a thing that did the opposite of what you would assume it is about from the name. It ended pollution rules for clean air lol. Tricks of politicians upon the uniformed. Net Neutrality means blocking web sites and censorship I was told. All in the fine print. So to be for net neutrality, you would be against this political trick thing called that.

You could do your own research rather than believing the first thing someone tells you.

[AzrealZen]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeDujour said:

You could do your own research rather than believing the first thing someone tells you.

I did and its true

[AzrealZen]

double post

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by AzrealZen

[Pamela Galli]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

So did you see any journalists murdered, lately? How about just journalists going to jail? OK, how about just a web site blocked. In America. In Russia, these things are annual, monthly, and daily occurrences, respectively. And I could go on. 

 Give them time. Rome wasn’t built in a day. 

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

There isn't anything I've "swallowed" dearie pie. I've been studying and observing these issues for years. Liberals indicated were indeed the Liberal Democrats and indeed they were in the coalition government.

What's astounding is that you can't see what's wrong with Jeremy Corbyn -- his grotesque anti-Semitism, pro-Putinism, apologis for Assad and all the rest. This is clear and obvious even to many in the Labour Party itself who have flocked out of it, and not just Jews. It's truly amazing that Second Life people can be in such a bubble, so out of touch, and only capable of cutting and pasting what they see on Sluniverse instead of reading actual newspapers. 

Why would I have to "show evidence" when a good lefty like you should be reading the Guardian, which I do, to keep informed, as a liberal, not leftist:

Here, here, here, here.

 

Then you should have said the Liberal Democrats instead of saying the Liberals. My guess is that, in spite of what you now say, you didn't know that they merged until I wrote it here. And, if you've been observing and studying these things for years, as you claim, you would have known that they never came to power. And yet you said they did. The fruits of you observations and study were rather slim, don't you think? You would also have known that the labour party that lost power wasn't socialist, so it couldn't have been that "socialism wasn't working" as you wrongly claimed. Someone who has studied and observed for years ought to have know that, and that the government was changed after the normal length of time here, and not because "socialism wsn't working". You must be reading and naively swallowing (because you want to) very biased stuff.

I didn't say that there's nothing wrong with Jeremy Corbyn. None of the articles you posted the links to say that he's an anti-semite. They do say that there is some (a very small bit) of anti-semitism in the labour party, and that he hasn't yet raised heaven and earth to get rid of it, but they don't say that he is one of them. They criticise his leadership in the matter, but they don't say that he is one. And neither can you say that he is one - if you value truth, that is. The best that any of us can say the we don't know. So you haven't offered any evidence to support that part of your claim.

As for him being a pro-Putin whatever, and an Assad apolgist, you haven't offered anything in the way of the requested evidence at all. All you've managed to do is repeat it, and expect people to believe you. But people here know you, so you should know that you have to back up your claims. Merely repeating them gets nowhere.

The reason why you have to show evidence to back up your claims is because you made claims and expected to be believed. But you weren't believed, so you need to back them up - or back away. Furthermore, I'm not a lefty. I never have been. In fact I've never voted for the labour party (or the liberals, or liberal-democrats). I vote according to what a party is saying at the time. If I vote at all, that is. It's usually the case that I wouldn't want to associate my name with any of the major political parties. At the last general election, I voted conservative. Not because I'm a conservative, but for one specific reason.

So you see, Prokofy, yet again you've got wrong. You are very good at spouting stuff that you may well believe, presumably because you have a huge bias towards certain political views and you tend to believe whatever is written anywhere to back up that side's point of view, regardless of evidence, reality, or truth. Seriously, you would do far better if you stick to what you know from personal experience, rather than take another country's newspaper articles as gospel when they suit your particular biases. Perhaps you aren't aware that newspapers follow political lines. Here in the UK they do, anyway. Some suppoort one side of the polical spectrum, and others support the other side. If you really do observe and study, you would at least embrace the newspapers of all sides, but bearing in mind that newspapers tend to sensationalise thing, even to the point of writing things that have no idea whether they are true or not. Their goal is not to truthfully inform people, but to sell newspapers. If they can do it with the truth, they will, but if they can't, they'll stoop to the sensational, regardless of truth. They are not unlike your blog, really.

[Phil Deakins]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Google is indeed a monopoly. Nobody uses Yahoo, it's crap. Bing has some usage but it's tiny compared to Google. It's so small that Microsoft bombards you with offers of games and coupons and contests to try to earn points using their search to cash out for a restaurant meal or $5. So yes, monopollist.

Sorry, but you are wong - again. Perhaps you have your own definition of the word 'monopoly' but it isn't one that the rest of the world shares. I.e.:-

the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Google isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have exclusive posession or control of the world's search or advertising services. It competes in those markets, just like others do, and it's by far the biggest in those markets, but that doesn't make it a monopoly in either.

[Qie Niangao]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Patai isn't a despicable shill. He's a perfectly qualified and decent human being who is no different than say, people of his background that work at Google, even, it's just through various life circumstances he ended up in this job -- which isn't only about "net neutrality" after all.

He's actually a very good example of an interesting demographic. Indians as a group ...

Perhaps you just have your Indians confused. The FCC chair's name is Ajit Pai, not "Patai", suggesting you may have mistaken him for Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google.

Anyway, you're quite right that it "isn't only about 'net neutrality'" -- Pai's villainy extends beyond that. And let's not forget his escapade at the Daily Caller with a Pizzagate propagandist. He's simply scum.

 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Prokofy why do you hate mother Russia so much?

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

America works on the precedent system, it's common law, not civil law, and not a magisterial system. It would take a long time to explain if you don't know the differences but they matter. Show me the cases -- because this is a precedent system. And they don't exist. So end of story.

Except for these cases here:

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

Incidentally, Britain is also a common-law system; in fact, the United States is also because it was originally a British colony.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

[Drake1 Nightfire]

7 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Patai isn't a despicable shill. He's a perfectly qualified and decent human being who is no different than say, people of his background that work at Google, even, it's just through various life circumstances he ended up in this job -- which isn't only about "net neutrality" after all.

I'm going to assume you mean Ajit Pai here.. 

 

7 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

He's actually a very good example of an interesting demographic. Indians as a group have benefited from H1 visas and opportunities to work in America but that's only because their cynical Silicon Valley masters want British-styled educated minorities they can pay less, instead of domestic minorities they won't be able to pay less because they will lobby more for their rights as citizens. That's all that is about. All you net neutrality groupies don't want to look at the ecology that feeds your Silicon Valley.

He is an american citizen.. He was born in buffalo NY.. You assume a LOT. 

Also, you quoted me to delete what i wrote and not respond?!? Do you not know how forums work? Just edit it and remove the quote... Too much ranting and not enough thinking on your part. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 hours ago, AzrealZen said:

I was told the opposite. I think it's similar to the "clean air act" a thing that did the opposite of what you would assume it is about from the name. It ended pollution rules for clean air lol. Tricks of politicians upon the uniformed. Net Neutrality means blocking web sites and censorship I was told. All in the fine print. So to be for net neutrality, you would be against this political trick thing called that.

I have this bridge in London for sale.............

[bigmoe Whitfield]

On 5/21/2018 at 2:29 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

Gosh, you know just like...Obama got his way!

And that's why this should be decided by Congress not as a vote about a process, but a vote about the issue itself. It would still lose, but will have more legitimacy. Of course, Silicon Valley doesn't want to give Congress legitimacy because they hate democracy.

I'm  not allowing ATT or comcrap to dictate the internet.   simple. 

[Ceka Cianci]

We've already dumped 2/3 of AT&T in our house..The phone and the tv..

I use a cell phone now and actually just use it for a phone,even though it's a really nice android with a big screen..Also we bought one of those Roku boxes where we can just get things like netflix or Hulu for a monthly fee or Pluto and whatever else for free..

The box I think was only like 130.00 but we got it on sale for 109.00..No commercials or anything like that and we get to watch what we want when we want..

If for some reason they decided to go crazy on our internet bill..I'm fine spending all my spare time with my horses..Screw them...Them being AT&T

Edited May 24, 2018 by Ceka Cianci

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Actually, if it were implemented, it would be "net neutrality" that would be doomed because people would see how it stops innovation, stops progress, stops free enterprise, and stops consumer freedom of choice, and doesn't do these things the ideologues think it will do, like improve literacy and employment in Appalachia or whatever, as the problems of these regions are a lot more complicated than just broadband, and giving broadband anywhere, in any demographic, leads to more consumption of MMORPGs and YouTubes, not improved education and employment, so let's not be ridiculous.

In fact, you have to explain why you can make your claims when we HAD "net neutrality" under Obama for some time.

 

Theresa Tennyson has a light bulb go on over her head.

Mr. Neva, could you please explain what "net neutrality" means, in your own words?