Vote for Net Neutrality

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/9/2017 at 4:51 PM, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

Actually, prokster, I'm a Samaritan, and whilst our mission statement is still that fewer people die by suicide, if someone calls us, and has decided on that course, and doesn't change their mind, then it is our duty and responsibility to stay on the phone with them while they die.  I'm fortunate; I haven't had to do that yet, but some of my colleagues have.   

You should just straight up admit that you hate socialism because you hate, fear and envy fairness, equality and all that is kind and decent in other humans.  Your bitterness is evident in every post you make.  I don't require anyone else's estimation of my moral worth.  You, on the other hand, desperately strive to be regarded more highly that you ever are, and long for validation and support.  You could give that some thought.

You're being a Samaritan doesn't mean your figures are correct. They aren't. Also, perhaps this is legal in Finland, but in many places in the world, notably the US (or even worse in Russia), you could not sit idly by and do nothing while letting a person commit suicide, you would be viewed as an enabler and could be liable.

Um, I can't "straight up admit" things that are false and some wild imagination you have about the critique of socialism. Socialism is not Christianity or the Christian ethic. It's ideology, not law. It is not the rule of law, but the rule of ideology. That's why I and other human rights advocates reject it. The fiction of "equality" and "fairness" as some committee of comrades decides it obscure the lack of real justice. You can have social justice, a fair health care policy, aid to vulnerable people in society without having socialism. In fact, it's done in the US in ways I think you just aren't informed about. I don't "look for validation and support". I vote against net neutrality.

The Lindens put this in our face, and I erased the letter and wrote my own letter saying I support the removal of Obama's net neutrality rules. Honestly, you're way off course in this discussion merely because of your own seething hatred.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/10/2017 at 5:02 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

The reality of the internet is that it consists of hardware that is owned by people. Mostly it is owned by individuals like us. That's our computers. When they are connected, they are part of the internet. But what makes it a network (the internet) are cables and connection points (ISPs), and those are owned by companies that are in it for profit. The internet cannot work without them. They are what make it a network. None of us have a right to use their equipment, unless they give us that right. It is definitely not a 'human right'.

This is part of why it's not "a human right" but a *good* about which there should be a *policy* or even a *law* but not a "right". That's because it's private property -- God forbid the offense against socialism here -- and the government can't just confiscate it. And Google upholds that for itself, it just wants to get away with getting other people to pay its business costs.

All of Silicon Valley is suffused with this hysterical cause now because they've worked themselves up into a lather, thinking they will have to pay more or lose customers. Nothing provides evidence of this. There's also a natural animosity and rivalry with telecoms which are not Internet companies. There's a lot of reasons for this, cultural, economic, technical. The telecoms co-exist with the IT companies and intermix with them. But the IT companies think they could eliminate telecoms and just have VOIP etc and favor that eliminationism. But it's not rational or good in a free society with free enterprise.

People are often confused about human rights and where they come from.

Even under international human rights law, there isn't "a right" to the Internet -- there's a right to freedom of expression *on* the Internet. There are statements about net neutrality by various UN figures. There are efforts to get negotiated signed statements and interpretations in various bodies to try to hammer on this -- I could note, as I have followed this closely over the years that it is all driven by the millionaire founder of ebay and his wife, who was a UN ambassador for a time as a political perk for bundling. An entire industry and conference called "Access" sprang up around this very well-funded lobby. They basically rolled a lot of the old-time major human rights groups with this industry lobbying position because people are afraid of challenging technical things for fear of looking backward or stupid. 

But it is not enshrined in a treaty as a right.

In general, there are positive rights -- rights that the government has to give you, and pay for out of taxpayers' pockets or confiscation.

Then there are negative rights, where the government merely has to get out of the way. That's the First Amendment.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Prokofy Neva

[ThorinII]

You know what, Prokofy, I grew up in a country *you* would call a "communist" one. And despite having seen the shortfalls and quirks of such a regime, I would happily turn back the times  any day, if I could and had to choose between "Free Market" and "Communism".

I think the market has to be heavily regulated - and some branches have to be taken entirely off the market (=be nationalized), for example the healthcare system, all education, water, mail, telephone and internet, and a few others (and be it by nationalizing through confiscation) - simply because of the insane greed of for-profit companies.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by ThorinII

[Prokofy Neva]

Most people in a democracy under the rule of law don't choose a communist system, ThorinII. And your nostalgia for communism is nostalgia for certain things that in fact the communist systems could NOT KEEP delivering, which is why they COLLAPSED -- communism doesn't work. No country *freely* chooses communism. Communism exhausts people and resources and nature, and dies, taking many down with it.

People have reasons for leaving communist countries and then getting nostalgic about them and believe me, I get that, but once you take away oppression, GULAGs, etc. people tend not to want Soviet communism or even goulash communism or communism with a face, but some kind of "social democracy". So have your feelings -- but...how's the Internet in Russia and China? 

And by the way, the reason why these debates are so pointless on SL is because people think any critique of their beloved socialism is Ayn Randism cut-throat capitalism. In fact there's A LOT of regulation of capitalism in developed countries like the US or Germany. Regulation is not the issue. IDEOLOGY is the issue.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Prokofy Neva

[Prokofy Neva]

20 minutes ago, ThorinII said:

You know what, Prokofy, I grew up in a country *you* would call a "communist" one. And despite having seen the shortfalls and quirks of such a regime, I would happily turn back the times  any day, if I could and had to choose between "Free Market" and "Communism".

I think the market has to be heavily regulated - and some branches have to be taken entirely off the market (=be nationalized), for example the healthcare system, all education, water, mail, telephone and internet, and a few others (and be it by nationalizing through confiscation) - simply because of the insane greed of for-profit companies.

 

I don't impugn greed to companies because I don't hate capitalism, there's no reason to; many of the things that people hate about capitalism are in fact violations of law or their imagination about how they think it works. The Internet can't be made into a utility because it is too complex with too many property owners. And that's ok. Some cities have gone socialist and given some very bare minimum of cell phone/Internet on the streets for a few minutes which you have to keep refreshing. In New York, they've already given away $45 million worth of Internet. Who pays? That's the problem. Someone still has to pay, just like those lovely "healthy" bikes. The tax payer pays, and didn't get to decide to do this, our socialist mayor pushed it through. One problem the police immediately had was people camping out by these booths and doing drug deals or playing WoW when the idea was to enable people just to check mail, call for help, arrange a meeting, etc. 

The problem with greed is that all people are greedy when left without the rule of law, or perhaps some religious restriction. Greed isn't just companies; it's kids who think a free Internet pole in the city is theirs to take for hours to play an online game.

Most countries including the US have free education and water or very low cost water, and electricity is even subsidized. Again, your notion of greedy evil capitalists is taken from -- God knows where. 

Companies are right to charge and make a profit because they have costs and they need to pay workers and they need incentive. In countries without incentive and the restrictions of communism and even socialism, what you get is more crime, more black markets, and more violence and oppression in the end. You do need to follow the cycle through. In any event, I'll leave you to your thoughts and you can check back in six months and see if we were all gagged and bound from our speech and pillaged by greedy corporations due to these rules. I'll wait.

[Theresa Tennyson]

49 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Companies are right to charge and make a profit because they have costs and they need to pay workers and they need incentive. In countries without incentive and the restrictions of communism and even socialism, what you get is more crime, more black markets, and more violence and oppression in the end. You do need to follow the cycle through. In any event, I'll leave you to your thoughts and you can check back in six months and see if we were all gagged and bound from our speech and pillaged by greedy corporations due to these rules. I'll wait.

Nobody is saying that the ISP's can't charge and make a profit. What people who want the "net neutrality" rules to stay in place is that the ISP's provide what the customers pay for without interfering in it.

 

As far as I can tell, this is the basic situation. The FCC first looked at Internet providers in 2002. At the time, you had a provider of Internet service who usually also provided content and your E-mail address. AOL was still the big player back then. However, as a consumer you could change to a different internet provider easily because most consumers reached their internet by modem over wires the phone system had run into their house, which were owned by someone else who didn't care who you used for Internet service. So, in 2002 the FCC determined that internet service wasn't a communications service that needed to be regulated and neutral - simply an "entertainment service".

Over the years, of course, things changed. In the United States most people now have E-mail addresses and access content from third-party sources, but access these services by paying services who own the wires/connections necessary, so they can't easily change providers. Around 2010 the FCC began to realize this was now the case and started to think of the internet providers as communications companies, who aren't allowed to interfere with the data running on their lines. In 2015 this change was formalized.

The reason the FCC is trying to repeal the 2015 rules is the ISP's are arguing that they aren't communications companies after all and as such should be able to determine what control what content they provide.

This article links to a 43-page long analysis that a bunch of IT professionals (including some of the people who set up the internet protocols in the first place)sent to the FCC and apparently was ignored.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/12/net-neutrality-repeal-based-on-false-description-of-internet-inventors-say/

Yes, I've read all 43 pages. It's an interesting read. (For example, instead of saying "the hardware is the internet" they point out that theoretically internet traffic could travel on carrier pigeons.)

[Paul Hexem]

2 hours ago, ThorinII said:

Bullsh*t. it's about voting for the Federal Government to make sure that all web services are treated equally in regards of bandwidth. No matter if it's some big newspaper's web platform, or a no-name blog, Startpage.com or Google.com, youtube or vimeo, AT&T or some local provider.

 

That said, however: If *I* had a say in the States (or here in Germany, where I live), there would be no *private* ownership of ISP's at all anymore. Internet and telephone would all be nationalized and tax-paid - ergo available to everyone, and free of extra charge.

Though while at it, I would also  nationalize the entire healthcare system (so that neither healthcare insurance nor hospitals were owned by greedy for-profit companies anymore, and that everyone would automatically be covered, no questions asked). AND public transport. AND electricity.AND water supply. Plus a few other branches.

I don't pay for water and electricity- got a well and solar panels. Your suggestion would put the solar panel and water pump guys out of work, and everyone like them.

Government involvement always has downsides.

Also, why should I have to pay even more taxes for all the freeloaders out there? I already pay too much as is, just to see perfectly healthy people collecting all kinds of benefits. 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I don't impugn greed to companies because I don't hate capitalism, there's no reason to; many of the things that people hate about capitalism are in fact violations of law or their imagination about how they think it works. The Internet can't be made into a utility because it is too complex with too many property owners. And that's ok. Some cities have gone socialist and given some very bare minimum of cell phone/Internet on the streets for a few minutes which you have to keep refreshing. In New York, they've already given away $45 million worth of Internet. Who pays? That's the problem. Someone still has to pay, just like those lovely "healthy" bikes. The tax payer pays, and didn't get to decide to do this, our socialist mayor pushed it through. One problem the police immediately had was people camping out by these booths and doing drug deals or playing WoW when the idea was to enable people just to check mail, call for help, arrange a meeting, etc. 

The problem with greed is that all people are greedy when left without the rule of law, or perhaps some religious restriction. Greed isn't just companies; it's kids who think a free Internet pole in the city is theirs to take for hours to play an online game.

Most countries including the US have free education and water or very low cost water, and electricity is even subsidized. Again, your notion of greedy evil capitalists is taken from -- God knows where. 

Companies are right to charge and make a profit because they have costs and they need to pay workers and they need incentive. In countries without incentive and the restrictions of communism and even socialism, what you get is more crime, more black markets, and more violence and oppression in the end. You do need to follow the cycle through. In any event, I'll leave you to your thoughts and you can check back in six months and see if we were all gagged and bound from our speech and pillaged by greedy corporations due to these rules. I'll wait.

under Communism, on those rare occasions when the collective farmers  were given tiny garden plots, it was lamented that they lavished far more care and attention on "their" plot that the communal lands. That right there shows why communism is bad and can never ever succeed except in creating destruction, misery and death. In those areas communism excels every time.

Margaret Thatcher once said: Socialism is wonderful, until you run out of other peoples money

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Consider this famous Marx quote, which is the central core of communism distilled to its essence and ask yourself, would you really like to live under this system?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Consider this famous Marx quote, which is the central core of communism distilled to its essence and ask yourself, would you really like to live under this system?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Yes of course, anytime!

[Callum Meriman]

Another Marx quote

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

 

[ThorinII]

1 minute ago, Callum Meriman said:

Another Marx quote

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

 

Is that  Karl Marx, or Groucho Marx?

[Callum Meriman]

Groucho

[Drake1 Nightfire]

27 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

The reason the FCC is trying to repeal the 2015 rules is the ISP's are arguing that they aren't communications companies after all and as such should be able to determine what control what content they provide.

I would love to hear Xfinity's reasoning that they aren't a communication company. They provide, Cable Tv, Phone, Internet, Cell Phones, and Wi-Fi hotspots... What would you call that kind of company?

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

You're being a Samaritan doesn't mean your figures are correct. They aren't. Also, perhaps this is legal in Finland, but in many places in the world, notably the US (or even worse in Russia), you could not sit idly by and do nothing while letting a person commit suicide, you would be viewed as an enabler and could be liable.

Um, I can't "straight up admit" things that are false and some wild imagination you have about the critique of socialism. Socialism is not Christianity or the Christian ethic. It's ideology, not law. It is not the rule of law, but the rule of ideology. That's why I and other human rights advocates reject it. The fiction of "equality" and "fairness" as some committee of comrades decides it obscure the lack of real justice. You can have social justice, a fair health care policy, aid to vulnerable people in society without having socialism. In fact, it's done in the US in ways I think you just aren't informed about. I don't "look for validation and support". I vote against net neutrality.

The Lindens put this in our face, and I erased the letter and wrote my own letter saying I support the removal of Obama's net neutrality rules. Honestly, you're way off course in this discussion merely because of your own seething hatred.

Oh you're back; I guess we can't win them all.  I'm in the UK, and the Sams, being a listening service, does have a certain amount of protected status in terms of when we have to notify the authorities.  Specifically, threats or claims to have committed acts of terrorism or treason.  That's it.  Otherwise our service is confidential, so yes, if someone rang us, told us they had killed their spouse and were about to kill their children we cannot and do not notify the police, ambulance service or any other authority.  Now, some people have a problem with that, in training, and cannot cope with this.  They are either told that they are unsuitable, or decide so for themselves.  

I am aware that other counties have different laws - there's a shocker! - but as a UK resident and citizen I only have to concern myself with ours.

I have no hatred, 'seething' or otherwise,* bless your daft little cotton socks.  I just see you the same way as 99% of other sl residents do.  As a rather silly obsessed old bird with a reds under the beds complex and a loyal band of dedicated griefers to tease you.

*I'll make an exception for your president - I hope he burns, and soon.  He's simply dreadful in every conceivable way.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

23 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Consider this famous Marx quote, which is the central core of communism distilled to its essence and ask yourself, would you really like to live under this system?

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Very much indeed - surely this is the essence of decency?  That we all work to the best of our ability and get all that we need, regardless of the wealth or status of our parents.  Is a child of rich people genuinely entitled to a better life than a child of poor people?  Anyone who would say yes is beneath all human contempt, and has abandoned any pretence of humanity, Christianity, or indeed any pretence that they are other than the lowest, greediest, nastiest among us.

[Luna Bliss]

The problem with corporations is they jack up prices arbitrarily and often when there is no need (after all, their goal is to make money for CEO's and shareholders vs receiving adequate profit to maintain the service). It's simply not true that there will be a guard against this happening because everyone can 'vote with their feet' -- where I live there is only one broadband provider (well there's one other but with deplorable speeds). So with net neutrality removed I will be making CEO's and shareholders more wealthy if I choose to access the internet. And that's what I think the removal of net neutrality basically is -- a way to raise internet prices, as well as a way for the general population to be manipulated and controlled, as the removal of net neutrality will enable the blocking of websites, allow companies to throttle speeds, and limit access to those without considerable funds.

Trump is for the removal of net neutrality, and most Republicans are -- given all their recent attempts to change policies in recent months it's very obvious what is behind the removal and who will benefit. All their policies disproportionately affect the poor.

If data caps go into place SL would be very expensive for US residents to access. I checked into this when I considered going mobile and getting a capped plan, and I was shocked at the data usage of even 45 minutes in SL. I wouldn't mind paying somewhat more, after all it's only fair when using more data. But the mobile data plans are very restrictive -- even paying for the $100 per month data plan would not allow much access to SL.

[Luna Bliss]

I forgot to mention possible life without Youtube:

 

[Prokofy Neva]

3 hours ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

Oh you're back; I guess we can't win them all.  I'm in the UK, and the Sams, being a listening service, does have a certain amount of protected status in terms of when we have to notify the authorities.  Specifically, threats or claims to have committed acts of terrorism or treason.  That's it.  Otherwise our service is confidential, so yes, if someone rang us, told us they had killed their spouse and were about to kill their children we cannot and do not notify the police, ambulance service or any other authority.  Now, some people have a problem with that, in training, and cannot cope with this.  They are either told that they are unsuitable, or decide so for themselves.  

I am aware that other counties have different laws - there's a shocker! - but as a UK resident and citizen I only have to concern myself with ours.

I have no hatred, 'seething' or otherwise,* bless your daft little cotton socks.  I just see you the same way as 99% of other sl residents do.  As a rather silly obsessed old bird with a reds under the beds complex and a loyal band of dedicated griefers to tease you.

*I'll make an exception for your president - I hope he burns, and soon.  He's simply dreadful in every conceivable way.

Of course you have hatred, it seeps through your posts. You spew stereotypes like "99% of other sl residents" which simply isn't true. That's the problem with the forums -- they are run by 2% of the 5% of residents who bother with them, and it's full of bullies you can't fight back against because they AR you and the Lindens take their side. That's why I prefer to debate on my blog.

Criticism of socialism and even more, communism isn't about "reds under the bed," not when we're talking about a brutal system that committed mass crimes against humanity including against my in-laws and friends. I'm aware that there's often less awareness of the realities of the GULAG in Europe, closer to Russia, than the US, and there's reasons for that.

As for griefers, um, they aren't "teasing me" like I' just some "old bird," they are joining groups against their will, force-conferencing people, and spewing racist, anti-Muslim hatred, impersonating themselves as me. That's teasing?! It's far worse than that! And fortunately, the Lindens remove them although slowly. Perhaps because most of the people like you dealing with them think I'm the problem when they impersonate me, which is ridiculous, of course. This isn't "teasing." It's crime.

A critique of net neutrality is in order because it is about a government agency that arrogated to itself the power to "redistribute wealth" in socialist fashion and undemocratically. Google fans bombing a comments section isn't democracy, it's mob rule. This should be decided by Congress. But in fact, it's being undone by an elected president. Burn him as you will, but I think Americans have shown they stand up to the worst of Trump and his ilk (i.e. in Alabama just now).

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives but the bottom line now is the Labour Party is in a shambles, my God, look at Jeremy Corbyn. If I had to choose between Trump and Corbyn -- OMG what a choice -- I'd choose Trump simply because I think he can be curbed and overruled easier as self-interest rather than ideology drives him.

I'm glad Net Neutrality is being removed and Silicon Valley can't win for once. It's a joy to behold. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Prokofy Neva

[Luna Bliss]

53 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I'm glad Net Neutrality is being removed and Silicon Valley can't win for once. It's a joy to behold. 

Why do you dislike Silicon Valley so much?

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives ...

I just thought I'd quote that because it shows that, although you sound as though you're up on subjects, sounding like it doesn't mean you actually are up on subjects. In the quoted case, you are just plain wrong, but who would know it who doesn't know the subject.

A long long time ago, I can still remember, we had a 'memory man' entertainer called Leslie Welsh. If you asked him a question about football, no matter how far back in history the question referred to, he could tell you the final score, who scored the goals,, and all the names of the players in both teams. It sounded amazing, but the thing was, he didn't know all the answers. He just spouted random names, but nobody was knowledgable enough to realise it. What I quoted reminded me of him.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

So many people depend on the Net for their "Nut".

Save your Nut - Save the Net!

[Love Zhaoying]

18 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

you are just plain wrong, but who would know it who doesn't know the subject.

Wrong people are just like dead people and stupid people - they don't know.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives but the bottom line now is the Labour Party is in a shambles, my God, look at Jeremy Corbyn. If I had to choose between Trump and Corbyn -- OMG what a choice -- I'd choose Trump simply because I think he can be curbed and overruled easier as self-interest rather than ideology drives him.

..and the price of Tea in China fluctuates occasionally. So?

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

there would be no *private* ownership of ISP's at all anymore. Internet and telephone would all be nationalized and tax-paid - ergo available to everyone, and free of extra charge.

Good luck getting innovation with Gummint-run services and no competition.