FCC pop-up

[Innula Zenovka]

19 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Also, if the FFC kills net neutrality, do you really think SL wont be affected? Do you really think your connection wont be affected? How many US based companies would this affect? Youtube, netflix, SL, Amazon, Blizzard, and many more. You should all be as concerned as we are. 

Will we, though?   This is what I don't really understand.

Most discussions I've read of net neutrality, both in the USA and elsewhere, concentrate on what happens between the ISP and the customer.   In the UK, where I live,and I think most of Europe, the rules are rather looser than they are in the USA, perhaps because we have a more genuinely competitive market for ISPs than do you in the US.    

However, you raise the question of what happens to the data when it's first transmitted, and while it's making its way from the sender to the ultimate recipient.    I don't know anything about this, but presumably it all travels down the same cables and fibre optics on its way from LL or Netflix or YouTube or whoever until it reaches the ISP who is going to deliver it.  Presumably LL's servers don't have multiple connections, one set to carry communications between LL's servers and computers belonging to Verizon, another set for ATT & T customers and so on.

If I'm correct in this, and everyone uses the same connections between the source and the ISP, who owns the connecting cables and how do they charge for their use?   I'm not suggesting that if the US abandon net neutrality then it'll have no effect on non-US SL accounts but I don't really understand enough about the technology or how the communications business works to see what this effect is likely to be.    

 

[KanryDrago]

5 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Will we, though?   This is what I don't really understand.

Most discussions I've read of net neutrality, both in the USA and elsewhere, concentrate on what happens between the ISP and the customer.   In the UK, where I live,and I think most of Europe, the rules are rather looser than they are in the USA, perhaps because we have a more genuinely competitive market for ISPs than do you in the US.    

However, you raise the question of what happens to the data when it's first transmitted, and while it's making its way from the sender to the ultimate recipient.    I don't know anything about this, but presumably it all travels down the same cables and fibre optics on its way from LL or Netflix or YouTube or whoever until it reaches the ISP who is going to deliver it.  Presumably LL's servers don't have multiple connections, one set to carry communications between LL's servers and computers belonging to Verizon, another set for ATT & T customers and so on.

If I'm correct in this, and everyone uses the same connections between the source and the ISP, who owns the connecting cables and how do they charge for their use?   I'm not suggesting that if the US abandon net neutrality then it'll have no effect on non-US SL accounts but I don't really understand enough about the technology or how the communications business works to see what this effect is likely to be.    

 

US net neutrality laws are unlikely to affect us directly. The way the internet works is via backbones and by and large they have peering agreements between them. ISP's largely come in fr the last mile sort of thing. The issue therefore is when you only have one choice of isp and they decide they wont allow for example Netflix traffic because it competes with their film offering.

(yes some isp's also own backbones the T3,T2 and T1 lines but peering agreements with other backbone providers are likely to keep them honest) but largely it will affect customers who suddenly find some internet services either cut off or metered or throttled

[Hintswen Guardian]

I got this message when visiting one of the land pages on secondlife.com and then again on the casperlet website making me think someone infected my browser or computer.

[Tari Landar]

Popups are not illegal spamming...they may perhaps be annoying to some, at times, but there is nothing *illegal about it.

Though I have to wonder why it's so very difficult to simply close a box. It took me all of a second and, bam, gone. (I've already made my voice heard). I've seen similar things on websites when countries all around the world were having difficulties of a similar nature and wanted their voices heard too. It never bothered me as much as this popup seems to bother some sl residents. In fact, more often than not, I feel terrible for those that ARE affected-regardless of their population, or whether or not the issue could even potentially affect me. It wasn't exactly all that long ago that several other areas of the world were fighting against their own government entities(and the like) due to various issues having to do with access to the internet, or some entity wanting to control/limit said access(there are some places in the world where this is still an issue). Hell there were campaigns all over sl about it...all over, and I supported several of them. They didn't affect me, they only affected a small portion of sl residents, but it was VERY important to *them..so I cared at least that much, most of the time...and if I didn't, I kept right on going about my business, no harm, no foul. 

I see the MOTD on the screen when I login in to sl, 99.999999999% of the time, it is of no interest to me, nor would whatever it's about actually affect me, but it's there, until sl loads. I simply choose to ignore it, it's really not that difficult at all.

If you're really not bothered at all by NN/feel it doesn't or won't affect you-and I understand some aren't, whether or not others feel they should...why be this absolutely bothered by a little popup, some folks seem super angry about a lil popup that can be easily made to go away, or simply ignored? 

Ftr...my IP address frequently has me outside of the US, which is not even remotely true, unless I'm traveling outside of my current known existence (in which case, someone tell the other me to get me some cool momentos in her travels, please  ). So, not really all that sure LL can actually target "only us residents" as well as some folks think. There are also countless US citizens temporarily residing outside of the country who CAN, and do, vote/voice their opinions-whether or not our votes/voices matter at all to our government. 

[Max Nova]

I said Europe, did you not understand that? Obviously the countries in Europe are much smaller than the US thus the EU the same can be said for South East Asia thus ASEAN.

If you are in disbelief about something look it up you obviously have internet access and can look it up. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by WuShin
typo

[Max Nova]

4 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I bolded the part i was referring to.. 

What you said read to me as if you thought there were twice as many Europeans in the world..   

Just to point out, you are comparing several countries against one.. Pick ONE European country and put it against the US.. The numbers will not back you. 

Also, if the FFC kills net neutrality, do you really think SL wont be affected? Do you really think your connection wont be affected? How many US based companies would this affect? Youtube, netflix, SL, Amazon, Blizzard, and many more. You should all be as concerned as we are. 

Obviously you do not understand the term European. In this instance we are using the term as follows. 

European [yoo r-uh-pee-uh n, yur-] 

As an adjective

1. of or relating to Europe or its inhabitants.

2. native to or derived from Europe: traditional European customs; European languages.

As a noun

3.a native or inhabitant of Europe.

Definition of European Union (EU)

The European Union is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. It has an area of 4,475,757 km², and an estimated population of over 510 million. There are about 50 countries in Europe just FYI. 

Furthermore we are using this data as Linden Labs collected it which was by broken down to percentages of EU member states. I'm sure if one wanted the data by US State or Canadian Province Linden Labs very well may have that information, in fact I'm sure they do as they collect payment data and and know your IP address. Also the number quoted was for North America not the United States meaning Canada, The United States and Mexico. 

So the data I provided you was 54 percent of active users are from Europe and 34.5 percent are from North America. 

Now before you get in to the mathematics of it all yes that leaves 11.5 percent and those 11.5 percent are from all other countries.

Why so low? One reason is cost, another is there are other services like Second Life (more than 20)  that are more appealing to people in Asia particularity, in fact most people in China use HiPiHi (which means the world exists because of you in Chinese) it is pretty much a clone of Second Life. 

So in conclusion and to what my point was in the first place North America and Again North America is Canada, The United States and Mexico (not just the United States) makes up 34.5% of Second Life users and the rest of us are the other 65.5% so you can see why so many people really do not care about your government or politics, it's not personal we just have no control over it. 

 

 

 

[Max Nova]

11 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Well, you certainly didn't bore us with a lengthy detailed explanation... 

I was assuming you would want to look it up for yourself, I personally never believe anyone and look it up myself. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

1 minute ago, WuShin said:

I was assuming you would want to look it up for yourself, I personally never believe anyone and look it up myself. 

It's funny how you keep telling people to "look thing up" to back up your claims when your tag line quote would imply otherwise. Making unsubstantiated claims is akin to the illusion of knowledge. 

[Max Nova]

1 minute ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

It's funny how you keep telling people to "look thing up" to back up your claims when your tag line quote would imply otherwise. Making unsubstantiated claims is akin to the illusion of knowledge. 

I just did and did the maths for you as well. And you say I "keep telling people to look things up" I said if you have doubt please do look it up. Or I would suggest if you are trying to prove me wrong you do some research because at this point it seems like you are trying to prove me wrong without bringing anything to the table except an "I want you to be wrong" attitude. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

3 minutes ago, WuShin said:

I just did and did the maths for you as well. And you say I "keep telling people to look things up" I said if you have doubt please do look it up. Or I would suggest if you are trying to prove me wrong you do some research because at this point it seems like you are trying to prove me wrong without bringing anything to the table except an "I want you to be wrong" attitude. 

Funny, i found the same data you did with a google search.. FROM 10 FREAKING YEARS AGO! There are no new data lists from LL, they stopped a long time ago. So there is ZERO current  information to back up your claims. Why it matters to you where anyone that uses SL is from in THIS discussion is beyond me. If the US loses Net Neutrality they are potentially huge impacts on everyone.

Whichever company owns the lines from the servers out of LL can raise their prices without penalty. They can charge LL more simply because they feel like it. They can throttle data speeds to anywhere they like. The fact that other countries have Net Neutrality will have zero affect on this. We will all lose. 

[Max Nova]

1 minute ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Funny, i found the same data you did with a google search.. FROM 10 FREAKING YEARS AGO! There are no new data lists from LL, they stopped a long time ago. So there is ZERO current  information to back up your claims. Why it matters to you where anyone that uses SL is from in THIS discussion is beyond me. If the US loses Net Neutrality they are potentially huge impacts on everyone.

Whichever company owns the lines from the servers out of LL can raise their prices without penalty. They can charge LL more simply because they feel like it. They can throttle data speeds to anywhere they like. The fact that other countries have Net Neutrality will have zero affect on this. We will all lose. 

I'm not sure what sources you are looking at but the ones I used were between 2015 and 2017 but in any event we digress the point that was made is the majority of us have no control nor can we sign the petition pop-up posted by LL I'm not sure why this is an issue with you.

But I would suggest if you put as much energy in to your protests and fought as hard as you do in forums with your government, you may not be in the situation you are currently in. 

[Tari Landar]

19 minutes ago, WuShin said:

But I would suggest if you put as much energy in to your protests and fought as hard as you do in forums with your government, you may not be in the situation you are currently in. 

This kind of attitude, is precisely why voices go unheard-or at least have difficulty being heard, so often, the WORLD over, not just in the US...but nearly all countries all around the world. People assume that others "don't fight hard enough, because if they did (insert whatever negative or potentially negative thing is currently happening, or going to) would not be happening". I don't find such arguments wise, let alone fair(since you've no idea how hard others are "fighting" for their cause), when one never knows when something could very well negatively affect THEM..and they may find themselves on the other end of the proverbial stick. 

Again, this is NOT the first time an area of the world has been fighting for a government entity in their part of the world to NOT limit, throttle, or even downright block access to the internet(or certain areas of the internet). Would you *really use that same argument for them all? 

[Max Nova]

2 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

This kind of attitude, is precisely why voices go unheard-or at least have difficulty being heard, so often, the WORLD over, not just in the US...but nearly all countries all around the world. People assume that others "don't fight hard enough, because if they did (insert whatever negative or potentially negative thing is currently happening, or going to) would not be happening". I don't find such arguments wise, let alone fair(since you've no idea how hard others are "fighting" for their cause), when one never knows when something could very well negatively affect THEM..and they may find themselves on the other end of the proverbial stick. 

Again, this is NOT the first time an area of the world has been fighting for a government entity in their part of the world to NOT limit, throttle, or even downright block access to the internet(or certain areas of the internet). Would you *really use that same argument for them all? 

I think you misunderstand my meaning which is rather than telling people who are powerless to help -- DO tell people who have the power and ability to make a difference. I absolutely did not mean it in a negative way whatsoever rather as a motivator , it was a suggestion and all I did was answer questions asked. As far as the pop-up goes which was the main complaint, as one user pointed out it's a matter of clicking the "x" and closing the box.

Here is who you should be contacting and fighting: https://www.battleforthenet.com

Not me or the other 65.5% of the users 

 

[Tari Landar]

26 minutes ago, WuShin said:

I think you misunderstand my meaning which is rather than telling people who are powerless to help -- DO tell people who have the power and ability to make a difference. I absolutely did not mean it in a negative way whatsoever rather as a motivator , it was a suggestion and all I did was answer questions asked. As far as the pop-up goes which was the main complaint, as one user pointed out it's a matter of clicking the "x" and closing the box.

Here is who you should be contacting and fighting: https://www.battleforthenet.com

Not me or the other 65.5% of the users 

 

I think most people do, in fact, realize that the people here on these forums(or even most places) aren't the ones they should be arguing(for or against) net neutrality. I am also fairly certain most folks that want their voices to be heard have done so, or are doing so (again, for or against, matters not..just that one makes their voice heard).

You told someone they aren't fighting hard enough, without any knowledge as to what they actually ARE doing(or have done), and in doing so, they put themselves in the position which they currently find themselves in. I think that's a pretty unfair assessment. That's not a motivator that's putting blame on all the wrong people. Like I said, if it's not an argument you'd use against all others in all other situations..it's a rather unfair (and, personally, imo, kinda mean) assessment. Of course, my opinion is neither here nor there..I'm just not all that fond of such statements used in that manner. Shrugs

Still, continue to banter between yourselves about who has more people...because I'm sure that'll be about as effective as us arguing on the forums either for, or against, net neutrality, in the grand scheme of things, lol. 

[Max Nova]

2 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I think most people do, in fact, realize that the people here on these forums(or even most places) aren't the ones they should be arguing(for or against) net neutrality. I am also fairly certain most folks that want their voices to be heard have done so, or are doing so (again, for or against, matters not..just that one makes their voice heard).

You told someone they aren't fighting hard enough, without any knowledge as to what they actually ARE doing(or have done), and in doing so, they put themselves in the position which they currently find themselves in. I think that's a pretty unfair assessment. That's not a motivator that's putting blame on all the wrong people. Like I said, if it's not an argument you'd use against all others in all other situations..it's a rather unfair (and, personally, imo, kinda mean) assessment. Of course, my opinion is neither here nor there..I'm just not all that fond of such statements used in that manner. Shrugs

Still, continue to banter between yourselves about who has more people...because I'm sure that'll be about as effective as us arguing on the forums either for, or against, net neutrality, in the grand scheme of things, lol. 

I was asked a question, my answer was rejected without evidence so I did some research and elaborated on the answer which was rejected and I defined it more clearly. I'm not the villain here.  

I'm done this is getting old and way off track and is wasting a lot of keystrokes on the wrong folks. 

[Tari Landar]

13 minutes ago, WuShin said:

I was asked a question, my answer was rejected without evidence so I did some research and elaborated on the answer which was rejected and I defined it more clearly. I'm not the villain here.  

I'm done this is getting old and way off track and is wasting a lot of keystrokes on the wrong folks. 

Do you read ANYTHING other people post?

Let me break this down a little simpler....I don't give a ***** about your argument with someone else regarding which area of the world has more people as far as sl is concerned. I don't take issue with that..never did...never will. That's your beef with someone else, a silly argument(on both sides), but has nothing to do with anything I said, at all, lol. 

I take issue with you telling someone they aren't fighting hard enough for their cause and are therefore to blame for being put in a position where they feel they are at the mercy of another. That's a tactless move, a jab, and it is absolutely negative...not a motivator.

[Qie Niangao]

7 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Will we, though?   This is what I don't really understand.

Most discussions I've read of net neutrality, both in the USA and elsewhere, concentrate on what happens between the ISP and the customer.   In the UK, where I live,and I think most of Europe, the rules are rather looser than they are in the USA, perhaps because we have a more genuinely competitive market for ISPs than do you in the US.    

However, you raise the question of what happens to the data when it's first transmitted, and while it's making its way from the sender to the ultimate recipient.    I don't know anything about this, but presumably it all travels down the same cables and fibre optics on its way from LL or Netflix or YouTube or whoever until it reaches the ISP who is going to deliver it.  Presumably LL's servers don't have multiple connections, one set to carry communications between LL's servers and computers belonging to Verizon, another set for ATT & T customers and so on.

If I'm correct in this, and everyone uses the same connections between the source and the ISP, who owns the connecting cables and how do they charge for their use?   I'm not suggesting that if the US abandon net neutrality then it'll have no effect on non-US SL accounts but I don't really understand enough about the technology or how the communications business works to see what this effect is likely to be.    

 

The chain of cause-and-effect isn't quite so direct. The problem is that carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and a few others control the "last mile" of content distribution, usually in geographic monopoly or duopoly.  Without regulation ("Net Neutrality") these carriers can make arrangements to favor or disfavor any content they please.

So the thin edge of the wedge is called "zero rating": one of those local carriers does a deal with a content provider to provide all bandwidth usage free to the end user. Everybody wins, right?

But then comes the hammer. These carriers are also major content providers themselves now, achieving "vertical integration" in an already lax anti-trust environment (for decades). So then, for example, to get the news on Verizon-served Internet it'll be Huffington Post for free or pay up for anything else.

Now what happens to the "anything else"? Unless it does deals with the carriers, it dies out. No more independent content. No more US market for international content. No more new, unaffiliated content providers. Potentially a very chilling effect on innovation, creativity, and diversity of viewpoints.

Some US markets have a measure of competition. New York. San Francisco Bay area. A few others. But they, too, are not immune to the systemic effects.  When the rest of the market can't support independent content sources, they'll be absent from markets with local competition too. Same in the global market.

Realistically, unless Ajit Pai gets hit by a bus on the way to work tomorrow, this is going to happen. Then it's just a question of how much damage is done before it can be reversed and competition-promoting regulation put back in place.

[Innula Zenovka]

@Qie Niangao  Thanks, Qie.   I understand what you say, and were I in the USA I can clearly see I would have cause for serious concern.  

What's not so clear to me, however, is what (if any) ill-effects abandoning net neutrality is likely to have on non-US internet users.   From what you say, I should worry about independent content sources facing closure, so it will affect me indirectly, to the extent that it affects any independent US content providers I might want to access.   That I understand.  

The background to this is that I asked in completely different forum what action, if any,  non-Americans were expected to take, since there's no obvious Member of Congress for me to complain to.   Someone suggested I contact my local Member of Parliament here in the UK, which I'm perfectly prepared to do (though I not sure how much influence a back-bench Labour MP is likely to have on policy in the US) but I need to advance some sensible reasons why he should be concerned about it.  

Is it simply that my choice of online US material is likely to become restricted as the  end of net neutrality drives some content providers out of business,  and that my subscriptions to The New Yorker and the Washington Post are likely to become more expensive,  as is SL?    Or is there more to it?

If writing to my MP will help, I'll gladly do that, but I'm really not sure what points I should be making to him in order to persuade him to take an interest in what he will doubtless see initially as a purely internal US matter.

[Tari Landar]

For those, outside of the US,  that may not understand why they should care....

It boils down to some simple facts. *IF* something like this negatively affects Linden Lab, it will undoubtedly, negatively impact the whole of sl, in some fashion. It may not affect other areas of your 'net usage, outside of sl...but since this is an sl forum, and LL has shown great concern over the issue, I think people should be more worried about what negatively impacts LL themselves-which will trickle down to every single resident, regardless of where they live, or access the services LL provides.

Do we KNOW it will absolutely affect LL in a way that impedes their ability to offer services? No, we do not...but LL is certainly concerned, which tells me, we should all be concerned (as it pertains to sl, that is...the remainder of "net usage and availability could be debated for ages, I'm sure). If LL is this concerned about their future ability to continue to provide services, and they clearly are, it makes sense for other residents, outside of the US to also be concerned....even if people feel there is little to nothing they can do about it. 

 

 

[Callum Meriman]

10 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

If LL is this concerned about their future ability to continue to provide services

Honestly, I think the risk to LL is being overstated.

[Tari Landar]

52 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Honestly, I think the risk to LL is being overstated.

I think only LL can determine that, they would know far more than any of us would..at least, on that front anyway  

[Callum Meriman]

32 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I think only LL can determine that, they would know far more than any of us would..at least, on that front anyway  

Sorry, I don't buy the "Sky is falling" argument on this. That they put up the warning to the entire world was just furry-level drama.

[Tari Landar]

33 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Sorry, I don't buy the "Sky is falling" argument on this. That they put up the warning to the entire world was just furry-level drama.

Well let us just hope you're right...and every business entity, organization and individual both here and abroad that share similar concerns are dead wrong about the outcome.

If you're not...none of us will likely be here to tell you I told you so anyway, lol. Organizations and businesses that  I work with, and for, are concerned(some to a greater extent than even LL, some to a lesser extent). It's been a cause of concern, and been discussed, for a while now actually.   Even *if* the concern, eventually, is shown to be unfounded-we really won't know for a while, anyway. There's nothing wrong with preparing for potential issues, that's kinda the point of contingency planning after all...I'd be worried about any business that isn't and doesn't take the *potential* effects of such things into consideration. 

[Parhelion Palou]

1 hour ago, Callum Meriman said:

Sorry, I don't buy the "Sky is falling" argument on this. That they put up the warning to the entire world was just furry-level drama.

This wasn't just LL. I saw the same form on other websites today.

[Callum Meriman]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

There's nothing wrong with preparing for potential issues, that's kinda the point of contingency planning after all

Contingency planning isn't spamming your foreign customers - whose voice is muted - to sign a chain letter each time they login in to the website. Contingency planning is building a decent backbone over 2 or even three top tier providers.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Callum Meriman