We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 18. 2017
"Net neutrality", a confusing concept, appears to have been a stalking horse for a government take-over of the internet. FCC Votes to Begin Net Neutrality Repeal
This is just one more good thing to come out of the new administration. Many good things are happening, but we aren't hearing about them.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Many good things are happening, but we aren't hearing about them."
Exactly! MSNBC & CNN, the propaganda wings of the Marxist (a.k.a. Democrat) party specialize in hyperbole, half- truths and hysteria instead of facts.
Net Neutrality! Who can have a problem with that. Ahh! But the left likes to pick nice sounding titles for their fascists objectives. So I admit I read very little about Net Neutrality and wasn't too sure. But a couple nights ago a far lefty and admitted socialist was on Tucker Carlson and he is incensed that Trump is going to scuttle Net Neutrality. So a far left socialist is for Net Neutrality; what more do you need to know?
Anyone else noticing how long-established websites are simply "disappearing" off the internet?
Stand Firm in Faith
The Midwest Conservative Journal
Hopefully this doesn't happen to MF.
I have one legitimate, wired, internet service provider available to me. Even Comcast wouldn't run a line out my way unless I agreed to pay just under $30,000 for them to do it.
The way I see it, a little regulation to keep my provider from hosing me with goofy new rules on what I can see, how much of it, and/or when I can see it might be something I'm interested in.
ISP's have been notoriously self-serving in establishing monopolies and then offering limited quantities of expensive options for our perusal. You can keep your health care (modern medicine is highly over-rated.) Unfettered broadband should be a right. ;-)
So yes, Virginia, I'm for Net Neutrality -- it's goes so nicely with my ISP's monopoly.
For instance, Madison River Communications restricted Internet access to a competitor's product, voice-over-Internet calling services instead of the company's phone lines.
The concept of Net Neutrality is that people should be able to receive their bits of information from where they like, without interference by their ISP. Otherwise, ISPs can throttle startups and competitors.
Net Neutrality is the original condition of the Internet.
..."Net Neutrality is the original condition of the Internet."...
That's pretty much how I see it.
Further, according to my understanding, in many markets you can't even buy a cable internet connection without signing up for a basic cable TV/satellite package. That means I have to underwrite CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, et al just to be able to get to the internet. Thanks, but no thanks.
Well, there it is. Zach is strongly in favor of Net Neutrality. Do you need anymore proof that it iis a far left fascist plot to destroy free speech on the internet???
Krusty's missive is exactly the emotional subterfuge being made over NetNeu. "ISP ... monopolies", "Unfettered broadband should be a right", "I have one ... ISP". I won't fisk it, too obvious, too boring.
Krusty must be a bot or a paid troller. Same stock dialectic form as all those "I'm a lifetime Republican and Trump lost my support because ...blah blah" that appeared everywhere in the last election.
The subterfuge: NetNeu is an equality of outcome ploy. Approved progressive causes and content and network providers that nobody wants, will be given priority. Disapproved "alt-right" and other non-Ruling Party-approved content will be given short shrift or suppressed, declared "fake news" and consuming too much precious scarce bandwidth (Scarce( sand ) [<] government( Sahara) ). Breitbart and Drudge will be limited to ever-decreasing bandwidth of proggro causes, because an imbalance in favor of non-"mainstream" content will be clear evidence that the Net is non-neutral.
Jeez dudes, at least try to be original.
You can just imagine the proggro angst and fears: "We have to get our message out, even if the people don't want it. And we can't let the newly-liberated by Citizens United corporations giving their subscribers what they ask for and are willing to pay. Oh God no! We cannot let the marketplace of ideas and commerce and information be a free-for-all with winners and losers emergent from the choices of millions of free peoples. And constant ferment of new technologies routing around the blockages and filters we erect. Our ideas are pre-eminent and they MUST survive and thrive and dominate."
It's a proggro axiom: NetNeu :== proggro content dominates. If proggro content is not dominant, Net =/= neutral.
Ah rats, slipped up with the HTML, not sure how to embed a greater than/less than glyph.
I was trying to say with operator syntax, when the government is put in charge of the Sahara, the result will always be and from it's very nature a scarcity of sand.
As in, if there's no scarcity, no one needs the malevolent useless carbuncle of government, and all the people who feed from that teat.
Do you mean these: ≥ ≤ ? Feel free to use them as needed. Copy from here to a text (ASCII) file then cut and paste from text file to comment box. Works on worthwhile web sites, but may not work on all.
..."I won't fisk it, too obvious, too boring."...
It might have been more informative if you had.
A few points:
-- I have one internet provider available to me. I'm relatively happy with them. Many people aren't. I'd like to keep it that way.
-- I'm not a bot (yet.) When they offer full body prosthesis a la Robocop, I'll most likely be an early adopter.
-- Troll is a label often mis-assigned to anyone you don't agree with, which is what you did here.
-- "Internet is a right" was said tongue-in-cheek.
-- Even lifelong Republicans aren't required to eat other lifelong Republicans thin soup. Put some meat in there.
-- Jeez dude. Lighten up.
Hi Krusty, really there's so much obvious back story in what you said, I shrink from the time it would take.
I will say this. People live in cities for two very good reasons: convenience and choice diversity. Rural people have neither, and choose to live by and find the good life in their own efforts and self-sufficiency. $30K per mile is the going rate for stringing service where none currently exists.
You do not have one ISP choice! You are not a thrall, but a free American. Wired is not necessarily better. There are at least three satellite providers extant, and more coming. You also can create a cooperative with your neighbors. Rural people pride themselves on their ability to survive and thrive by their own efforts and ability to engender cooperation amongst their neighbors. Find a neighbor with a high-bandwidth drop and and negotiate to set up a long-haul link to your place. It's easy, it's fun, and you can minimize your costs by exercising that good old American can-do spirit and maximizing your utilization of bubble gum and baling wire and Pringles cans. Stick it to the man and route around his ridiculous blockages.
You could take your comment, time shift it 150 years in the past, and substitute the "internet" with "railroad", and it would be the same old American lament that brought us the Grange and the Progressives and the Cross of Gold.
Well almost entire, except for that one queer line "Unfettered broadband should be a right!". It's so standout queer, whether tongue in cheek or in all seriousness, it looks like a tell. A "pushing the narrative" tell, a favored proggro tactic.
And I ain't noways a Repubbie. No Demo neither. Neverwas, neverwillbe. There's no diff, they (you all) may mean to rule with good intentions, but they mean to rule. The masks are all off now. I won't be ruled, and I got no interest in ruling others.
I'LL bet their idea of net neutrality is not my idea of net neutrality. They seem to see a one dimensional world where the options are Left, Right. They don't have the imagination to consider the in betweens or fresh ideas that don't fit into the spectrum.
All you need to know about net neutrality is HRC's comment "there is lots of content on the internet, much of it unregulated" A bit of a paraphrase, but if you think it was to improve access to internet you would be mistaken
I'm hope you're not serious.
..."You do not have one ISP choice! You are not a thrall, but a free American. Wired is not necessarily better. There are at least three satellite providers extant, and more coming. "...
...seems designed to provide cover for this one:
..."if there's no scarcity, no one needs the malevolent useless carbuncle of government"...
ISP's, for all intents and purposes are purveyors of upstream and downstream bits. Mine provides me with a maximum of 7 MB down, and much less up (with no caps.) I'm very grateful to have it. Having dealt with satellite providers for years, I can safely attest they are a far inferior option to anything wired -- with data caps that typically throttle you to dial-up speeds when exceeded. Read the fine, deeply buried print. So there's scarcity of access. It's all relative, but what isn't?
Here's an example:
..."Rural people pride themselves on their ability to survive and thrive by their own efforts and ability to engender cooperation amongst their neighbors. Find a neighbor with a high-bandwidth drop and and negotiate to set up a long-haul link to your place. It's easy, it's fun, and you can minimize your costs by exercising that good old American can-do spirit and maximizing your utilization of bubble gum and baling wire and Pringles cans."...
Ah, the "buck up little camper" speech (with just a hint of "go forth and create a Bernie-Sanders-style digital commune".)
As completely off-the-wall as those suggestions would be to a lay person, I actually considered bore-sighting wireless or running single mode fiber to a neighbor. It was found to be a ridiculous and completely impractical proposition. Maybe I should just have moved to the city for "convenience and choice diversity". Good plan.
But enough with the gratuitous flogging of largely irrelevant mules. As far as Net Neutrality is concerned here's the definition as I see it, YMMV:
"The principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
There's nothing progressive about it.
It seems like your arguing for the sake of it, or you work for an outfit that stands to lose (or at least not gain) if net neutrality is enforced. Support what ever set of rules floats your boat, but the continuing use of the "proggro" ad hominem makes this my last response to you. It's just gratuitous name-calling.