CPAPtalk.com

killing net neutrality is going to kill the internet the way we know it. It means bad companies like comcast can force web sites to pay them to carry their services.

yes, they can charge netflix, twitter, facebook and even newspapers to carry their signals. Then they can charge you to access those signals, Suppose comcast charges facebook per customer. then suppose comcast charges you to access facebook. guess how facebook is going to recoup what they pay comcast. that's right, you pay facebook to use facebook and then pay comcast to access facebook.

it's coming folks. free internet phones like vonage? forget all about it. you'll beg to get your land line back. that's just some examples of what is coming. don't believe these paid employees of comcast and other providers that make killing net neutrality sound like a good thing.

net neutrality is about keeping the internet the way it has been since the beginning. remember when they were talking about paying per e-mail received and sent? you will pay for every spam mail you receive. remember when they were talking about requiring you to register to access adult sites with a credit card to prove age?

if you're too young to remember both of these things, they were shot down because of net neutrality. THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS. Then call your elected representatives and the FCC and make your position known.

I am in the web business and I can assure that the un-educated folks like Hang Fire, DreamStalker, and CeralKiller will come to regret their support of turning over control of what content gets transmitted via the web to the distributed monopolies that make up the telecoms.

Over 80 percent of Americans are served by only ONE broadband provider, so they cannot "vote with their dollars" and abandon an ISP who is censoring some content should net neutrality get repealed. The issue has nothing to do with the treason investigations against this administration, Russian interference etc. It's all about recognizing that the web has become a service essential to modern life and therefore should be treated like any utility - as we do with power, plain old telephone service (POTS), and clean running water. The notion that anyone who uses the web, or understands even the most basic economic underpinnings of Internet Service Providers would support Ajit Pai's proposed changes is laughable if it were not so dangerously sad. Mr. Pai is a bought and paid for ex telecom executive who is just another obsequious puppet of this administration. NOBODY wants the ISP's to be able to censor web content, or quadruple the cost of delivering certain content. NOBODY wants a more primitive web infrastructure like you'll find in New Zealand for example, where "free WiFi" means you get a couple of megabytes of connectivity before you start paying by the megabyte. But without net neutrality, this is exactly what we'll get.

One poster expressed his paranoia that net neutrality means government snooping. Net neutrality has nothing to do with providing government any access that they don't already have, or would have under Ajit Pai's dangerous proposal. Ajit Pai is all about strengthening the monopoly power of the big telecoms who control the fiber and cable infrastructure to censor what you can get delivered over that infrastructure. And don't forget that we taxpayers heavily subsidized much of that infrastructure already.

Call and write your congress persons to make it clear that keeping the internet as a Title II utility is critical. The net neutrality laws must stay in place!
And while you're at it, let them know that letting any big media company own all media outlets in one market is another exceptionally bad idea. Because this administration is also repealing laws to prevent one company (be it FOX or CNN, or bad-actor Sinclair Media) from owning TV, Radio and Newspapers in one market.

AirPump wrote:I am in the web business and I can assure that the un-educated folks like Hang Fire, DreamStalker, and CeralKiller will come to regret their support of turning over control of what content gets transmitted via the web to the distributed monopolies that make up the telecoms.
...snip ...

Uneducated? Can YOU not comprehend what you read?

I said it does not matter whether I or anyone else is for or against net neutrality! I NEVER said I supported turning over control to the monopolies .... quite the opposite I'm probably the most anti-monopolistic person on this forum and have railed against corporate monopolies consistently on this forum for over a decade.

Educate YOURSELF to comprehend what you read before you make stupid and false accusations ... because I can assure that being in the "web business" just hasn't been enough for you.

Does being in the "Web Business", mean you pay for a internet connection, If so I am a Internet Mogul too. Jim Got to go out and get another hat now!
Jim

AirPump wrote:I am in the web business and I can assure that the un-educated folks like Hang Fire, DreamStalker, and CeralKiller will come to regret their support of turning over control of what content gets transmitted via the web to the distributed monopolies that make up the telecoms.

Over 80 percent of Americans are served by only ONE broadband provider, so they cannot "vote with their dollars" and abandon an ISP who is censoring some content should net neutrality get repealed. The issue has nothing to do with the treason investigations against this administration, Russian interference etc. It's all about recognizing that the web has become a service essential to modern life and therefore should be treated like any utility - as we do with power, plain old telephone service (POTS), and clean running water. The notion that anyone who uses the web, or understands even the most basic economic underpinnings of Internet Service Providers would support Ajit Pai's proposed changes is laughable if it were not so dangerously sad. Mr. Pai is a bought and paid for ex telecom executive who is just another obsequious puppet of this administration. NOBODY wants the ISP's to be able to censor web content, or quadruple the cost of delivering certain content. NOBODY wants a more primitive web infrastructure like you'll find in New Zealand for example, where "free WiFi" means you get a couple of megabytes of connectivity before you start paying by the megabyte. But without net neutrality, this is exactly what we'll get.

One poster expressed his paranoia that net neutrality means government snooping. Net neutrality has nothing to do with providing government any access that they don't already have, or would have under Ajit Pai's dangerous proposal. Ajit Pai is all about strengthening the monopoly power of the big telecoms who control the fiber and cable infrastructure to censor what you can get delivered over that infrastructure. And don't forget that we taxpayers heavily subsidized much of that infrastructure already.

Call and write your congress persons to make it clear that keeping the internet as a Title II utility is critical. The net neutrality laws must stay in place!
And while you're at it, let them know that letting any big media company own all media outlets in one market is another exceptionally bad idea. Because this administration is also repealing laws to prevent one company (be it FOX or CNN, or bad-actor Sinclair Media) from owning TV, Radio and Newspapers in one market.

You remind me of the egotistical ass who wrote a post and was responded to by "harikarishimari" in this thread (way back when). I've always loved her response.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3898&p=69862#p69862

From your post, I'm guessing that you'd rather have Google and Facebook controlling/dictating/regulating the content?
Even though......."net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites", I don't think there were any/many issues/problems before "net neutrality" went into effect two years ago.

I think you could find many or more people who have issues with their present utilities......power, phone or water, and with that issue, you lose credibility. Those utilities seem to be able to increase their rates with impunity. Then, there are the satellite TV services. My basic costs have almost doubled in the not-too-distant past.

So, it sounds like you've got a dog in this fight and are not very objective. Maybe you work for Google or Facebook?

Personally, I get suspicious when those who have much power to gain or retain try to influence the masses. If "net neutrality" is actually the opposite of what it has been portrayed to be, then people need to be very aware of what it REALLY IS.
It's well known that so many laws and government programs and regulations have been sold on lies. Maybe this one was, too.


Den

.

Old, but interesting. To me anyway.

Tim Worstall, a contributer at Forbes, in 2014 wrote:I can absolutely see why content providers will be very keenly in favour of net neutrality and the backbone and bandwidth suppliers very much in favour of its abolition. For the current system of neutrality means that the backbone and bandwidth suppliers are stuck in a commodity market, while the end of it would enable them to undertake product differentiation. And that would mean a move of revenues and profits from the content producers to those bandwidth and cable suppliers. So of course one group is fighting for it and the other against:...None of this really has any implication for the consumer: there's the same amount of money flowing around the system under net neutrality or not. What does change is who gets some of that money: the content providers or the bandwidth ones. And that's why the fight about it. And it's also why you've got all of the content providers on the one side of the argument, they know that abandoning net neutrality and allowing differential pricing will bite into their revenues and profits. It's entirely possible to argue either side of this, that it's right or wrong that there should be neutrality or not." https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 9c5c18647d

So ask yourself, "Am I reading the propaganda of a bandwidth provider or the propaganda of a content provider?" Either way, it's propaganda. Right?

Maybe it will all make more sense once all the bandwidth providers own all the content, eh? Let's see what AT&T lets CNN say about it all in a few months.

Wulfman... wrote:

AirPump wrote:I am in the web business and I can assure that the un-educated folks like Hang Fire, DreamStalker, and CeralKiller will come to regret their support of turning over control of what content gets transmitted via the web to the distributed monopolies that make up the telecoms.

Over 80 percent of Americans are served by only ONE broadband provider, so they cannot "vote with their dollars" and abandon an ISP who is censoring some content should net neutrality get repealed. The issue has nothing to do with the treason investigations against this administration, Russian interference etc. It's all about recognizing that the web has become a service essential to modern life and therefore should be treated like any utility - as we do with power, plain old telephone service (POTS), and clean running water. The notion that anyone who uses the web, or understands even the most basic economic underpinnings of Internet Service Providers would support Ajit Pai's proposed changes is laughable if it were not so dangerously sad. Mr. Pai is a bought and paid for ex telecom executive who is just another obsequious puppet of this administration. NOBODY wants the ISP's to be able to censor web content, or quadruple the cost of delivering certain content. NOBODY wants a more primitive web infrastructure like you'll find in New Zealand for example, where "free WiFi" means you get a couple of megabytes of connectivity before you start paying by the megabyte. But without net neutrality, this is exactly what we'll get.

One poster expressed his paranoia that net neutrality means government snooping. Net neutrality has nothing to do with providing government any access that they don't already have, or would have under Ajit Pai's dangerous proposal. Ajit Pai is all about strengthening the monopoly power of the big telecoms who control the fiber and cable infrastructure to censor what you can get delivered over that infrastructure. And don't forget that we taxpayers heavily subsidized much of that infrastructure already.

Call and write your congress persons to make it clear that keeping the internet as a Title II utility is critical. The net neutrality laws must stay in place!
And while you're at it, let them know that letting any big media company own all media outlets in one market is another exceptionally bad idea. Because this administration is also repealing laws to prevent one company (be it FOX or CNN, or bad-actor Sinclair Media) from owning TV, Radio and Newspapers in one market.

You remind me of the egotistical ass who wrote a post and was responded to by "harikarishimari" in this thread (way back when). I've always loved her response.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3898&p=69862#p69862

From your post, I'm guessing that you'd rather have Google and Facebook controlling/dictating/regulating the content?
Even though......."net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites", I don't think there were any/many issues/problems before "net neutrality" went into effect two years ago.

I think you could find many or more people who have issues with their present utilities......power, phone or water, and with that issue, you lose credibility. Those utilities seem to be able to increase their rates with impunity. Then, there are the satellite TV services. My basic costs have almost doubled in the not-too-distant past.

So, it sounds like you've got a dog in this fight and are not very objective. Maybe you work for Google or Facebook?

Personally, I get suspicious when those who have much power to gain or retain try to influence the masses. If "net neutrality" is actually the opposite of what it has been portrayed to be, then people need to be very aware of what it REALLY IS.
It's well known that so many laws and government programs and regulations have been sold on lies. Maybe this one was, too.


Den

.

The net neutrality law may have passed only 2 yrs ago. But net neutrality has been an accepted practice since the 1990's. They've been trying to kill it forever. This is the closest we've been to actually losing it.

greatunclebill wrote:

Wulfman... wrote:

AirPump wrote:I am in the web business and I can assure that the un-educated folks like Hang Fire, DreamStalker, and CeralKiller will come to regret their support of turning over control of what content gets transmitted via the web to the distributed monopolies that make up the telecoms.

Over 80 percent of Americans are served by only ONE broadband provider, so they cannot "vote with their dollars" and abandon an ISP who is censoring some content should net neutrality get repealed. The issue has nothing to do with the treason investigations against this administration, Russian interference etc. It's all about recognizing that the web has become a service essential to modern life and therefore should be treated like any utility - as we do with power, plain old telephone service (POTS), and clean running water. The notion that anyone who uses the web, or understands even the most basic economic underpinnings of Internet Service Providers would support Ajit Pai's proposed changes is laughable if it were not so dangerously sad. Mr. Pai is a bought and paid for ex telecom executive who is just another obsequious puppet of this administration. NOBODY wants the ISP's to be able to censor web content, or quadruple the cost of delivering certain content. NOBODY wants a more primitive web infrastructure like you'll find in New Zealand for example, where "free WiFi" means you get a couple of megabytes of connectivity before you start paying by the megabyte. But without net neutrality, this is exactly what we'll get.

One poster expressed his paranoia that net neutrality means government snooping. Net neutrality has nothing to do with providing government any access that they don't already have, or would have under Ajit Pai's dangerous proposal. Ajit Pai is all about strengthening the monopoly power of the big telecoms who control the fiber and cable infrastructure to censor what you can get delivered over that infrastructure. And don't forget that we taxpayers heavily subsidized much of that infrastructure already.

Call and write your congress persons to make it clear that keeping the internet as a Title II utility is critical. The net neutrality laws must stay in place!
And while you're at it, let them know that letting any big media company own all media outlets in one market is another exceptionally bad idea. Because this administration is also repealing laws to prevent one company (be it FOX or CNN, or bad-actor Sinclair Media) from owning TV, Radio and Newspapers in one market.

You remind me of the egotistical ass who wrote a post and was responded to by "harikarishimari" in this thread (way back when). I've always loved her response.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3898&p=69862#p69862

From your post, I'm guessing that you'd rather have Google and Facebook controlling/dictating/regulating the content?
Even though......."net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites", I don't think there were any/many issues/problems before "net neutrality" went into effect two years ago.

I think you could find many or more people who have issues with their present utilities......power, phone or water, and with that issue, you lose credibility. Those utilities seem to be able to increase their rates with impunity. Then, there are the satellite TV services. My basic costs have almost doubled in the not-too-distant past.

So, it sounds like you've got a dog in this fight and are not very objective. Maybe you work for Google or Facebook?

Personally, I get suspicious when those who have much power to gain or retain try to influence the masses. If "net neutrality" is actually the opposite of what it has been portrayed to be, then people need to be very aware of what it REALLY IS.
It's well known that so many laws and government programs and regulations have been sold on lies. Maybe this one was, too.


Den

.

The net neutrality law may have passed only 2 yrs ago. But net neutrality has been an accepted practice since the 1990's. They've been trying to kill it forever. This is the closest we've been to actually losing it.

And, they're (currently) trying to undo the changes and put it back to what it was.......when it was "accepted practice".

Let's say you want to buy some equipment from CPAP.COM and you do a Google search on it.......but Google favors some other seller and doesn't put CPAP.COM in your search. That's (potentially) what could happen under the existing "net neutrality".


Den

.

Basically Google or some other search engine would become like the BBB, up for sale to the highest bidder. Jim

Some links for those who wish to explore some further information.


https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=search+ ... 16&bih=638

https://www.google.com/search?q=search- ... 8&oe=utf-8


https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-se ... heyre-not/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_neutrality


https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/ ... 25a97212d2

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/google-wi ... ding-tech/


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-search/

3.1 Search Engine Bias and the Problem of Opacity/Nontransparency

3.1.1 The Non-Neutrality of Search Engines

3.1.2 The Manipulation of Search Results

3.1.2.1 Online Advertising Strategies and Search Bias

3.1.2.2 Technological Schemes Used to Manipulate Search Results

3.1.3 The Problem of Objectivity


Den

.

Den: glad to see back!

Sheriff

Sheriff Buford wrote:Den: glad to see back!

Sheriff

+1

jnk... wrote:Old, but interesting. To me anyway.

Tim Worstall, a contributer at Forbes, in 2014 wrote:I can absolutely see why content providers will be very keenly in favour of net neutrality and the backbone and bandwidth suppliers very much in favour of its abolition. For the current system of neutrality means that the backbone and bandwidth suppliers are stuck in a commodity market, while the end of it would enable them to undertake product differentiation. And that would mean a move of revenues and profits from the content producers to those bandwidth and cable suppliers. So of course one group is fighting for it and the other against:...None of this really has any implication for the consumer: there's the same amount of money flowing around the system under net neutrality or not. What does change is who gets some of that money: the content providers or the bandwidth ones. And that's why the fight about it. And it's also why you've got all of the content providers on the one side of the argument, they know that abandoning net neutrality and allowing differential pricing will bite into their revenues and profits. It's entirely possible to argue either side of this, that it's right or wrong that there should be neutrality or not." https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 9c5c18647d

So ask yourself, "Am I reading the propaganda of a bandwidth provider or the propaganda of a content provider?" Either way, it's propaganda. Right?

Maybe it will all make more sense once all the bandwidth providers own all the content, eh? Let's see what AT&T lets CNN say about it all in a few months.

Hmmm ... perhaps the more interesting question to ask yourself is -- "Do I prefer the corporate telecom industry or the corporate data industry to be our neo-feudal overlord?" Either way, the NSA is in bed with both AT&T and Google.

DreamStalker wrote:Either way,

There's a joke in there somewhere about that being the NSA's job, since they work for the same escort service that is owned by the guys who print the Monopoly money, but I'm too lazy to fully form it.

jnk... wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:Either way,

There's a joke in there somewhere about that being the NSA's job, since they work for the same escort service that is owned by the guys who print the Monopoly money, but I'm too lazy to fully form it.

I think you have your alphabets all mixed up. It's the "Secret Service" (though obviously not that secret) who work for the Treasury Department (which is bankrupt) indebted to the Federal Reserve money counterfeiters. The NSA simply records everything to keep everyone on a blackmail list for the mainstream media to leak out as needed to keep all the cogs and wheels from falling off and crashing the whole thing.