LMAO
Welcome To 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy... And Life Has Never Been Better
poor little guy has never been happier about a life i couldn't envision being crappier
Last edited:
[Net Neutrality] What does TW think about the new FCC plan?
- Thread starter hyung
- Start date
LMAO
Welcome To 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy... And Life Has Never Been Better
poor little guy has never been happier about a life i couldn't envision being crappier
Ok.
It follows then that if we want to prevent control of the internet, we have to either
a) Forcefully take possession of the infrastructure away from the private business
b) Force the private business to comply with certain regulations such that it cannot use its infrastructure to control the internet
Otherwise, if we didn't do either, the business would be free to own its infrastructure and control it however it wants, which we just agreed to would allow them to continue to control the internet.
So, which one of those options would you prefer we take?
^^^LOL
creating his own little either or truth tree
supported by all the anime gf pillows on his bed
making me a choose your own adventure book series
i like the idea of just suing them over and over again tbh.......until they learn or change tactic
creating his own little either or truth tree
supported by all the anime gf pillows on his bed
making me a choose your own adventure book series
i like the idea of just suing them over and over again tbh.......until they learn or change tactic
Last edited:
i just don't want to be controlled amadeus says
we must break up private control at any cost
only then can we be freeeeee
we must break up private control at any cost
only then can we be freeeeee
Last edited:
groov
Veteran XX
personally i think the only solution is to separate the infrastructure from the retail portion and require the infra division to sell to anyone at the same price they sell to their retail division
it could still be owned by the same parent companies but if properly regulated its the only solution i see to 'keep the internet free' without having oligopolies or 50 sets of cables running on every pole for each provider
At the risk of sounding douchy, this is basic logic. In fact, allow me to formalize:
Statement A: a business is free to own its infrastructure
Statement B: a business is free to control traffic on its infrastructure
Statement C: a business can control the internet for its customers
What you just agreed to back there:
can be written in the form A and B => C.
Which, according to the third axiom of propositional logic, implies: Not(C) => Not(A and B)
Not(A and B) is equivalent to Not(A) or Not(B), so Not(C) => Not(A) or Not(B)
That is, if a business cannot control the internet, then it must either not own its own infrastructure, or it must not have complete freedom of control over its infrastructure.
So I ask again, which of those two options would you rather pick?
Last edited:
you feel like you are being exploited
a) you shoot them in the fucking face
b) you bend over and help them find your asshole
this is the either or you are selling me buddy
no part of it is logic in the mind of anything but an absolute simpleton
someone who you already know you couldn't possibly have an honest conversation with
Apple ordered to pay up to €13bn after EU rules Ireland broke state aid laws | Business | The Guardian
Google fined $2.7BN for EU antitrust violations over shopping searches | TechCrunch
what should EU do about google and apple?
a) bomb them from orbit
b) surrender and rename their country after them
not to sound douchque but
Which, according to the third axiom of propositional logic, implies: Not(C) => Not(A and B)
Not(A and B) is equivalent to Not(A) or Not(B), so Not(C) => Not(A) or Not(B)
a) you shoot them in the fucking face
b) you bend over and help them find your asshole
this is the either or you are selling me buddy
no part of it is logic in the mind of anything but an absolute simpleton
someone who you already know you couldn't possibly have an honest conversation with
Apple ordered to pay up to €13bn after EU rules Ireland broke state aid laws | Business | The Guardian
Google fined $2.7BN for EU antitrust violations over shopping searches | TechCrunch
what should EU do about google and apple?
a) bomb them from orbit
b) surrender and rename their country after them
not to sound douchque but
Which, according to the third axiom of propositional logic, implies: Not(C) => Not(A and B)
Not(A and B) is equivalent to Not(A) or Not(B), so Not(C) => Not(A) or Not(B)
Last edited:
I'm not selling you anything. You agreed to a premise. That premise has two possible logical conclusions. I'm asking you which of the two conclusions would you prefer.
Should we prevent businesses from owning infrastructure, or should we prevent them from using their infrastructure to control the internet? If we do neither, they will have the opportunity to control the internet.
So which should it be?
Should we prevent businesses from owning infrastructure, or should we prevent them from using their infrastructure to control the internet? If we do neither, they will have the opportunity to control the internet.
So which should it be?
there are things i don't like
so you therefore
a) nationalize them
b) let them steal from you and give them all your money
c) kill yourself
there are no other options
basic logic here folks
Simply not paying them endless more tax payer money and utility fees for infrastructure investment that clearly isn't "THEIRS" would resolve almost all of this imo
what option letter is that?
so you therefore
a) nationalize them
b) let them steal from you and give them all your money
c) kill yourself
there are no other options
basic logic here folks
Simply not paying them endless more tax payer money and utility fees for infrastructure investment that clearly isn't "THEIRS" would resolve almost all of this imo
what option letter is that?
Last edited:
i trust no one.....maybe that is the point to all this?
if you honestly held a gun to my head and told me to pick between the best interests of ajit pai, tom wheeler, or comcast/charter i would say go ahead and pull the trigger
if you have to nationalize something i would argue that something is already long dead
or soon will be
i mean if your choices are between mega monopoly and gubmt anything your life is already hell imo
that sums up my outlook right now almost entirely
i don't trust one person to do what is better for myself than me
i can't name a single politician, or political appointment, i trust 1/100000000000000000th as much and if any of you can please give me some names
if you honestly held a gun to my head and told me to pick between the best interests of ajit pai, tom wheeler, or comcast/charter i would say go ahead and pull the trigger
if you have to nationalize something i would argue that something is already long dead
or soon will be
i mean if your choices are between mega monopoly and gubmt anything your life is already hell imo
that sums up my outlook right now almost entirely
i don't trust one person to do what is better for myself than me
i can't name a single politician, or political appointment, i trust 1/100000000000000000th as much and if any of you can please give me some names
Last edited:
damn right
i go down with my shit ship
to the bitter end
i am ok with not paying more for facebook i already fucking hate and who is already trying to figure out how to fuck me into paying for soon......when not directly spying on me for advertisement metadata revenue
or netflix
Saving Capitalism | Netflix Official Site
where communist robert "dwarf man" reich uses Soros money to tell me how to save our system (that people like them already ruined)
Elitist George Soros Collective Evolution
i see no winners in a land full of cunts and cocksucks
let em eat what is left of the shit show i say
i go down with my shit ship
to the bitter end
i am ok with not paying more for facebook i already fucking hate and who is already trying to figure out how to fuck me into paying for soon......when not directly spying on me for advertisement metadata revenue
or netflix
Saving Capitalism | Netflix Official Site
where communist robert "dwarf man" reich uses Soros money to tell me how to save our system (that people like them already ruined)
Elitist George Soros Collective Evolution
i see no winners in a land full of cunts and cocksucks
let em eat what is left of the shit show i say
Last edited:
I said nothing like that. Can you answer my actual question please?
Can you point me in the direction of why NN was enacted in the first place? What event actually happened to the internet to have some people scream FIRE and demand something be done to put out the fire?
They should have foresaw that from 1990's they knew it happened already with the phone companies
We had a similar sort of thing here in Aus... our incumbent government-run "Bell" telco (Telecom, now Telstra) was privatised and the market "deregulated".. unfortunately competition was (and still is) not really there, and the biggest competitor of Telstra was also its biggest customer - it had to buy access everywhere.
Fast forward to a few years back and the then opposition came up with the idea of the National Broadband Network - rolling out an all-fibre network to around 93% of the population, with a mix of fixed wireless and satellite servicing the rest. A Government funded business that operated solely as a wholesaler, from which retailers could purchase access to market to the public. It would provide next-gen broadband infrastructure to the general populace, and break the stranglehold of the incumbent telcos on physical infrastructure (for which they were compensated) They won the election and got to building it all.
Sadly, the whole thing was hugely political.. the then opposition leader Tony Abbot (who'd later win an election and become Prime Minister) attacked it at every opportunity he could, calling it a massive waste of money, that there was no need for it, all sorts of things. Once they won power, they'd invested too much political capital in describing how awful it was to just continue on with it, so hunted around to find some alternative model, made up some studies to back them up, and proceeded to shit all over the thing.
So in the end, they wound up going from a simple, homogenous fibre-to-the-home model to a "multi technology mix" fibre-to-the-node, with VDSL connections on the last mile. Some areas already had fibre rolled out (or in the process), so they have fibre connections - technically running at gigabit speeds but only sold at levels of 12, 25, 50 (not a common step) or 100mbit. Other areas on FTTN are still subject to the problems of DSL line length and signal quality issues, so while some people can still get that 100mbit, most are around half that, and with the 50mbit retail option being mysteriously missing from many providers, that either leaves people buying only 25mbit connections and missing the extra bandwidth, or paying extra for a 100mbit plan, much of which they can't use.
In short: It was a great idea, ruined by politics. It's still fundamentally sound, but there are a range of issues messing it around, most of which can be traced back to that political meddling.
Fast forward to a few years back and the then opposition came up with the idea of the National Broadband Network - rolling out an all-fibre network to around 93% of the population, with a mix of fixed wireless and satellite servicing the rest. A Government funded business that operated solely as a wholesaler, from which retailers could purchase access to market to the public. It would provide next-gen broadband infrastructure to the general populace, and break the stranglehold of the incumbent telcos on physical infrastructure (for which they were compensated) They won the election and got to building it all.
Sadly, the whole thing was hugely political.. the then opposition leader Tony Abbot (who'd later win an election and become Prime Minister) attacked it at every opportunity he could, calling it a massive waste of money, that there was no need for it, all sorts of things. Once they won power, they'd invested too much political capital in describing how awful it was to just continue on with it, so hunted around to find some alternative model, made up some studies to back them up, and proceeded to shit all over the thing.
So in the end, they wound up going from a simple, homogenous fibre-to-the-home model to a "multi technology mix" fibre-to-the-node, with VDSL connections on the last mile. Some areas already had fibre rolled out (or in the process), so they have fibre connections - technically running at gigabit speeds but only sold at levels of 12, 25, 50 (not a common step) or 100mbit. Other areas on FTTN are still subject to the problems of DSL line length and signal quality issues, so while some people can still get that 100mbit, most are around half that, and with the 50mbit retail option being mysteriously missing from many providers, that either leaves people buying only 25mbit connections and missing the extra bandwidth, or paying extra for a 100mbit plan, much of which they can't use.
In short: It was a great idea, ruined by politics. It's still fundamentally sound, but there are a range of issues messing it around, most of which can be traced back to that political meddling.