Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 11:12:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 22, 2017 14:54:16 GMT -5
An article I read this morning has something to do with this. Have no idea if the technology works, but having a "second" interweb for competition sounds interesting. www.rt.com/news/410606-kim-dotcom-meganet-internet/Apologies for the link to the dirty, low down, lying, democracy hating, propagandizing, foreign entity, but they were the source to other stories on this topic I had seen.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 22, 2017 16:55:47 GMT -5
An article I read this morning has something to do with this. Have no idea if the technology works, but having a "second" interweb for competition sounds interesting. www.rt.com/news/410606-kim-dotcom-meganet-internet/Apologies for the link to the dirty, low down, lying, democracy hating, propagandizing, foreign entity, but they were the source to other stories on this topic I had seen. Well, quite. RT are all that, and more. Of course they're going to talk about all the problems and issues in Western countries. What you'll find is that they will never talk about problems in Russia. I mean, if North Korean TV makes a documentary about a car factory in the USA or Britain, does this mean that North Korean TV is a fair and balanced outlet that will fearlessly hold Western Democracies to account, or does it mean they see an opportunity to sow dissent that can be harvested later? If Iran's Press TV holds a debate between Western liberal talking heads, does this mean that they forward relevant critiques of Western phenomena, or does it mean they're trying to diffuse human rights violantions in Iran by "exposing the hypocrisy of the West"?
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 22, 2017 17:24:18 GMT -5
An article I read this morning has something to do with this. Have no idea if the technology works, but having a "second" interweb for competition sounds interesting. www.rt.com/news/410606-kim-dotcom-meganet-internet/Apologies for the link to the dirty, low down, lying, democracy hating, propagandizing, foreign entity, but they were the source to other stories on this topic I had seen. Well, quite. RT are all that, and more. Of course they're going to talk about all the problems and issues in Western countries. What you'll find is that they will never talk about problems in Russia. I mean, if North Korean TV makes a documentary about a car factory in the USA or Britain, does this mean that North Korean TV is a fair and balanced outlet that will fearlessly hold Western Democracies to account, or does it mean they see an opportunity to sow dissent that can be harvested later? If Iran's Press TV holds a debate between Western liberal talking heads, does this mean that they forward relevant critiques of Western phenomena, or does it mean they're trying to diffuse human rights violantions in Iran by "exposing the hypocrisy of the West"? So, any idea if this "megaNet" thing is real ? Been looking for some American news to balance the Russian propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 27, 2017 12:58:13 GMT -5
I'm still not sure I understand all this. Anyone care to explain, using small words. Maybe pictures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 13:17:46 GMT -5
I'm still not sure I understand all this. Anyone care to explain, using small words. Maybe pictures? Did you check out the second link in my original post? That's a start.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 27, 2017 14:26:47 GMT -5
I'm still not sure I understand all this. Anyone care to explain, using small words. Maybe pictures? No more single price for all Internet. Your Internet provider will be able to charge you extra if you want to stream Netflix, doing online gaming, etc. In theory, your Internet provider will also be able to filter/censor where you can go on the Internet according to their corporate whims. They are saying they won't, but I can imagine, say, Verizon cutting a deal with Amazon where Verizon customers have a hard time accessing Amazon competitors. Etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 14:40:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 28, 2017 6:06:33 GMT -5
We need mail neutrality, too. Why should some people be able to pay extra to get packages delivered overnight?
And how about public transit neutrality, too. Why can some people take taxis? Everybody should ride the bus or the subway.
And if we have net neutrality, why do I have to pay big bucks out here in the hinterlands for service that people in the big cities get for a pittance?
I'm not a fan of turning the Internet over to the same people that used to enforce "Airline neutrality" and blocked AT&T from real competition for decades. One price for all can easily mean a price that only the wealthy can afford to pay. Read up on the history of airline or telephone regulation.
Prices for bandwidth have plummeted and coverage has expanded dramatically over the "wild west" period. Look for at least the former trend to reverse if the status quo is protected from upstarts and innovation. We've seen it happen repeatedly, in particular in the two cases I cited.
I don't want FedGov doing to the internet what they've done to healthcare, education, or a myriad of other industries that are protected from innovation to protect the status quo in the guise of "helping the consumer." It tends not to work out as advertised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 7:07:15 GMT -5
So instead you will turn it over to Verizon, Comcast or whatever media conglomerate the Koch brothers pick up next? Who have an excellent incentive to give some offerings priority over others, either for profit or political reasons?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 28, 2017 7:40:44 GMT -5
So instead you will turn it over to Verizon, Comcast or whatever media conglomerate the Koch brothers pick up next? Who have an excellent incentive to give some offerings priority over others, either for profit or political reasons? Shocking news: Internet providers have been "in charge" of the internet during the last decades of unbelievable growth and improvements in communication speed. Has that been a mistake? Compare the innovation and customer responsiveness of internet providers with education, healthcare or any other "extensively managed" industry over the last couple of decades. I'd rather have health professionals in charge of healthcare than legislators. I'd much rather have educators in charge of education than legislators. I don't think putting legislators in charge of the internet is going to improve things; to the contrary, examples abound of legislators fucking things up for everybody. Here's a contrarian view worth reading.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 28, 2017 9:10:25 GMT -5
We need mail neutrality, too. Why should some people be able to pay extra to get packages delivered overnight? And how about public transit neutrality, too. Why can some people take taxis? Everybody should ride the bus or the subway. And if we have net neutrality, why do I have to pay big bucks out here in the hinterlands for service that people in the big cities get for a pittance? I'm not a fan of turning the Internet over to the same people that used to enforce "Airline neutrality" and blocked AT&T from real competition for decades. One price for all can easily mean a price that only the wealthy can afford to pay. Read up on the history of airline or telephone regulation. Prices for bandwidth have plummeted and coverage has expanded dramatically over the "wild west" period. Look for at least the former trend to reverse if the status quo is protected from upstarts and innovation. We've seen it happen repeatedly, in particular in the two cases I cited. I don't want FedGov doing to the internet what they've done to healthcare, education, or a myriad of other industries that are protected from innovation to protect the status quo in the guise of "helping the consumer." It tends not to work out as advertised. Here's a history lesson for you, son - that Big Bad Evil Gummint created the Internet and put it in place as the public utility it is today. Had it been built from the ground up in your free market paradise, it would now be accessible to a tiny fraction of those who are using it today (and that would have meant it would be generating a tiny fraction of the business and innovation it is today). Your historical parallels with the airline industry phone services both ignore the fact that history manifestly demonstrates that the Internet is not the airline industry or the telephone industry, and blithely pretend that the lowering of prices in those industries was all because of deregulation and had nothing to do with technology making everything cheaper in general. Now, I am not saying therefore the government should control all R&D and public infrastructure, so stop jerking that knee. But there is a reason that public utilities exist and are regulated - you folks out there in the hinterlands wouldn't even have electricity or phone service if you had to pay the actual cost of getting it there. Your assertion that some mystical commiefedgov source is going to reverse historical trends and make the Internet more expensive unless we turn it over to an unregulated free market is stunning in its oblividiocy. The FedGov has been managing the Internet just fine for decades (actually, for the most part it's been hands-off other than setting the rules for access and maintaining the backbones) - somehow Amazon and Google and Apple and Microsoft and Netflix and Hulu and YouTube and the great big seamy underbelly of the Internet that really drives a ton of profit and technological advancement - porn - have survived having to abide by government regulations. I hear tell there have been a few upstarts and a tiny amount of innovation over this period too. Oh, and healthcare and education have both advanced tremendously also in that same time period, and been made more accessible to millions that wouldn't have either. Neither one have been strangled by federal regulations, and while the government is far from perfect in handling either, the free market experiments we've seen have also not exactly been stunning successes.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 28, 2017 9:18:20 GMT -5
Your mistake is that you didn't use the "ebil guvmint" to break up the ISPs in the first place, and prevented their creating regional monopolies. One reason why telephones are much cheaper today is that the "ebil guvmint" broke the back of AT&T and split it up into multiple parts so that each part had to compete with each other.
You guys need a Margarethe Vestager holding a big, expensive whip.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 28, 2017 12:48:50 GMT -5
I though Al Gore created the Internet?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 28, 2017 13:10:17 GMT -5
|
|