Arcen Games

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: MaxAstro on July 12, 2017, 08:29:23 PM

Title: Net Neutrality
Post by: MaxAstro on July 12, 2017, 08:29:23 PM
I'm normally not at all a political person, and not one to plug things like this. But freedom of internet is an issue that's very important to me, and I would argue everyone here. If you haven't yet, please take a couple minutes to check out these sites and (if you are in the US) add your voice to the crowd. Monetizing the internet in the way that a repeal of Net Neutrality would is bad for everyone.  :(

https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/ (https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/)
https://www.battleforthenet.com/?org=fp (https://www.battleforthenet.com/?org=fp)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 12, 2017, 08:44:02 PM
Yep, I sent in mine.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: madcow on July 12, 2017, 08:53:12 PM
I thought Congress has already voted to kill net neutrality and the President had already signed it into law. Was that something else, or is this a hope to reverse that?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Aklyon on July 12, 2017, 10:52:43 PM
I thought Congress has already voted to kill net neutrality and the President had already signed it into law. Was that something else, or is this a hope to reverse that?
That was broadband privacy rules. Net Neutrality is in effect (even if they're probably avoiding doing anything with it considering the current dingo of an fcc chairman we got instead of wheeler), currently.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: z99-_ on July 13, 2017, 09:46:47 PM
I don't support anything until I've read up on both sides of an issue, which you haven't provided. :-\

The second advocacy website you linked to said net neutrality prohibits internet providers from blocking websites - is this the reason there's so much messed up stuff on the net? Because the 'fetish' forums and websites that glamorize killing, kidnapping, torture, cuddly hug , pedophilia aren't technically breaking laws, and the ISPs are forbidden from intervening? If that's the case, I don't think there's any negative consequence that could outweigh the positive of preventing the masses from accessing such trash.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Misery on July 14, 2017, 05:46:25 AM
I don't support anything until I've read up on both sides of an issue, which you haven't provided. :-\

The second advocacy website you linked to said net neutrality prohibits internet providers from blocking websites - is this the reason there's so much messed up stuff on the net? Because the 'fetish' forums and websites that glamorize killing, kidnapping, torture, cuddly hug , pedophilia aren't technically breaking laws, and the ISPs are forbidden from intervening? If that's the case, I don't think there's any negative consequence that could outweigh the positive of preventing the masses from accessing such trash.

Destroying neutrality though, wont stop the dark stuff.  Criminals will always find a way around.  As always, the Net cannot be truly enforced, as legal matters go.  It's like trying to stop further crimes by arresting a giant mutant sheep the size of Texas that constantly shifts into a variety of 12-dimensional shapes while summoning meteors.   

No, this is about what it'll do to LEGITIMATE sites, the ones that must obey the rules.  Particularly those that are smaller, that aren't the "giants" of their particular type.  For example, I buy a lot of things online, but usually from smaller specialty stores, which often involve shipments from China or Japan, because of course it does.   I'm not buying off of Amazon here.  But if neutrality were to fall, chances are, the foul darkness that is Comcast (in my case since that's the ISP I'm stuck with) would quickly put a stop to that (and would likely cause plenty of smaller companies to collapse entirely), and I wouldn't have much of a choice (which would actually mean not even being able to FIND what I want, not without paying some massive fee).  They would do this likely not by outright blocking sites, but by charging you a big fee to access those without some direct corporate link to the ISP itself (in other words, sites that are PAYING the ISP stupid amounts of money simply to get them to NOT do that. And of course these would then be STUFFED with ads, because money).  Stopping this is the point of neutrality to begin with.  The amount of possible negatives is utterly massive.  Even sites like this very forum could potentially be affected or even destroyed, depending on who is hosting the forum in question, and whether or not they can afford to pay the ISP.

These companies are greed incarnate. Just like most giant corporate entities.  And greed is the one and ONLY driving force behind their desire to shatter this.  Trust me, policing the Net is *not* something they're interested in, when it comes to this.  That doesn't give them money, you see.  It'd be a monstrous cost to them. Not that they could manage it anyway.

If you want more info on it though, just go to YouTube.  There's been boatloads of videos that explain this stuff well.   




And yes, even I sent one in, for this.   I don't normally follow issues like this, because screw it.  But this one is the exception.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: eRe4s3r on July 14, 2017, 11:31:36 AM
Far as I understand, the real problem is that ISP's are allowed to be a monopoly in the US, and if you have that situation, NET neutrality is probably more like a band-aid anyway... in the end, routing agreements override it behind the public perception anyway....

Net Neutrality also has nothing to do with illegal or grey-area contents on the web
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 14, 2017, 11:55:03 AM
My thoughts:

1. Censorship or dealing with illegal activity is the role of governments, not ISPs.

2. Net neutrality just means that your ISP can't start blocking up one site versus another.  Either slowing it or making it inaccessible.  Pretty much end of story.  The ramifications of that are pretty significant, though.

---

Let's talk about roads.  Ignoring toll roads (which everyone loves /s), all public roads are available for anyone to go on at any time, leading them to any eventual destination.  Mazda owners don't get a special lane, and you don't get put in a bumpy lane with lots of nails because you're headed to Target instead of Walmart.

Private roads are like private parts of the internet: you can't go into any company's intranet and do whatever, just like you can't go on their private roads.  It's trespassing in both cases.

(Toll roads don't really have an analogue per se, because they're a way of the government getting funding for a specific road and then getting people who use it to pay for it over a period of time.  So hence the ignoring of that one.)

---

Back to the internet.  Let's address the concerns in a Q&A format, even though these aren't really Q's in all cases.

Q: I don't think scat porn should be easily accessible, or child porn or whatever.

A: Cool.  That has nothing to do with this debate.  Get the FBI, or Interpol, or whoever else on that.  We're talking about the roads here, and "road owners."  If someone is doing something illegal in a house (server), then go to the HOUSE and arrest them.  There are already laws about all this.  Could they do with better or worse enforcement?  Again, that's a completely separate topic.

Q: Aren't there already "backdoor deals" for things like Netflix?

A: I don't know, maybe.  But probably not, to be honest.  It's not supposed to be.  They have a conduit into the central backbone that they pay for on their end.  Then on OUR end, as consumers, we have our own smaller conduits that we pay for (to our ISP) to get either Netflix content or whatever else we please.

Q: What's the business about throttling sites?

A: If Netflix is slower or faster today is supposed to be either the fault of Netflix, or our general connection speed, or our proximity to the nearest Netflix provider.  Aka, these are factors relating to things like how much Netflix pays for its bandwidth (which is between it and its ISP), how much you pay for your ISP (between you and your ISP), and general physical things like the speed of light (seriously) and where Netflix puts up data centers.

There's this whole section in the middle that is public transport that is the "backbone" of the internet, and none of that is supposed to be preferential toward or against Netflix.  For that matter, your own small conduit into the backbone isn't supposed to prefer Netflix or not prefer it.  It's just data.

Q: Why the fuss if backdoor deals can already possibly be done?

A: Because look at cable TV.  They can literally pick and choose what to give you.  They can create "packages."  You want sports?  That's extra money, please.  Etc.  Right now that's illegal on the internet: your ISP can't charge you for access to Netflix.  They might charge you for data usage, sure, but that data could be from Netflix, Youtube, or anywhere else.  How much data you use is separate from where you get it from.

Without net neutrality, ISPs can get up to all sorts of hijinks in terms of making certain sites slower or inaccessible.  Some you might see, such as "hi consumer, you must now buy the social package to get access to facebook, and facebook gets none of that money by the way," and others you might not see , such as "hi new Netflix competitor, looks like you've got a promising business there, you'd better pay us X amount of extra money or we'll make sure that your data is always transmitted at half the speed that Netflix's is -- to everyone -- making them think you just can't manage your junk."

Q: I like to research both sides of an issue before making a decision.

A: Not a question, I know.  And I 10000% agree with that sentiment.  This is a super strange issue in that there is literally NO REASONABLE OTHER SIDE for consumers.  Comcast and whatnot want to be able to charge various other parties (companies and individuals) more money for things they already provide at a given price. 

There are a lot of polarizing issues in the world, like abortion or gun control or whatever, and you can see the rationale behind both sides even if you vehemently disagree with whichever side: if you take the premise of the side you disagree with as true, then you would probably agree with them, but the premise is disagreed-on.

Net neutrality is not like that.  The other side is Comcast and friends going "we want to be unfettered in our ability to think up new ways to make money without providing new services."  That is demonstrably bad for everyone except ISPs.  It's not good for businesses, consumers, or anyone except ISPs and the people they pay off.

The lobbyists against net neutrality have done a super good job of confusing the issue and making it sound like a polarizing issue that people should take sides on.  But really this isn't about over-regulation or whatever.  It's more of a "we want to hang onto the rules that say you can't poop in the pool and then charge people to clean it up as a way to make money."
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: keith.lamothe on July 14, 2017, 12:52:25 PM
Maybe the discussion would make more sense if we say to the ISPs "Ok, you can remove the laws that forbid ISPs from charging extra for specific sites, if we can remove the laws that forbid consumers from slashing the tires of ISP decision-makers".

I'm sure a mutually agreeable balance could be worked out under those conditions.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Toranth on July 14, 2017, 12:57:06 PM
This is a super strange issue in that there is literally NO REASONABLE OTHER SIDE for consumers.
Just to mention that this isn't *quite* right - there is an "other side" that has reasonable points.  They're just overwhelmed by the downsides.  The two 'good' points I've seen against Net Neutrality are:
1)  Under strict NN, ISPs would be blocked from standard QoS behaviors - throttling torrent, VoIP, or streaming traffic in favor of Web or I'm, for example.
2)  Under strict NN, while peering it becomes very difficult to punish 'bad' peers.  Right now, when a peering agreement is unequal, the upstream provider will usually throttle traffic from the misbehaving lesser, before moving to the more drastic step of depeering.

Some of the original NN suggestions were this strict - and under those rules, the internet would break just as badly as it would under a completely unregulated environment.  More recent versions, however, have become more practical. 
Really, the government should just give up and declare internet access a utility like telephone service.  Then we wouldn't need to deal with this coming up every few years.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Draco18s on July 14, 2017, 05:43:11 PM
Really, the government should just give up and declare internet access a utility like telephone service.

Uh.

That's exactly what we did in 2015 by making the internet a Title II communication service.

The thing going on right now is to "roll back to Title I" in "the interests of internet freedom."

The reasons ISPs want to go back to Title I is because Title II restricts what they're allowed to do, and they don't want restrictions on what they can do.  They want all the protections of Title II (such as not being liable for the content sent over their wires (*cough*, DMCA, *cough*)) but they don't want any of the limitations that come with it.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Toranth on July 14, 2017, 07:53:46 PM
Really, the government should just give up and declare internet access a utility like telephone service.
Uh.
That's exactly what we did in 2015 by making the internet a Title II communication service.
The thing going on right now is to "roll back to Title I" in "the interests of internet freedom."
The reasons ISPs want to go back to Title I is because Title II restricts what they're allowed to do, and they don't want restrictions on what they can do.  They want all the protections of Title II (such as not being liable for the content sent over their wires (*cough*, DMCA, *cough*)) but they don't want any of the limitations that come with it.
Not quite.  What's going on now is an attempt to reclassify how ISPs are treated under the "Common Carrier" regulations.  By being (re-)reclassified as "Information Services" rather than common carriers, ISPs are changed from having to obey both Title I and Title II regulations to just Title I.  No one disagrees that they currently qualify as a telecommunications service, though, which is what puts them under the FCC.
A public utility is a different category of beast entirely, and has a whole rack of different laws that apply.  It would take an act of Congress to reclassify internet access as a public utility, although your state can do a lot of what needs to be done there (if Congress doesn't interfere).  Internet as a public utility may still be under the FCC, but it wouldn't be just a telecommunication service anymore.

But until something more permanent is done, we'll be stuck reliving this 5-member politically appointed FCC commissioner voting crisis every few years.  2002, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2017...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 14, 2017, 08:57:35 PM
Good points on the QoS stuff, Toranth.  That part is not an easy technical problem.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Cyborg on July 18, 2017, 10:13:58 PM
I find it predictable and amusing that some people in the gaming community allegedly don't like politics but are instantly passionate about anyone affecting their Internet.

"People living and dying over healthcare, the environment, who gives a crap? But goddamnit, we need our Netflix!"

Depressing.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Draco18s on July 19, 2017, 08:47:30 AM
"People living and dying over healthcare, the environment, who gives a crap? But goddamnit, we need our Netflix!"

You're assuming I haven't also been calling my representatives about healthcare.
(I just don't talk about it on the internet)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Misery on July 19, 2017, 11:17:43 AM
I find it predictable and amusing that some people in the gaming community allegedly don't like politics but are instantly passionate about anyone affecting their Internet.

"People living and dying over healthcare, the environment, who gives a crap? But goddamnit, we need our Netflix!"

Depressing.

I'm aware he isnt reading a bloody thing I say, but I can imagine certain potential responses to this from various people, so from a moderator point of view here I'm just going to say to everyone:  PLEASE don't bring politics further into this. 

I realize that there's a political aspect to this issue, but at the very least let's keep this strictly on the neutrality topic itself.  It is at least the thing least likely to cause another blazing argument.  Let's just not stray into other political topics of any sort.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I just wanted to say that.  I really, really don't want a repeat of last time.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 19, 2017, 11:25:03 AM
I and my wife have also been involved in a variety of political things, increasingly recently.  However, I don't speak about that sort of thing here, because I expect for this forum to mostly be a respite from that.  Generally that seems to be the mood of everyone here.

I know for a fact that there are people on the forums, and even on the staff, who have political opinions that differ from mine -- either slightly, or largely.  Very little would be accomplished by debate or accusations, however; people rarely change their minds on either side, and that's just human nature.

Net neutrality is the sort of political argument that IS useful for this forum, though, because likely most of us are on a similar footing -- similar enough that argument or discussion might actually yield some useful result.  Someone changing their opinion slightly, or at least refining their opinion, when discussing a topic with their peers, is definitely a lot more likely.  And a lot less stressful.

Incidentally, I don't discuss politics with my direct neighbors, either.  As the saying goes, "don't sh*t where you eat." ;)  I do engage in political discourse, as I'm sure many others here do, but isn't it preferable to have a haven from that in a few places?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Misery on July 19, 2017, 11:34:18 AM
but isn't it preferable to have a haven from that in a few places?

Yeah, definitely agreeing on that one.

So far, this is the ONLY forum I go to where I get to avoid that stuff, and the inevitable arguments that always go with it.  Even the freaking Steam forums, which are supposed to be about individual games, sometimes randomly devolve into political arguments.   I've never quite figured out just how/why.

In all honesty this place has been a bit of a haven in relation to a whole bunch of different things.   A general lack of trolls, for instance, that's a good one.  I cant avoid THAT anywhere else, either.

I cant imagine just what sort of dark rituals must have been involved in the creation of this site to actually manage to prevent trolls from appearing.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 19, 2017, 12:53:29 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened either, but knock on wood so far so good. :)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Cyborg on July 19, 2017, 09:33:41 PM
"People living and dying over healthcare, the environment, who gives a crap? But goddamnit, we need our Netflix!"

You're assuming I haven't also been calling my representatives about healthcare.
(I just don't talk about it on the internet)

I thought my statement was generic enough. I didn't put your name on it. Although I'm sure there are people here to whom it applies. I make no apologies for it but neither will I get specific. It will just turn into the other thread, to which there's no need because we already had that thread.

I was actually watching "Chasing Coral" tonight. One of the lessons you get from it, people care about what's at their door. Interestingly, about net neutrality, people care about what it's going to do to *their* online experience. There is very little thought or emotional involvement into the scholastic impact, economic development, or cultural consequences of what it means to have corporations exert such control over our ability to communicate and what is essentially our hivemind. Instead, when people see "net neutrality," there's that reflex reaction of what it's going to do to *them.*

So, staying on topic, it's actually the same character trait as the other post.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: x4000 on July 19, 2017, 09:44:15 PM
Indeed, there's quite a lot there I can agree with.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Draco18s on July 19, 2017, 09:52:03 PM
I thought my statement was generic enough. I didn't put your name on it. Although I'm sure there are people here to whom it applies. I make no apologies for it but neither will I get specific. It will just turn into the other thread, to which there's no need because we already had that thread.

No I recognize you weren't addressing me specifically, but my comment could have come from anyone.
Here is on the internet.
Politics involving the internet are relevant to here because of that.
Other topics, less so.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: TheVampire100 on July 19, 2017, 09:59:16 PM
I find it predictable and amusing that some people in the gaming community allegedly don't like politics but are instantly passionate about anyone affecting their Internet.

"People living and dying over healthcare, the environment, who gives a crap? But goddamnit, we need our Netflix!"

Depressing.
I wasn't interested into this discussion but then I read they are taking away Netflix. Goddammit, I need my Netflix!

Jokes aside, I'm curious how in any way would this affect me considering I'm living in Germany. As it sounds, this is something decided by US law in the US and has something to do with the US internet providers. Sooooo... basically it couldn't affect me, right?
Or am I wrong on this part? Or might it change the way, that hosted sites work (in other countries as well) that these sites hosted on US servers can get blocked in other countries or getting slowed down?

Also, I love Netflix.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Aklyon on July 19, 2017, 10:04:21 PM
The us isp have to connect to somewhere to get to you in germany, if the site you're accessing is in the us. It'll affect you in the end if things like this (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170714/00301537786/latest-eu-parliament-votes-copyright-hug-public-give-big-corporations-more-copyright.shtml) don't do so first and muck with the connection on your end.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Draco18s on July 19, 2017, 10:21:58 PM
The us isp have to connect to somewhere to get to you in germany, if the site you're accessing is in the us. It'll affect you in the end if things like this (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170714/00301537786/latest-eu-parliament-votes-copyright-hug-public-give-big-corporations-more-copyright.shtml) don't do so first and muck with the connection on your end.

...or if it routes through the US (which it can and probably will: for me, I've done some traceroutes where it bounced through the midUS before taking a jump out to Ireland before landing in Silicon Valley).
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Cyborg on July 21, 2017, 12:23:58 AM
I thought my statement was generic enough. I didn't put your name on it. Although I'm sure there are people here to whom it applies. I make no apologies for it but neither will I get specific. It will just turn into the other thread, to which there's no need because we already had that thread.

No I recognize you weren't addressing me specifically, but my comment could have come from anyone.
Here is on the internet.
Politics involving the internet are relevant to here because of that.
Other topics, less so.

 ::)
This is the off-topic forum.

I think the honest way of saying it is that, net neutrality political discussion is okay because it won't be controversial. We will all be on the same side, so nobody is going to be asking for a moderator.

Back on topic, let's look at other countries where net neutrality at the corporate level is actually the same as at the political level. A country like China has government-sponsored entities that control online communication.
The way we want to do it, is have corporate sponsored entities- politicians, our Supreme Court, and lobbying companies fall under that category- control online communication.

How do we fix it? By voting. I did a quick Google, 126 million people voted in the US. 190 million people use Facebook in the US. Draw your own conclusions, but here's mine:

Basically, unless governance is able to tap into the inherent narcissism of the average American digital citizen, we are likely to see the complete sale of the Internet to corporate America. Bought and sold.

How do you "Like" that?  ::) Hey, but at least we can know what our neighbor's dog looks like!

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Misery on July 21, 2017, 01:19:31 AM
Let's NOT get back into that voting argument.  I mean it.

It wont end well, it never does, so I'm going to encourage everyone to just... not go there, despite his comments.

I *will* lock this topic if this even so much as looks like it might go bad again.  And a comment like that one is already pushing it.


Ugh, I hate having to say stuff like that.  I'm really glad that this forum overall is generally as peaceful as it is.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: WolfWhiteFire on July 21, 2017, 10:08:07 AM
Actually Misery, I don't think he can even see a single post you have made, I am pretty sure that during that Trump discussion that started up a while back and that you eventually locked he said that he blocked you, and then there was a discussion a bit later where it was mentioned and he said it should be unlocked even though it devolved into a flamefest like I predicted closer to the beginning. So the reason he is ignoring what you are saying is because he isn't seeing what you are saying.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: TheVampire100 on July 21, 2017, 10:49:39 AM
That's exactly what he does, he is kinda bipolar on this front. On one side he wants his "fellow Americans" to wake up and participate on voting to keep something like Trump out (because that would've worked, right? Yeah, no, not really...).
On the other side he does not want to see other opinions that aren't his own, so pretty much he himself closes his eyes for that kidn of thing.

Because of this reason alone I cannot take anything he ever says seriously.

Besides that, voting on that topic is like... useless. If not this politician woudl do it, another woudl do it. The whole lovably political/voting system is so old fasioned and out to daze that I wonder why no one stands up and says what has to be said. This system isn't functional with the new era anymore. And how can people int he slightest believe it would?
Most stuff was designed back when new technology, new social ideas and other new stuff wasn't even developed. Humanity has "evolved" farther, political systems not.
No, don't ask me how we shoudl change it because I have no goddamn clue but THSI is not how it should be, that's clear. There is a reason why more and more people loose interest in it and it's not beause Facebook is more interesting. It's simpl because the political system does not work in their interest anymore.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Misery on July 21, 2017, 06:10:35 PM
Yeah, I know he cant read anything I say here.  My post above was actually mostly directed at everyone else.  Mainly saying, "please don't even start talking about that stuff, even if someone is trying to start it".  Just because I know full well it never ends well.

So, yeah.... please, everyone, just let it drop. The whole topic on voting or whatever.  Let's not go into any other political topics, and no negative comments made towards Cyborg either, please. 

Just trying to keep things civil.  The whole incident last time was just.... silly, is what it was.  There's no reason to have it repeat at all.  I'm sure there's plenty to discuss just on the neutrality topic itself anyway.