10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
10.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 13, 2018, 13:04
Beamer
 
10.
Re: Op Ed Dec 13, 2018, 13:04
Dec 13, 2018, 13:04
 Beamer
 
Scheherazade wrote on Dec 13, 2018, 11:45:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

He's right though.

Eg. Remember the bill they were coining the "Patient's bill of rights" from a few years back? That was primarily a document putting limits on how much you can sue for in medical malpractice.

In any case, only a small section of any given bill has anything to do with the title.
Bills are vast collections of unrelated-to-the-title material promoted by lobbyists to senate staff, selectively globbed (via a give&take process of negotiation with senate staff, and on rare occasion the senators themselves).

Fore example, here is the ACA printed out : https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130719154054-boehner-obama-health-care-story-top.jpg
Most of that stack is unrelated to Obamacare, it's just in the same bill.

-scheherazade

Yes, the Simpsons mocked this 20 years ago. It's common knowledge. I wasn't saying he was wrong, I was saying "let me educate you" was laughable and hysterically condescending.
9.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 13, 2018, 11:57
9.
Re: Op Ed Dec 13, 2018, 11:57
Dec 13, 2018, 11:57
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!

seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.


Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.

The crux of net neutrality is 'deep packet inspection'.




Historically/currently, you are sold bandwidth, or megabytes.

Historically, the ISPs have grown via adding new customers that hadn't previously had a connection, or by offering more bandwidth and competing over existing customers.

Today, the problem for ISPs is that ~everyone that matters has a connection, so new customers aren't a useful source of growth.
Bandwidth has hit a useful plateau - multiple people can be watching 1080p (and even 4k) streams. There is no need to pay for more bandwidth, so ISPs can't upsell you on more bandwidth.

So : How do ISPs continue growing? (Investors want "MOAR")

The solution : Deep packet inspection + pricing content.




Companies want the right to inspect what you are putting into your IP packets, and charge you differently depending on the content (rather than charging you only based on how many bytes you send).

So they can detect compressed video, and charge you a different rate for that (video delivery surcharge).
Or they can detect financial transactions, and charge you a different rate for that (financial transaction surcharge).
etc.

Kind of like the mail service reading your stamped and paid for letters, and asking for more money if the letter looks like something you really care about.

ISPs invested a lot of money into the equipment to inspect your data, and now they want to monetize it.
(I actually know a guy IRL that designs the equipment).




Most of the political rhetoric (i.e. language used) is the fallout of people trying to simplify what's going on into terms regular people would care about. "Privileged access", "Fast lanes", etc, it doesn't really tell you what the physical meaning of net neutrality is.

Net neutrality = No pricing discrimination based on the content of packets, bandwidth is bandwidth.
No net neutrality = Packet content can be discriminated and monetized, even if the bandwidth is already paid for.




To clarify, a key aspect is that ISP service contracts include a clause stating that (paraphrased, each has something similar) : They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth, because they can not foresee technical difficulties of network congestion and can not be liable for under delivering.

That 'out' is used for reasons OTHER than technical difficulties or congestion. Because, as stated, the rule is "They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth", and the rest of the sentence is FYI.

Hence they can inspect packets, decide if they want to throttle you under your bandwidth, and hit you up for more cash to get your speed back.





(If my memory is right:)
A related squabble was the Netflix v Comcast/Verizon. Where ISPs claimed slow video streams from Netflix to ISP customers were caused by network congestion, and ISPs claimed they need money from Netflix to upgrade networks just for Netflix.
What ISPs didn't count on was encrypted VPNs, which hide the content of packets from the ISPs.
Over VPN, ISP customers could watch Netflix streams at speed, but if not using a VPN the streams would be slow.
The VPN actually had MORE hops to make, and should have been slower - but it was faster. Indicating that the ISPs were selectively throttling video streams based on packet inspection.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2018, 12:17.
8.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 13, 2018, 11:45
8.
Re: Op Ed Dec 13, 2018, 11:45
Dec 13, 2018, 11:45
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

He's right though.

Eg. Remember the bill they were coining the "Patient's bill of rights" from a few years back? That was primarily a document putting limits on how much you can sue for in medical malpractice.

In any case, only a small section of any given bill has anything to do with the title.
Bills are vast collections of unrelated-to-the-title material promoted by lobbyists to senate staff, selectively globbed (via a give&take process of negotiation with senate staff, and on rare occasion the senators themselves).

Fore example, here is the ACA printed out : https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130719154054-boehner-obama-health-care-story-top.jpg
Most of that stack is unrelated to Obamacare, it's just in the same bill.

-scheherazade
7.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 12, 2018, 12:50
Beamer
 
7.
Re: Op Ed Dec 12, 2018, 12:50
Dec 12, 2018, 12:50
 Beamer
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!

seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.


Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.

Net Neutrality is about who is better off benefiting from the internet - telecoms and cable companies, or everyone else.


Without Net Neutrality, telecos can charge what they want for bandwidth. Meaning, they can charge a lot, or they can charge nothing. There can be some benefits to consumers for this - look at T-Mobile. It doesn't count Netflix against its data cap. If you're a T-Mobile user, you can stream Netflix from the airport or the train or school or whatever, and not worry about hitting your data cap. This is pretty cool. Other providers have worked out similar deals.

The argument against that, though, is the support of Net Neutrality. Netflix is paying for that deal, and for good reason. If you're a cellphone user that consumes a lot of video, you're going to have extra incentive to lock yourself into Netflix, since it won't impact your data usage. But if you're a smaller video startup, now you're screwed. Those consumers will be hard to pry from Netflix, and you can't outbid Netflix for that exclusivity. Netflix can also make agreements to have their video be a higher quality, as cellphone companies love limiting streaming video feeds, but would let companies pay around that. Again, smaller startups have no ability to fight that. It's all about money exchanging hands, and they have less, so the rich get richer. Outside of video, this could be games - imagine if Steam decided to fight Epic and GOG by making deals with cable companies to not have their downloads count against caps, or imagine if Microsoft made deals with Comcast to make certain there was less lag on Xbox Live than whatever the PlayStation equivalent is.

Basically, the question is what is more important - that the few companies owning the bulk of internet pipes can further monetize those pipes, or that every company has equal access to the internet in order to do business. Which will lead to more innovation - letting the few companies that own and can afford to invest in the internet making more money and encouraging them to keep updating it, or making the internet more open so that the bigger, more entrenched companies can't box out smaller, more nimble and innovative ones?

Personally, I feel that the cable companies already make enough off of this, and are investing, anyway. Regulations around competitiveness are what is stifling innovation there, not ability to monetize traffic. Furthermore, the innovation we'd be likely to see wouldn't be innovation benefiting the consumer, but benefiting their bottom line, as they find new ways to monetize more, rather than investing into faster pipes. If anything, it gives incentive for them to slow things down. The regulations against competition have largely made it so that cable companies, quite famously, have no incentive to deliver better products. A better product doesn't change their revenue or bottom line much, so instead they find new ways to monetize the product they have. We still have terrible packages, enormous hidden fees, monstrously slow cable boxes that we pay huge monthly fees for, no true customer service, etc. Giving them more ability to monetize won't give the consumer any benefit, in my eyes, because they're already massively profitable without seeing any need to give consumers what they're interested in. Giving the consumers what they want would likely be worse for investors.
6.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 12, 2018, 12:31
6.
Re: Op Ed Dec 12, 2018, 12:31
Dec 12, 2018, 12:31
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.
Yes. NN is quite well understood and heavily documented for anyone not on big telecom payroll or being willfully ignorant.

It didn't start off as a political issue, but then the Republican "leaders" were called into action by their corporate masters and turned it into one, who were then followed by the drooling "Republican party over everything else" moron masses without even caring to understand what it's about - once again, ruining it for everyone.
Avatar 58038
5.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 12, 2018, 10:31
5.
Re: Op Ed Dec 12, 2018, 10:31
Dec 12, 2018, 10:31
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!

seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.


Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.
4.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 12, 2018, 00:32
4.
Re: Op Ed Dec 12, 2018, 00:32
Dec 12, 2018, 00:32
 
Ah HA! My advanced payment to that corrupt Canadian guard worked! Soon MENG will reward me handsomely with Huawei shares and another important life thing.

https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Arrest+of+Huawei+CFO+Inspires+Advance+Fee+Scam/24396/
3.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 11, 2018, 23:34
Beamer
 
3.
Re: Op Ed Dec 11, 2018, 23:34
Dec 11, 2018, 23:34
 Beamer
 
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?
2.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 11, 2018, 23:18
2.
Re: Op Ed Dec 11, 2018, 23:18
Dec 11, 2018, 23:18
 
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.
1.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Dec 11, 2018, 20:32
1.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Dec 11, 2018, 20:32
Dec 11, 2018, 20:32
 

NN
Big business wins. yeah

A mask is not a political statement.
It's an IQ test.
It's a compassion test.
It's a decency test.
It's a social responsibility test.
Avatar 58135
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older