discuss Battle For The Net: July 12 petition popup

Paul · Jul 12, 2017

Today, July 12, 2017, American visitors will see a Battle For The Net popup when they first visit NamePros. This isn't an ad, and it's not something we were paid to display; rather, it's a petition for an issue that directly affects the domain industry.

Freedom of speech is one of the few issues both American parties can agree on these days. Unfortunately, a handful of influential politicians want to remove the policies that preserve freedom on the internet. Internet Service Providers like this idea because they'll be able to charge exorbitant fees and censor or slow down websites that compete with their own, thereby promoting their own services.

We've joined hundreds of other big websites in dedicating July 12 to promoting freedom on the internet. Many of these websites will be using the same popup that you've seen here, although there are a few different wordings that sites can choose from. Others may find different ways to speak out against the pending proposals.

For more information, or to join the petition, visit: https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/

Notes:

The popup is only here for one day.
You should only see the popup once one NamePros for each browser/device you use. If you see it frequently, that's a bug; please let us know in the Technical Support forum.
Originally the popup was set to appear for all users, no matter their location. We've since set it to appear only for visitors in the United States. It's not perfectly accurate, but it should be good enough.
There was a bug that caused the popup to appear multiple times for some users/devices. This has been fixed.
There was a bug that caused the popup to appear on the wrong day. As a result, you may have seen a similar popup on NamePros earlier.

If you want to add the popup to your own website, add the following code inside the <head> tag:

HTML:

<script src="https://widget.battleforthenet.com/widget.js" async></script>

It will automatically disable itself after today.

Name Trader · Jul 12, 2017

Michael M said:
Thanks @stub for your point of view - That's all I was trying to say but probably didn't relay it as clearly.

It must have been that encyclopedia I had for breakfast. Gave me indigestion

Chris Hydrick · Jul 13, 2017

Paul Buonopane said:
I should note that the NamePros administration is comprised of both liberals and conservatives, but this decision was unanimous and without hesitation.

To clarify - this board is comprised of both liberal and conservative toaster ovens?

Eric Lyon · Jul 13, 2017

Hello,

It's unfortunate sometimes when everyone in a community doesn't agree on things and unavoidable to not have some members displeased with actions/support/decisions made.

To reiterate what my colleague Paul said, this decision had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with keeping the internet neutral.

At no time did we intentionally take a political stance. We simply provided an important message that many other large reputable companies are also providing. Every member has the ability to research/learn more about net neutrality and at no time was anyone forced to sign a petition.

Sadly, the implementation of the valuable message had set-backs and was released a day early at first, followed by the message not closing properly and proceeded to popup, which I completely agree, was annoying. That should be resolved now.

I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone and appreciate your understanding.

Michael M · Jul 13, 2017

Eric Lyon said:
Hello,

It's unfortunate sometimes when everyone in a community doesn't agree on things and unavoidable to not have some members displeased with actions/support/decisions made.

To reiterate what my colleague Paul said, this decision had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with keeping the internet neutral.

At no time did we intentionally take a political stance. We simply provided an important message that many other large reputable companies are also providing. Every member has the ability to research/learn more about net neutrality and at no time was anyone forced to sign a petition.

Sadly, the implementation of the valuable message had set-backs and was released a day early at first, followed by the message not closing properly and proceeded to popup, which I completely agree, was annoying. That should be resolved now.

I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused anyone and appreciate your understanding.

I agree you can never have everyone agree in a community, and I understand this website is not a democracy, but I do believe you let us express ourselves so long as we conduct ourselves with manners and respect and I appreciate that. But I still must disagree that this is not political, because once you get two people who understand the "technicals" of the internet and how things work, what are the stresses on network infrastructure, how costs can be shifted to keep a business profitable, and get past the talking points for Net "Neutrality" - you are only left with political beliefs that drive ones opinion in one direction or another - support or opposition.

Meaning it is definitely political, NPs has definitely taken a position, and to claim it is only about protecting people's freedom is deceiving as the exact same argument can be said for the getting rid of Net "Neutrality"

Paul · Jul 13, 2017

Grilled said:
To clarify - this board is comprised of both liberal and conservative toaster ovens?

Show attachment 63943

Yes, that is correct. Some prefer to overcook, some prefer to undercook.

Paul · Jul 13, 2017

Michael M said:
Meaning it is definitely political, NPs has definitely taken a position, and to claim it is only about protecting people's freedom is deceiving as the exact same argument can be said for the getting rid of Net "Neutrality"

Well, the political arguments generally have to do with whether regulation in general is good or bad, which I don't think we have an opinion on. Personally, I'm in the middle: some regulation is good, but when there's a lot of regulation, big companies can abuse it; it's a lot more difficult for small companies to comply with overzealous regulation.

I've always seen net neutrality as apolitical because it resembles the First Amendment in its intentions. The concept is supposed to be that it's regulation preventing further regulation, both by governments and large companies (mostly monopolies).

I greatly dislike getting involved in political discussions surrounding issues like this because I think they're largely irrelevant. It's not your average overbearing regulation, so it doesn't really deserve the whole regulation-vs-deregulation debate. Otherwise, you end up with people who choose sides based on their political affiliations and opinions on regulation in general, rather than this specific regulation.

NamePros is pretty sheltered from any effects of net neutrality or lack thereof because we have contracts with several large networks, and more in the works. Even if our prices increased, the cost would be negligible for us because of how we optimize our content distribution. If anything, it would be an advantage. The decision to participate in this event wasn't motivated by how the law affects us as a business.

Michael M · Jul 13, 2017

Paul Buonopane said:
Well, the political arguments generally have to do with whether regulation in general is good or bad, which I don't think we have an opinion on. Personally, I'm in the middle: some regulation is good, but when there's a lot of regulation, big companies can abuse it; it's a lot more difficult for small companies to comply with overzealous regulation.

I've always seen net neutrality as apolitical because it resembles the First Amendment in its intentions. The concept is supposed to be that it's regulation preventing further regulation, both by governments and large companies (mostly monopolies).

I greatly dislike getting involved in political discussions surrounding issues like this because I think they're largely irrelevant. It's not your average overbearing regulation, so it doesn't really deserve the whole regulation-vs-deregulation debate. Otherwise, you end up with people who choose sides based on their political affiliations and opinions on regulation in general, rather than this specific regulation.

NamePros is pretty sheltered from any effects of net neutrality or lack thereof because we have contracts with several large networks, and more in the works. Even if our prices increased, the cost would be negligible for us because of how we optimize our content distribution. If anything, it would be an advantage. The decision to participate in this event wasn't motivated by how the law affects us as a business.

I can agree regulation can be both good and bad depending on the factors involved. I am both for or against it depending on the situation.

I still stay firm that you are standing in support of regulation of our industry which did not exist in recent history and all was well. Agreed that rather or not it is good or bad is up for debate but you obviously landed hard on the side of it was good or you wouldn't have acted as you did. To side with a new regulation is political in nature - especially in your own industry. I debate that internet regulation in this form is bad because the internet promoted innovation due to the free market principles that it held for years - which this regulation has the potential, though not definite possibility, of disrupting innovation due to consequences and government actions you have yet to predict - but haven given them the right to enact.

My opinion remains that NPs and some select other internet companies are siding in favor of regulating our industry in opposition of our interest because their beliefs are blinding their view.

That is political and potentially harmful (depending on your view). It has been a long day of me discussing this with you guys by myself for the most part - so I will not go further.

eyedomainous · Jul 13, 2017

1). Neutrality is apolitical. "Politics" is taking a side, in this case for the ISPs or for the Consumer.
NET NEUTRALITY makes the internet neutral. Not controlled by ISP or 'Free' consumer politics.

2). Your Comcast example indicates you don't understand the concept.
ISP Comcast must be neutral to traffic from Netflix or anyone else. This maintains the basis on which the web was founded on. Net Neutrality simply codified that principle into law by extending Title 2 / Public Utility classifications to cover the internet.

In short, these are the laws that govern telephone companies, and prevents them from determining who you can call, reducing the quality of the connection, or charging more to make, or receive, a profitable call (like in your Comcast-Netflix example), than a personal call.

3). ISPs make their money with (dial-in) access and usage fees, just like a phone. Not only does that model par and sustain network capacity with its customer base, but evidence shows US customers pay the most and get amongts the slowest web connections in the world.

Michael M said:
That is the main argument the whole Net Neutrality argument stands on.

It is up to each person to decide things on their own. I am not trying to sway people - I just hate for uninformed people to sign a petition that goes against them without knowing it.

In my opinion - if Comcast wanted to slow speed to NetFlix because they couldn't come to an agreement - that is their choice. They could loose a huge customer base to another ISP - but at the same time I understand their argument as the streaming video was stressing Comcast's network. The cost to upgrade the network has to come from somewhere - rather it be Comcast's end users or an agreement with a company that is responsible for a huge chunk of Comcast's network traffic.

It is the same as Comcast can drop a TV station off it's platform if they choose to make room for another channel which will perform better. They only have so many channels they can put networks on. (again - a network/system limitation and cost for comcast) And that is TV which is already highly regulated.

But like I said you have to get into politics to really talk about Net Neutrality - because that is what it is about. The technical arguments for Net Neutrality to even exist in the first place come down to political positions. Seems people can no longer separate/balance their political beliefs with business decisions. That is the sad thing.

buywebsites.biz · Jul 13, 2017

eyedomainous said:
2). Your Comcast example indicates you don't understand the concept.
ISP Comcast must be neutral to traffic from Netflix or anyone else.

Imagine that sometime in the future you're in a hospital and need gigabytes of a recent tomography exam sent to the surgeon pronto. You plead with the doctor to somehow speed up the record access. And then you remember that popup you signed on Namepros ...

Paul · Jul 13, 2017

buywebsites.biz said:
Imagine that sometime in the future you're in a hospital and need gigabytes of a recent tomography exam sent to the surgeon pronto. You plead with the doctor to somehow speed up the record access. And then you remember that popup you signed on Namepros ...

You can still pay more for faster speeds. Net neutrality doesn't change that. :P It just says your ISP can't decide to charge you $100 for that upload because they don't like you, but only charge your friend $1 for the same upload. (That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

Michael M · Jul 13, 2017

@Eric Lyon - No offense but that thread you just closed was actually getting deeper into the issue than either of the other two. With more users getting to read and weigh in - even if they don't agree with me. But they didn't know what they were signing up for.

( https://www.namepros.com/threads/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality.1029914/ )

Eric Lyon · Jul 13, 2017

Michael M said:
But they didn't know what they were signing up for.

All of the replies that I read indicate that it was understood but you caused some confusion about it with your posts, which you're more than welcome to continue discussing in this thread.

Michael M said:
that thread you just closed was actually getting deeper into the issue

It's against the rules to create another thread on the same topic:

Rule 1.13. Consolidate your posts and threads on the same topic into one thread where possible.

If you'd like to discuss that action or the merits of that rule (There are many) or any rule, then you must create a new thread in the designated areas for customer support or feedback to discuss it.

Thanks for understanding,

Michael M · Jul 13, 2017

Understood. I will continue here then.

I believe one of main points about it being misleading and political were starting to come to light in the thread which was closed. I was going to pull some relevant posts from there and put them here as an illustration to comment on - but I just noticed the quote option is disabled. I do not believe I can re-post them without violating a rule unless it is a quote so people would need to read the link I provided to the closed thread. (if it can be viewed by the public)

There was several people who did not know namepros supports Net Neutrality. They were certain they were against it. Many thought the petition they saw was against Net Neutrality. Most don't seem to know what it is past preventing bandwidth throttling and most certainly don't know there are 400 pages to define this regulation.

My feedback to namepros is to be more clear with their political positions before asking people to sign a petition.

offthehandle · Jul 15, 2017

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170714_net_neutrality_protects_new_monopolies_from_old/

So this is measure to protect goo gles and ama zons monopolies?

discuss Battle For The Net: July 12 petition popup

Tech, NamePros

formerly @stubTop Member

Top Member

Scorpion Agency LLCTop Member

Top Member

Tech, NamePros

Tech, NamePros

Top Member

Top Member

Established Member

Tech, NamePros

Top Member

Scorpion Agency LLCTop Member

Top Member

.Top Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement