news Internet Freedom Under Attack Says GoDaddy

[Silentptnr]

Went to log into GoDaddy and right on the front page I got this..

Here's a link to the full letter from Blake Irving...
https://blakesblog.com/2017/07/netneutrality/

 

[Michael M]

I would love for most people to ask themselves if "Net Neutrality" was called "Government Regulation of the Internet" and it was proposed and instated by the opposite political party as you. (but exact same wording in the law) Would you feel the same way? Would it have been represented the same by the media?

I truly believe in your heart and mind you know the answer to this, but I don't think you will admit it.

That is why I disconnected myself from the two political parties and started thinking for myself.

 

[autobot]

Google sent this email yesterday:

Hi Addison —

The net neutrality rules that protect the open Internet are in danger of being dismantled.

Today, Google is joining other Internet companies, innovative startups, and millions of internet users around the country to defend these common-sense protections that keep the internet free and open.

Net neutrality ensures that both new and established services, whether offered by an established internet company like Google, a broadband provider, or a small start-up, have the same ability to reach users on an equal playing field.

It's an important moment in this effort, and we hope you'll make your voice heard:

Tell the FCC that you want to keep the Internet free and open.

The FCC has invited the public to comment in a formal proceeding on whether to change or eliminate the current net neutrality rules. Together, we can make our voices heard and we can make a difference.

To find out more, including how to share your views with the FCC, visit: https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action

Thanks,
Google Take Action

@Michael M, I'm honored to be in the presence of someone like yourself who knows more than the greatest minds on the planet, because truthfully, I didn't want to listen to them anyway (sarcasm). And since I didn't want to listen to them (sarcasm continued), I googled it (oh, the irony!) and made a decision for myself: they're right, and you're disastrously misguided and wrong.

Difference of opinion is fine and dandy. Misinformation is injurious.

IMO, you're embarrassing yourself with your comments on this topic.

Should we believe everything Google says?

 

[Michael M]

Should we believe everything Google says?

Yes, because they are nothing close to a monopoly and only have your interest in mind - not their bank account.

 

[Michael M]

I can agree that we don't need to agree on this. But it isn't a one sided issue. If that is your argument - I can not agree with it.

I am definitely one to encourage EVERYONE to have their own views - even if they go against mine.

@Beezy - Really? Dislike every comment against your political view? Even one where me and someone are trying to have an actual conversation and are asking if we can agree to disagree? And me encouraging everyone to have their own view?

Uncalled for and immature, but your right to do.

Added: I encourage you to join into the conversation if you have an interest in it.

 

[Beezy]

This has zero to do with politics, the two party systems, or anything that you're talking about.

The fact is, in most jurisdictions in America, you have 1 or 2 choices for internet provider. (I have 2 in my building, luckily). Where my parents live, they have 1 choice.

Until that changes and competition is allowed, neutrality is the only way to guarantee the free spread of information. That idea TRUMPS all.

 

[Michael M]

This has zero to do with politics, the two party systems, or anything that you're talking about.

The fact is, in most jurisdictions in America, you have 1 or 2 choices for internet provider. (I have 2 in my building, luckily). Where my parents live, they have 1 choice.

Until that changes and competition is allowed, neutrality is the only way to guarantee the free spread of information. That idea TRUMPS all.

I have to disagree. What you guys are all complaining about is the monopolies that the cable companies have. They could have used monopoly laws to break them up.

The other way would have been a court case, or a single law.

Regulating an entire industry because of one issue is political. They politicized one issue to get the regulation through. And now that's all everyone cares about - The one issue. Not the other 399 pages of the regulation. "Let's ignore those and focus on the one issue" is not an informed position.

Litigate, pass a "one page law" or use the laws on the books to break up Monopolies.

 

[zurc.net]

Deep web is scary tho.

 

[Michael M]

I want to add that I understand you guys do feel that the throttling protection is important to you. I do hear you there and I am not trying to discredit your concern.

I have made my position and concerns pretty clear. I wish everyone could step back and at least understand that there is more than one point of view. And both sides can have a valid argument.

Regulating our industry was a discussion we should have had here long before the politics of it were involved - and I think it might be a different one.

 

[Addison]

@Michael M, I've made it crystal clear (read my past posts again if you're lost): Governments are the only way to keep monopolies at bay in state of affairs of this magnitude. Consumers do not have enough power. Yes, it could be executed differently, but it will be by the government anyhow, and until there is a new solution, the existing solution (net neutrality) is critical on a life-or-death scale for innovation, freedom, and equality. You're lying to yourself, and (ingloriously) to everyone else, if you think there is a non-government solution to this specific state of affairs.

Read my posts. Those are the facts. You can blindly reject them because you think you're a "free thinker" and can't go with the norm, ever, even when that norm is common sense. That's your right.

Tech companies are far and away the least conformist and the most free thinking of all companies. (I'll spare you that history lesson, too.) They're chiefly scientists (you know, the ones that discovered our world isn't flat). They don't follow the herd. You're predominantly alone in your thoughts because your views are illogical, injurious, and careless.

Should we believe everything Google says?

Don't be outrageous. Google is a search engine. Search Bing for your research if it tickles your fancy: the conclusion will be the same.

 

[Michael M]

So I am not entitled to this view or if so it is "dangerous and stupid" because in your reality only complete government control can help. No - this isn't political.

I shouldn't even share my point of view because it could be disastrous or something to your ego and way of thinking... Opposing views are dangerous or stupid in the modern world. I should just get in line with everyone else.

Gotchya.

Off to the weekend!

 

[autobot]

Don't be outrageous. Google is a search engine. Search Bing for your research if it tickles your fancy: the conclusion will be the same.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that my conclusion will be the same?

Did Google email that to you?

 

[buywebsites.biz]

This has zero to do with politics, the two party systems, or anything that you're talking about.

Net neutrality is a political issue, like it or not. The Obama administration wanted Net Neutrality, and the Trump administration comes in and rips it up. Regulations = more government, and Republicans are generally against regulation.

And I'm not saying a world without net neutrality is better - I'll allow that it might be worse, and probably will be in the short term. But this intolerance of a difference of opinion, this group-think surrounding net neutrality is disturbing.

Then lobby for new solutions but do not preach the removal of safeguards that exist today until a judicious successor exists.

Wut? You're acting like govt has to be the solution for all our problems. How about we let Comcast throttle Netflix traffic and allow them to dig their own grave? Capitalism allows for creative destruction, so how about we let stupid companies do stupid things and lose their customers to more deserving companies?

 

[Addison]

Wut? You're acting like govt has to be the solution for all our problems.

All? Are you illiterate? I never said "all our problems," and I didn't insinuate it either. Please read again.

How about we let Comcast throttle Netflix traffic and allow them to dig their own grave? Capitalism allows for creative destruction, so how about we let stupid companies do stupid things and lose their customers to more deserving companies?

How about you read all of the posts in this discussion before you chirp off about defunct nonsense that was rebuked on page 1?

Michael and I have said our piece and are at peace. Read it and decide for yourselves. Superb!

(I do not have a political affiliation and couldn't care less about politics. I care about the internet. That's why I've ignored all lamentable tangents toward politics.)

 

[JB Lions]

FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/net-neutrality-repeal-fcc-251824

This isn't good. I don't trust the cable companies and they support this. Knowing more and more people are cutting the cord, that's a loss to them, so they're for sure going to make it up somewhere. The internet works fine for me the way it is.

I guess the ISPs own Trump and Co. as well.

 

[enlytend]

Some places without net neutrality regulations are already bundling apps and services. Anyone think Verizon, TWC , Comcast won't do the same?

I'm not a fan of excessive regulation, but sometimes regulation is necessary to protect consumers from greedy monopolies and corporate interests.

Congress can still stop them. Call.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

 

[enlytend]

Anticipating the removal of net neutrality regulations, Comcast is already backing down on its promises and talking about establishing "paid prioritization" for some companies...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/

Yeah - they're not "throttling" and traffic, it's "paid prioritization."

Let's say a new startup wants to challenge Netflix or target a niche of the same traffic - if Netflix is paying to be able to have their content served at faster speeds, that startup won't stand a chance unless they can pony up the same fees.

That's why this hurts business - other than the isps and big players.

Who else will be able to get prioritized access? Amazon? What happens to other shopping sites? How about if your ISP prioritizes access to news sites whose bias they agree with?

Pai used to work for Verizon, his old friends will be most pleased if he makes this happen.

 

[Kate]

Meanwhile in the rest of the world...
Russia's Security Council tells the government to develop a separate Internet for the BRICS

 

[Michael M]

I apologize, but the arguments for Net "Neutrality" are talking points.

Your internet was not broken before Net "Neutrality", it will not be broken after it is no more.

In general, our world is moving more progressive - whereas people believe the government should regulate everything or the entire world will implode. More power to everyone for their own political views until they target my industry, then I must be opinionated and "political."

I am here to tell you the Internet was more free before Net "Neutrality", the world is better with an REASONABLE amount of legislation, and I promise 99% your fears about what will happen without Net "Neutrality" are invalid and have been subliminally deposited in your head over the years to where people can not logically think for themselves, or have independent thought anymore.

NetFlix, Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc were are founded and grew because the Internet was NOT over-regulated - and business could thrive. Evil Comcast did not stifle their growth, though I imagine they must have tried since their evilness inspires this legislation. (sarcasm)

Most people may not agree with me in the Tech world because of their political affiliation, but regulations typically hurt the small businesses and "little people" they were put in place to "protect." This is due to the fact once the government has the power to regulate an industry then lobbyists for the big companies move in and shape the regulation to only favor them and box out competition.

As seems to be the normal in this crazy world these days - we pass laws with great sounding names and promises... But if you look back at other similar examples - it typically works against us - not for us. Do not look at the name of piece of legislation politicians are trying to sell you - look it it's potential effects and weigh those against what you believe is the good of the bill. That is the proper way to govern, not by emotion.

I understand I am in a minority with this opinion, but I believe it completely with no malice. And I believe the Tech industry are being complete morons by allow politics to blind them and work against an Industry that is close to their heart. I expect to get blasted here for this, but ah well...

Net Neutrality is *not* a good thing. It is not Neutral in any way other than it's talking points.

Let's call it what it is, and then maybe we can talk a little more intelligently. It is broad and sweeping internet regulation. The government has gone too long without being able to tax and control this industry, and from their point of view it is time for them to take it over.

So yes. I truly hope this broad internet regulation is struck down and the Internet can continue to be free and innovative.

 

[Michael M]

I want to add one thing for you guys to chew on for a while...

Netflix, Amazon, Google, Godaddy, etc... <- These people that want this regulation to prevent smaller companies from having their growth stifled??? Does that statement make any sense? The big companies that have solidified their place on the internet are the same guys who support it?

If it were about keeping the internet open and free so new companies can emerge, grow, and not be stifled - then why is it the big guys want it so bad?

Honestly... Just think for a minute about that without your political hat on.

 

[Kate]

I don't think you understood the stakes at all. And net neutrality is not a case of government over-regulation, actually it's more about giving companies freedom to set their own rules, but to their benefit, not yours as a consumer.

 

[Michael M]

I actually do understand what is at stake. Do you?

I haven't read it in it's entirety in full disclosure, but it is roughly 400 pages. 400 pages must be addressing an awful lot of massive problems in this industry that must obviously be very clear for the profound support.

Can you please "educate" me what is at stake beyond someone having their NetFlix throttled? How did the Internet survive and thive for decades without it - and what legitimate issues does it actually address?

Edited to add: what legitimate issues does it actually address that could not be solved with a single page of legislation or litigation?

(point was in my previous posts but may not be obvious in this one)

 

[enlytend]

History etc.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171127/01044438683/ajit-pais-big-lie.shtml