news Internet Freedom Under Attack Says GoDaddy

[DaveX]

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]

That article is from 2014.

Please read the articles from the Forbes website I included below:

• JUL 11, 2017 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetw...tify-will-fight-for-net-neutrality-this-week/
• JUL 12, 2017 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...eryone-else-should-care-about-net-neutrality/

I'm playing along, but can we agree that Forbes writers that agree with either of us matter not?

I understand it was from 2014 but the points the author makes about being alone in the Tech industry standing against it makes it relevant today since the discussion has been opened back up and I stand here virtually alone thinking the same thing.

A regulation passed a couple of years ago hasn't had time yet to have any real effects on the industry. I am still concerned that the regulation that you want to stay to keep Comcast from throttling Netflix will have more effects than that ONE everyone talks about.

Honestly - if that was the one thing they wanted to do - would it need to be a 400 page legislation?

It, in essence, turned control of networks that private companies built over to the government, and imposes regulations that can possibly be sweeping if utilized.

(edited for grammar and page count)

 

[Michael M]

That article is from 2014.

but can we agree that Forbes writers that agree with either of us matter not?

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.

 

[Addison]

Break, break, break it down.

Without net neutrality

• Best-case scenario: Marginally better innovation in throughput or due to increased throughput.
• Worst-case scenario: Monopolies thrive and everyone suffers. A kid devoting her life to technology in her garage will never get a chance to build the next Apple, Facebook, Google, or Amazon.

With net neutrality

• Best-case scenario: The next Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon will have a chance to succeed.
• Worst-case scenario: Innovation continues freely at the same rate it has for years. I'll spare the history lesson on how superb that's been.
• Conspiracy-theorist-case scenario: Government needs to cover up UFO leakage and takes down the internet.

I'm actually beginning to like you; please don't turn into a conspiracy theorist on me.

 

[Michael M]

My response to your slightly slanted argument:

I still ask how things are free-er when they are regulated?

Are there not existing monopoly laws? Could those not be used to break up the cable companies?

Could litigation possibly have solved the issue?

Could a single law that was one page have stopped bandwidth throttling?

Is it worth giving up that last free marketplace and area for innovation to stop throttling when you could stop it in other ways?

Is it worth the risk to even possibly lose freedom of speech on the internet if they ever decided to enforce something similar to the Fairness Doctrine on the internet?

Do you really want to re-transform and regulate an industry that was thriving when you could have addressed the single issue?

Do politicians always put your interests first?

Do companies not lobby and control a lot of what DC implements?

Is Comcast not one of the biggest "lobbiers" in DC? Can they not possibly use this regulation in their favor over time with lobbying?

Do you really want to open that can of worms instead of addressing the single issue you are concerned about?

 

[Addison]

There's that injurious mindset again.

Never make a decision based on what could be rather than what is when its repercussion is what will be.

(Follow? I just made that up, but it's quotable, am I right?)​

I'll break it down:

Your argumentative questions are inconsequential until those concerns have existing solutions. If they did exist, then this would be a wholly different exchange.

Would you like a metaphor? Good, because I've written one for you, mi amigo:

You don't throw your primary parachute out the window on the basis that you will (maybe) find and put on a spare before the plane crashes.

 

[Michael M]

I have a metaphor for you as well. (though kind of lengthy)

You do not change the design of a parachute possibly rendering it's original intent and functionality obsolete just because it didn't come in the color you wanted. You address the single issue you have with the parachute. Had you just redesigned it completely and jumped out the window of the plane, you may not "float".

In other-words a quote I love "Don't fix what isn't broken"

I would need to add to it "And address the issue at hand."

Do not redesign the parachute into an anchor.

Sometimes the wise minds aren't as wise as they think. The world was flat at one time and I would have been shouted down for saying otherwise.

Basically @Addison - 400 pages of regulation and handing the internet over to a regulatory body to solve a throttling issue was a major over-reaction that politicians and like minded people saw as an opportunity to seize.

You could have been protected through existing laws - or a straight forward law to address the issue at hand.

The existence of the regulation opens up the possibilities I presented and more. Those worries did not exist in my mind before. The regulation can and most probably will (though only time proves things) end up affecting you and the industry in a negative way at some point.

If people focused more on fixing problems instead of assigning blame and passing 400-1000 page bills that give the government much more power than needed - and a lot of time doesn't fix the issue at hand - new problems from these unforeseen circumstances just might arise a lot less.

 

[Michael M]

Heading off to bed @Addison - It has been fun.

I enjoy conversation a lot more when I am not personally insulted too badly

Zingers and slant for your arguments are fine, just keep it professional and I will as well.

 

[Addison]

IMO, you're focused on a lot of irrational possibilities. The scenarios I presented and focused on are illustrated in case law and research studies. A few examples for your viewing pleasure.

n400 pages of regulation and handing the internet over to a regulatory body to solve a throttling issue was a major over-reaction that politicians and like minded people saw as an opportunity to seize.

Overreaction or not, a solution is better than no solution.

The regulation can and most probably will (though only time proves things) end up affecting you and the industry in a negative way at some point.

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

I enjoy conversation a lot more when I am not personally insulted too badly

Zingers and slant for your arguments are fine

Everything tastes better with a little spice, IMO!

 

[Addison]

Three superb videos:

Good Ol John Oliver

 

[Michael M]

IMO, you're focused on a lot of irrational possibilities. The scenarios I presented and focused on are illustrated in case law and research studies. A few examples for your viewing pleasure.


Overreaction or not, a solution is better than no solution.


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


Everything tastes better with a little spice, IMO!

The possibilities only seem irrational because you are in favor of the regulation, but then door for these possibilities was opened - and never should have been.

Understand I am an independent thinker. Not swayed by the masses. Masses of people tend to be stupid and I don't think many people will argue that. I use common sense, math, history, and cause and effect to choose my positions. I do not try to convert people to my beliefs, but did feel inclined in this case to speak out against something I believe hurts an industry I love.

Over-reaction is not "better" or justified in any case. The correct action is a thoughtful and responsible one.

I wish I had the power to lobby for common sense laws, but unfortunately I do not. All I can do is use my freedom of speech to express my view on a domaining forum.

I still have one main question that is the root of my argument. Why take over an industry and pass 400 pages of regulation to solve one problem that could be fixed with one law, litigation, or existing laws? Over-reaction being better than the fact no other route was chosen is not an answer.

But Net Neutrality is now the law of the land, and you are in the majority as far as the IT field is mainly composed of left leaning individuals which have a different idea of what America should be - than what it is or was. I can only watch as we "progress" and disagree.

IMO Libertarian is the way to go. You do what you do, I do what I do, and so long as we don't cause harm to each other all is well. Some regulations are good, some are bad, but we should keep them limited to prevent intrusion into our rights by a government that no longer responds to us - where possible.

But that is why this subject didn't belong on sites as an intrusive popup in the first place. It is political. That was my main argument and "beef".

And agreed - everything is better with a little spice.

 

[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!