One of the more important issues of the day -- getting net neutrality back! If we can get Cole, Russell, or Lucas on board ... it should be back. Call 'em up if you care about this issue!


https://newsok.com/article/5603628/oklahoma-lawmaker-congress-should-back-net-neutrality-bill

I suspect people are more concerned with the censorship by various internet venues. In Spite of the fact that they are privately owned, one can make two arguments to offset that fact.

1. A significant portion of internet service is subsidized by the government via those pesky phone and internet fees we all pay. Thus, giving the government an avenue to assert regulatory authority under the commerce clause.

2. Services have become nearly defacto methods of communication. Consider:

GOOGLE has become the defacto privately owned card catalog for the internet. Granted, other services are available, however, Google has the numbers and extensive databasing of all materials available. The problem is they are ommiting and hiding index cards for materials they don't like. As such, the "library of the internet" is broken.

TWITTER has become the defacto town crier of emergent news. The problem is that when citizen Trumps house was on fire, because TWITTER did not like citizen Trump, they conveniently forgot to announce his house was alight and needed the citizenry to fight the fire.

FACEBOOK has become the ostensible multimedia phone for the world. People share news, communicate, establish associations and find others with similar interests. UNLESS the FACEBOOK company does not like your politics.

Each of these is provided as an essentially free service. Each is essentially without competition, each is a primary means of communication between individuals. IF they elect to suppress unpopular opinions and engage in editing of content, an inequitable situation has arisen. It must be addressed as the companies have proven hypocritical to their word AND unresponsive to complaints about bias.

There was another thread where I brought this up, where I asked "at what point does a content provider become a public utility". I don't know the answer, personally.

I do think it's funny that the boogieman scenario was paying for access to all the different sites. Yet we now have netflix, hulu, amazon, cbs, wwe network, disney, hbo go, showtime, DC all access, and whatever else will pop up. And these all will exist under any proposed net neutrality rules.

So basically we just shifted the cost to the consumers while allowing the content providers a free ride while charging for access.

Is there a true, easy for a non-techie to read "for Dummies" that is non-biased and not political so one can really understand what this is about? It is an emotional issue for a lot of people but I think I am far from being alone in not understanding the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q

This burger king commercial about cuts it.

Drama aside. In this analogy the whopper is a popular service. The issue isn't about censorship, or about what services will or will not be available once it actually goes away.

Another way to look at it is Net neutrality can mean Internet service providers can not block you from accessing some sites. You will get both the Burger King site as well as McDonald's.

So I guess I can do a scenario, liken to electricity. Og&e is the only electric service in town right? And you want a new electric lawn mower or a it’s time to buy a whole set of new cordless power tools. Now...this is hypothetical when it applies to electricity. But let’s say OG&E can limit you on how fast you want to charge the batteries for brand x but it takes 4 hours, brand y on the other hand has all the same tech specs, same mili amp rating, same power, etc. but brand Y can get the battery charged in just 1 hour because they are either partly owned by, have stock interest, or have gone into a shady deal to PAY for faster speed so they have an edge over their competitors. Well now brand y can charge a little money for their product, and og&e gets richer. Now apply that same principle to the internet. And that’s net neutrality in a nutshell.

Another way to look at it is Net neutrality can mean Internet service providers can not block you from accessing some sites. You will get both the Burger King site as well as McDonald's.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT??? You mean lack of Net Neutrality...I hope you mean, at least.

Good analogy, just please clarify that these types of scenarios are what NN works to prevent.




So I guess I can do a scenario, liken to electricity. Og&e is the only electric service in town right? And you want a new electric lawn mower or a it’s time to buy a whole set of new cordless power tools. Now...this is hypothetical when it applies to electricity. But let’s say OG&E can limit you on how fast you want to charge the batteries for brand x but it takes 4 hours, brand y on the other hand has all the same tech specs, same mili amp rating, same power, etc. but brand Y can get the battery charged in just 1 hour because they are either partly owned by, have stock interest, or have gone into a shady deal to PAY for faster speed so they have an edge over their competitors. Well now brand y can charge a little money for their product, and og&e gets richer. Now apply that same principle to the internet. And that’s net neutrality in a nutshell.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT??? You mean lack of Net Neutrality...I hope you mean, at least.

Nope. Net Neutrality means that all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Without Net Neutrality, an ISP could - in theory - slow down or outright block access to certain sites.

Assume for just a second that Cox set up a new video sharing site called MeTube, to compete with YouTube. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Cox could choose to slow down or completely shut off access to YouTube, or raise speed caps specifically for MeTube, in order to drive traffic to their own site. With Net Neutrality rules in place, Cox would be prohibited from slowing down, blocking, or prioritizing access to one site over another like this.

yup...it's good stuff.

we need to overturn the overturning of net neutrality.. I swear... ALL IT WOULD TAKE is to get Cole, Lucas or Russell and the Congressional Review Act would happen.... lots of their buddies would follow suit. This is so important, sadly people are more concerned about what we must do to get a Señor Frog's at Memorial and Council or whatever.

yup...it's good stuff.

we need to overturn the overturning of net neutrality.. I swear... ALL IT WOULD TAKE is to get Cole, Lucas or Russell and the Congressional Review Act would happen.... lots of their buddies would follow suit. This is so important, sadly people are more concerned about what we must do to get a Señor Frog's at Memorial and Council or whatever.

What's posted publicly on OKCTalk.com is most likely but a fraction of what the posters are doing IRL, which may include the exact things you're advocating for. I contact my elected officials all the time, but don't post about it most of the time...

Nope. Net Neutrality means that all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Without Net Neutrality, an ISP could - in theory - slow down or outright block access to certain sites.

Assume for just a second that Cox set up a new video sharing site called MeTube, to compete with YouTube. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Cox could choose to slow down or completely shut off access to YouTube, or raise speed caps specifically for MeTube, in order to drive traffic to their own site. With Net Neutrality rules in place, Cox would be prohibited from slowing down, blocking, or prioritizing access to one site over another like this.

Let’s also not forget that in your MeTube vs YouTube analogy. That cox would most DEFINITELY lift it’s data cap for unlimited streaming of its own proprietary product. Whereas if your kid is a YouTube but expect to pay premiums for data packages.

Now let’s take another scenario, time warner is possibly being merged with att which also owns directv. So what happens when you use cox internet but directv satellite and want to stream content? Or Hulu which joint owned by Comcast so AT&T slows it down so you buy uverse, but you’re a Disney fan and Hulu is about to acquire fox’s share in the company.

There’s just way way too many ways they can screw you. Not to mention all you “jailbroken fire stick” people out there. Lol yeah, that’s gone.

So, first, thank you for all the great explanations. I do appreciate it. Forgive my ignorance and I'm not trying to make this a political thread - it seems that most of you are concerned that under a "no net neutrality " world, you are most concerned about the few big corporations being able to limit access, speed and content. Certainly, a valid cencern because I could see it happing.
On 0the other hand, even under net netrality, there are social media companies that, either on their own, or under political pressure, limit access and content of users. I'm not trying to make a statement one way or the other - but it seems there is actual, active limitation occurring by social media firms located in what should be the bastion of pro net-neutrality, California. If NN ensures free and open internet, how can certain political content be limited or censored - no matter how controversial? What is different if Comcast limits content and access vs. if FB, Twitter or Google do it? It's certainly not because Facebook reaches a smaller audience than Comcast.

At nuetrality ensures a free and open internet in the purest sense of data as it pertains to the web. Not information like “Hilary is a snake person from space” or Trump is a puppet, look closely and you’ll see the strings” information like 0’s and 1’

Social media platforms content and their users ability to use and abuse their platforms is a TOTALLY different subject. Social media has their own set of laws and standards on how you use their site. If you want a TRULY neutral and chaotic exchange of information, stick to 4chan dude.

Edit: I hope I’m making myself clear on my point in that what you are talking about are two completely different topics and one of them isn’t net neutrality. It has nothing to do with censorship only the speed or level of access you have to content.

Edit edit: and by limiting speed or level of access you can put a level of influence on content creating a new type of censorship. But they are NOT mutually exclusive.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/feds-probe-fake-messages-to-fcc-supporting-ending-net-neutrality_us_5c0c4ae1e4b0ab8cf693ec5c

Excerpts:

Of the 22 million messages sent last year to the FCC website, nearly 21 million were bots, organized campaigns or fakes, including many using stolen identities, according to a Stanford University study.

Of the total estimated 800,000 unique comments sent, 99.7 percent supported net neutrality and opposed a controversial push by the Trump administration’s commission head Ajit Pai to terminate net neutrality. Pai recently admitted that Russia meddled in the system and acknowledged that 500,000 of the suspect comments were linked to Russian emails.

Pretty sure Russia doesn't want us to have net neutrality.