No More Net Neutrality?

[wyliec]

A VPN establishes an encrypted link between YOU and the VPN server. Those two end points are easily seen by your ISP as the network traffic is sent and received between those two IP addresses. What they cannot see is the traffic moving between them or where it goes after it gets to the VPN. So if you use a VPN to access Netflix for example, your ISP CAN see a connection between YOU and the VPN but has no idea you are watching netflix. A VPN cannot hide its own connection, only the data traveling across it.

As has already been stated, large well known VPN services have well known IP addresses and will be among the first to get throttled. Already happens in areas of the world where VPNs are deemed illegal....like China.

I agree with everything you said, except maybe your last sentence, which I cannot disprove. The VPN's have many servers. People with VPN's use them to hide personal data also; so, for your ISP to throttle your service based on using a VPN, they may be digging themselves into a hole.

 

[RinconRyder]

I've been using a VPN for several years. I have noticed periods of time when the throughput was slower than normal but chalk that up to peak periods and the fact that I am on a cable connection which is shared by my entire neighborhood. I have not noticed any regular slow periods due to VPN connection. Traffic testing with and without the VPN have revealed no measurable difference in network speed.

 

[ruralgirl]

My biggest concern is the potential for censorship. The following is part of an email from NARAL Pro-Choice America:

In late 2007, NARAL experienced first hand what it was like to not have net neutrality, when Verizon Wireless cut off access to the text messaging program we used to organize and mobilize our members. The major mobile provider called our content "controversial and unsavory."[SUP]2[/SUP]
Verizon reversed their censorship after widespread public outrage, but if net neutrality is ripped away, this could happen to us again.

 

[UtahPete]

My biggest concern is the potential for censorship. The following is part of an email from NARAL Pro-Choice America: In late 2007, NARAL experienced first hand what it was like to not have net neutrality, when Verizon Wireless cut off access to the text messaging program we used to organize and mobilize our members. The major mobile provider called our content "controversial and unsavory."[SUP]2 [/SUP]Verizon reversed their censorship after widespread public outrage, but if net neutrality is ripped away, this could happen to us again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America I am also concerned about the potential for censorship. A very real threat under this administration. nojoke

 

[wyliec]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America I am also concerned about the potential for censorship. A very real threat under this administration. nojoke

RinconRyder and I don't have to worry about it.

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

Censorship happened with net neutrality as stated in this article.

A new research report written by mathematician and DefyCCC editor, Leo Goldstein, alleged that Google’s search function is biased against conservative news sites, and specifically notes that the topics of climate change and general politics are impacted as a result.
[h=3]Goldstein’s findings[/h]According to Goldstein’s report, which was based on research conducted through Alexa:

• Google’s search functionality “is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains,” and “against conservative domains” with what he calls a confidence of 95 percent.
• The percentage of “hard-left” domain traffic which are referred to websites by Google Search are heavily disproportionate to that of more conservative-leaning websites
• There appears to be evidence that “hard-left” domains have been “hand-picked” for prominent placement

[h=3]Other incidents of possible censorship[/h]

• In July, a pro-life group alleged that Google removed their site from top search results, and claimed that they had been “singled out” for “discrimination.
• August saw a former Google engineer at odds with the company who alleged that he was fired over his conservative views. The former employee penned a missive disagreeing with a politically correct company policy that was said to be a push for “diversity” within the company.

 

[BajaRon]

Censorship happened with net neutrality as stated in this article.

A new research report written by mathematician and DefyCCC editor, Leo Goldstein, alleged that Google’s search function is biased against conservative news sites, and specifically notes that the topics of climate change and general politics are impacted as a result.
Goldstein’s findings

According to Goldstein’s report, which was based on research conducted through Alexa:

• Google’s search functionality “is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains,” and “against conservative domains” with what he calls a confidence of 95 percent.
• The percentage of “hard-left” domain traffic which are referred to websites by Google Search are heavily disproportionate to that of more conservative-leaning websites
• There appears to be evidence that “hard-left” domains have been “hand-picked” for prominent placement

Other incidents of possible censorship

• In July, a pro-life group alleged that Google removed their site from top search results, and claimed that they had been “singled out” for “discrimination.
• August saw a former Google engineer at odds with the company who alleged that he was fired over his conservative views. The former employee penned a missive disagreeing with a politically correct company policy that was said to be a push for “diversity” within the company.

Censorship, throttling, bias, etc,. is and was happening with or without Net Neutrality. Censorship and bias has actually gotten worse and more overt under Net Neutrality than it was before. At least before NN most providers were trying to hide the fact.

A great number of people seem to be happy with censorship and bias as long as it is done against an entity that they dislike. It is only when censorship steps on their toes do they get upset. It would be best if we all understood that most censorship is bad. Because sooner or later. What happens to the goose, comes around to bite the gander.

In my opinion. Competition is the only way to get the services that most people want. Understanding that there is no perfect system. But when you give control to the government (who has no competition). You are going to get whatever service a bunch of people who have no idea what they are doing decide to give you based on the current political tilt of those in power.

 

[UtahPete]

Censorship happened with net neutrality as stated in this article. A new research report written by mathematician and DefyCCC editor, Leo Goldstein, alleged that Google’s search function is biased against conservative news sites, and specifically notes that the topics of climate change and general politics are impacted as a result.

Leo Goldstein's blog is hardly an objective reliable resource on this or any other topic. nojoke

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

Leo Goldstein's blog is hardly an objective reliable resource on this or any other topic. nojoke

Is that because of what he says does not fit your narrative?
If it fits your narrative it is reliable but if not, dismiss it, couldn't happen.

 

[UtahPete]

Is that because of what he says does not fit your narrative? If it fits your narrative it is reliable but if not, dismiss it, couldn't happen.

No, it's because he doesn't seem to have any credentials to back up his analyses and conclusions. He just seems to be another conspiracy theory blogger.
The only reason I responded to your original post is because you were putting it forth as evidence to support the idea of net neutrality being just another government scam (if I understood it correctly).

Anyway, as Bob says, let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Bob Denman]

One's man's expert; may be another man's nut-job... :banghead:
And that's how it works, no matter which side of the fence you're on. :dontknow:
Agree to disagree, and move on... nojoke

 

[Easy Rider]

Is that because of what he says does not fit your narrative?

Not at all. Objectivity is possible. Bias is expressed more openly than ever before and usually is easy to spot.

Statements like the one you made above are common ploys to try to discredit a perfectly open, honest and unbiased opinion.

It is called "projection". If you know you are biased, be the first one to accuse your opponent of that. Project your faults onto those who disagree with you. The first liar always has an advantage.

 

[wyliec]

Not at all. Objectivity is possible. Bias is expressed more openly than ever before and usually is easy to spot.

Statements like the one you made above are common ploys to try to discredit a perfectly open, honest and unbiased opinion.

It is called "projection". If you know you are biased, be the first one to accuse your opponent of that. Project your faults onto those who disagree with you. The first liar always has an advantage.

I find what you say interesting; but, can anyone be truly unbiased? My opinion would be no, making me biased, and if someone else's opinion is yes, they are biased. If you don't take sides on this one, then you are unbiased. I think Bob's post 91 is correct, and I hate to agree with him.

 

[Easy Rider]

I find what you say interesting; but, can anyone be truly unbiased?

Is it possible.......sure.
Is it likely......certainly not.

IF.....one tries to analyze each situation on it's own merits, regardless of who or what is involved, then you are truly TRYING to be unbiased.

Alas we all probably fail at some point, from the experiences you gain from past situations involving a person or from similar situations.

For example, a person who constantly does things that are stupid can properly be described as being stupid but that might not apply to everything that he does.

All "biases" are not unjustified.

 

[johnsimion]

No, it's because he doesn't seem to have any credentials to back up his analyses and conclusions. He just seems to be another conspiracy theory blogger.
The only reason I responded to your original post is because you were putting it forth as evidence to support the idea of net neutrality being just another government scam (if I understood it correctly).

Anyway, as Bob says, let's agree to disagree and move on.

I answer "No" for a different reason: I answer "No" because everything depends on your definition of what is a "conservative" or "liberal" website. Is Spyderlovers conservative or liberal? How about Hemmings? Where does Popular Mechanics fit in? How about Reddit? Reddit would be a good one to know since you can find both liberal and conservative threads all through it, so how do you rate that? Heck, Fox News hated Trump during the primary campaign. Did the survey count Fox as conservative or liberal? Is the Ku Klux Klan conservative? Is the Communist Party liberal? Neither one is according to my own definition; they're both too radical to tell. Moreover, your definition may not be -- probably is not -- the same as mine. The point is, unless the definitions are stated and examples are given, that survey is just meaningless propaganda.

Furthermore, even if the survey was 110% accurate and followed widely-accepted definitions, it still isn't censorship because Google is just one search engine AND Google doesn't prevent you from accessing the web sites this guy is complaining about. Don't like the results under Google? You have access to another browser (e.g., Bing). Use it or search further on Google. That is NOTHING like Cox Communications shutting off my access to, e.g., Fox News, because they don't like Fox News.

 

[gnorthern]

My girlfriend lives in a very rural area and has zero internet service providers; the net neutrality regulation that was enacted by bureaucratic fiat in 2015 (well after the rise of services like Netflix, Hulu, and Google btw) did nothing to provide her high speed internet. Her only internet access is via a Verizon Wireless hotspot and that's only barely high speed.

That is because we are mixing the concept of service providers and content providers. Verizon is a service provider. Content providers are everything you reference on the internet, such as Netflix, Google, a store's internet site, and Spyderlovers. Gross oversimplification, but net neutrality means content providers have to be treated equally by service providers.

While I have read suggestions that increasing the profit margins of service providers will increase service, which eliminating net neutrality can do, I don't believe it. I think it will only increase profits.

 

[gnorthern]

Before I begin, I want to point out there seems to be people are referring to service providers and content providers interchangeably. A service provider is where you get your internet. For me it is Comcast. Content providers are the web sites we reference. Google, Netflix, and SpyderLovers are examples of content providers. A bit of an oversimplification, but net neutrality means service providers must treat all content providers equally. Service providers cannot show preference to one site, or block sites.

Ok, now on to why I am totally confused by some statements.
1. "Competition is the only way to get the services that most people want." Agreed, but how will eliminating net neutrality increase competition between service providers? I have a choice of Comcast and CenturyLink, and without a technological breakthrough in radio wave technology that will not change.
2. I am totally baffled about comments about censorship. Under net neutrality only content providers can censor. That means as a consumer if you do not like how Google "censors" things, you can choose Bing, Yahoo, or even search engines from China (never tried Russia). Without net neutrality, your service provider, Comcast in my case, can block you from seeing certain sites. While I really doubt actually blocking sites will happen in the near future, I can see them making my life miserable if I try to access certain sites by slowing things down, such as sites that are critical of Comcast. If Time Warner and Comcast merge, Comcast can show preferential treatment to Time Warner, hurting companies like Netflix.

Random comment - Who really thinks increasing revenue to service providers by ending net neutrality will substantially improve service? My bet is that service providers will simply increase profits.

 

[gnorthern]

India's thoughts on net neutrality (you should care)

I first started using the internet in 1993 while provider computer support to a research lab. Later as a network administrator I help setup systems. I have always been impressed with how the US was the leader in the internet.

I decided to listen to a broadcast from India about ending neutrality. They kept pointing out all of the reasons why ending net neutrality was bad. I kept thinking "Nothing new, why am I listening to this?" The answer was the conclusion. India was in favor of the US ending net neutrality since it gave them the opportunity to be the leaders of the internet.

 

[Easy Rider]

I think it will only increase profits.

And the REAL potential problem here is.......when the service provider and the content provider are one in the same, or are closely "affiliated".

Regulators who are supposed to be preventing monoply-like business mergers have been sleeping on the job for a long time now.

 

[wyliec]

And the REAL potential problem here is.......when the service provider and the content provider are one in the same, or are closely "affiliated".

Regulators who are supposed to be preventing monoply-like business mergers have been sleeping on the job for a long time now.

Now that is interesting.