AmIFirstToThink

What if every carrier of traffic that your traffic rides on has different prioritization agreements?

If someone from Malaysia accesses your site, you would have to have agreement in place for the entire route. Or think other way, anyone can start extorting money from site owners at any point in time.

It's bad for you as a end customer.

It's like the toll booth on the road charges you extra if you are going to the bank to do a withdrawal.

The powers that are enforcing ISP monopolies, and are against municipal broadband, are part of the problem.

DNS can be, and was, taken away without any due legal process. That was my wake up call. Google cloud is registering domains and has that control over it.

When it comes to dire situations, if my ISP does funny business, I can choose another ISP e.g. a mobile connection.

No different than taking another road to go to the bank. My account and money in there is still safe.

If the bank take away my account without due legal process, does it matter if the roads to get to the bank were traffic/pothole/toll free?

For a YouTube content creator, who spent years building brand and audience, one fine day to wake up and have videos demonetized and/or account suspended is like bank terminating your account without giving you a dime from your account. With bank, you can get government/FDIC engaged, with YouTube, they are the Gods of that universe.

>And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook,

Paying account holders of g-suite apps from google, faced account termination with no cause, no access to videos/files/emails. This is digital violence and much bigger threat that has materialized, and is far greater than NN.

If terms of service are enough to allow Google doing what it does, why can't Comcast do the same with their terms of service?

I didn't know it was that easy to do. Don't tell Comcast, please. They would be delighted to hear that terms of service is all it took to convince you to override NN.

You are renting their cable and ability to send traffic over their infrastructure, aren't you? How is cable infrastructure renting different than DNS/Video-site/email renting?

Glad you agree that Comcast has that right, just like Google.

NN doesn't matter if Google can pay God with paying customers, who pay each month for gsuite products, got their account cancelled because Google didn't like what they posted. I would take slow lane over that every day.

Capitalism when I like it, socialism when I don't. That is hypocritical.

The problem is not hosting, the problem is not slow speed, the problem is your audience being pulled from you without any legal due process. From listener's perspective, you are denied audience of the person you want to hear, because YouTube decided they didn't like what is being said and heard.

I find that more suffocating than an ISP slowing down my packets.

Google services were taken away, including youtube, gmail, google docs from paying accounts that Google didn't like. That's like Mead coming into your house and taking away the paper notebook they sold to you a week ago, because they don't like what you write in it.

Instead of Comcast, I can use Verizon 4G.

Comcast, Verizon, may slow me down but YouTube just simply bans people for saying things that they don't like.

Deal?

For me, Free Speech is the forest, NN is a group of trees in a corner.

I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech.

In Canada and USA, the situation is reversed on free speech. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/canadas-hypocr...

I hear you. :)

Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes

Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes

Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes

Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation.

Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger? You bet.

Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast?

>I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.

Right. Those pesky packet senders themselves must be the problem because of which Comcast wants to send them to the slow lane.

>Take action

I am, by speaking up here.

I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack.

>their evil-ness is irrelevant

It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary?

My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate advocates of NN have done when it was their turn to play fair.

I am more concerned about power exercised over speech, than power over making packets go fast or slow.

>and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.

Competition would allow NN to exist, not other way around. Monopoly of ISPs is the root of NN being challenged.

I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

We hold government with highest demands for equality, we hold private individuals and fully owned businesses with most freedom to discriminate. We hold public corporations somewhere in between.

>Google's house

Sure. Nobody cared when things were being said about Egypt's Mubarak. But say something that some Google executives don't like, you are out of there.

Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation?

If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad?

We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so.

What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

The person said that she/he was a Diplomat who negotiated this law.

>negotiating laws and charging corporations are very different things.

I agree. UN is toothless in enforcing anything, it is just grandstanding anyway. That was the point of my question, when do they propose on doing something about the corporations who invalidate the rights to speech. To show just that.

There are private entities, public corporations and government.

We hold government to highest standard of equality, we give private entities most freedom to discriminate. Public corporation with share holders are held somewhere in between.

Your friend can kick a person spouting white separatist views out of his room. Good call, in my opinion, by your friend.

Should Mead, makers of paper notebooks, have a right to see what someone has writing in a notebook and take away the notebook if they don't like what's being written?

The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple?

A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights?

A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore?

>Private entities can do what they want.

Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation?

If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad?

We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so.

What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

By not letting monopolistic ISPs stop municipal networks.

Nationalizing everything is not going to work. Most water, electric boards are not national/state government responsibilities. Venezuela model does not work, can't work for USA for sure.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-...

That's what effective method rational has resulted into. I would rather have them go by the book, than what they imagine to be effective.

Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality.

I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.

Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak.

Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech.

Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterprise after enjoying three/four years of community engagement? The social media platforms are pulling the same bait and switch on the people, allowed content for years giving people sense that these were truly open platforms, and then stepping in to push their agenda.

The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter?

If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says?

Net Neutrality has been a non-issue at best, or hypocritical at worse, for the content providers, in light of blatant censorship and political agenda carried out.