Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
NET NEUTRALITY FCC VOTE
Posts
pianotm
View playlists
CloseI just received this e-mail.
What we've been doing is actually working!
Also, in my state, Claire McCaskill has reversed her stance and now supports Net Neutrality.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Hi again, breaking update: the first Republican member of Congress just officially called on the FCC to cancel its vote to kill net neutrality planned for tomorrow. That’s a huge deal. And it comes amid massive protests and more than 1 million phone calls to Congress.
What we've been doing is actually working!
Also, in my state, Claire McCaskill has reversed her stance and now supports Net Neutrality.
Dyhalto
7536
author=pianotm
What we've been doing is actually working!
Yeah, constitutional democracy does work, and it works extremely well. People just don't exercise it enough.
Can we not talk shit about America? It's not soley our fault. So, in the interest of not making the argument that it's ALL our fault somehow why not say certain names or organization.
Because it pisses me off when people talk shit about the entirety of my country like we are all to blame.
Thank you.
Because it pisses me off when people talk shit about the entirety of my country like we are all to blame.
Thank you.
author=Dyhaltoauthor=pianotmYeah, constitutional democracy does work, and it works extremely well. People just don't exercise it enough.
What we've been doing is actually working!
Yay, democracy! :D
author=InfectionFilesauthor=PancaekYeah, all the loudmouth shit talkers need to sleep it off.
You guys need to take a nap
Most of this topic is made up of quotes from articles about the FCC vote and net neutrality. The vote is spearheaded by Ajit, who was appointed by Trump, who was elected by the USA citizens iirc.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Gourd_Claeauthor=DyhaltoYay, democracy! :Dauthor=pianotmYeah, constitutional democracy does work, and it works extremely well. People just don't exercise it enough.
What we've been doing is actually working!
Never underestimate the power of whining. That's how societies are built.
Pancaek
1307
author=InfectionFilesauthor=PancaekYeah, all the loudmouth shit talkers need to sleep it off.
You guys need to take a nap
u2
Surprising nobody the FCC just voted to end net neutrality. New York's attorney general will be suing the FCC in response. Statement on twitter here. Hopefully this and any other lawsuits can keep NN alive until 2021 when the FCC leadership changes (assuming Republicans lose the presidential election).
author=Pancaekis a shitty bandauthor=InfectionFilesu2author=PancaekYeah, all the loudmouth shit talkers need to sleep it off.
You guys need to take a nap
TheNecromancer
3160
Holy shit. Trump made an RMN account and is trying to derail this topic.
I find it hard to get interested in stuff like this anymore. It seems like every day, some new terribly bad thing is going on somewhere in the world, but doesn't end up affecting me in my quaint little corner of the country. I'm kinda over the internet anyways. It's not that great xD
I find it hard to get interested in stuff like this anymore. It seems like every day, some new terribly bad thing is going on somewhere in the world, but doesn't end up affecting me in my quaint little corner of the country. I'm kinda over the internet anyways. It's not that great xD
Blind
2262
author=GreatRedSpiritRIP our last portal to information freedom ;__;
Surprising nobody the FCC just voted to end net neutrality. New York's attorney general will be suing the FCC in response. Statement on twitter here. Hopefully this and any other lawsuits can keep NN alive until 2021 when the FCC leadership changes (assuming Republicans lose the presidential election).
Can someone with a better understanding of the technical aspects lay this out for me/us? How would this effect a site like RMN (or smaller web entities in general?) How can they arbitrarily "group" websites together when there are literally millions upon millions of them? Will it be the connection speed that's effected, or the person's actual access to the URL's?
None of this is remotely transparent.
TheNecromancer
3160
I would think it's, in part, something like - a list of websites pay for faster access, and most everything else gets slower? Because it needs to be slow for the paid sites to appear faster? I dunno.
Based on the example Kentona provided, yep, an ISP can block sites for it's own subscribers. Maybe if Bell has shares in Nintendo and they see this site as infringing on copyright and hurting profits(pfft), they could decide to block access. That would suck.
Then we have to self censor or get blocked, and naturally it leads to the whole world being inhabited by Muslims.
Based on the example Kentona provided, yep, an ISP can block sites for it's own subscribers. Maybe if Bell has shares in Nintendo and they see this site as infringing on copyright and hurting profits(pfft), they could decide to block access. That would suck.
Then we have to self censor or get blocked, and naturally it leads to the whole world being inhabited by Muslims.
author=Link_2112Even if that was at me(because I'm not derailing and just asking for some common decency towards a country of people who have nothing to do with the situation. Because like, let's not label an entire people, right?) I agree with your latter statement. The internet isn't what it used to be and I think a lot of us wouldn't see a difference.
Holy shit. Trump made an RMN account and is trying to derail this topic.
I find it hard to get interested in stuff like this anymore. It seems like every day, some new terribly bad thing is going on somewhere in the world, but doesn't end up affecting me in my quaint little corner of the country. I'm kinda over the internet anyways. It's not that great xD
TheNecromancer
3160
author=InfectionFilesThe Trump derailing comment? I didn't direct anything at you, it was someone on page 1.
Even if that was at me
"Some of the most powerful corporations American has ever produced are now in charge of deciding what information you should have access to and which services will benefit most from their infrastructure. And all we have now is a government official who used to work for one of those companies promising us that nothing bad will ever happen."
Anywho, download all of the games on RMN while you still can.
Anywho, download all of the games on RMN while you still can.
author=Link_2112Okay, cool man. I didn't really feel it towards me. Must have just been timing.author=InfectionFilesThe Trump derailing comment? I didn't direct anything at you, it was someone on page 1.
Even if that was at me
Hain was trump though.
Sorry about that, Link.
Blind
2262
Wow, yeah.
Just extremely ironic to me that we're living in the age of "free market" rhetoric, yet this decision will provoke the very antithesis. Sure, perhaps Ebay and Amazon will be lumped together, but the countless small sites and companies that rely on internet commerce will be swept aside by default. I simply don't see any reasonable way to distribute various commerce websites, unless the connection speeds for them is neutralized. The ISPs will be the only ones who benefit here, the majority of internet users will suffer.
Can this decision be legally challenged or delayed via the court system?
Just extremely ironic to me that we're living in the age of "free market" rhetoric, yet this decision will provoke the very antithesis. Sure, perhaps Ebay and Amazon will be lumped together, but the countless small sites and companies that rely on internet commerce will be swept aside by default. I simply don't see any reasonable way to distribute various commerce websites, unless the connection speeds for them is neutralized. The ISPs will be the only ones who benefit here, the majority of internet users will suffer.
Can this decision be legally challenged or delayed via the court system?
The basic idea is packet shaping and throttling, ISPs and other Internet backbone providers can analyze packets in transit and decide how to handle it. A packet bound for facebook from a customer that's isn't paying for the Facebook Package or w/e will find that packet throttled and slowed down while another customer who is paying for it gets it at full speed. Or dropped entirely if the transport provider doesn't like it as kentona described Telus earlier. Anything that won't be put into the fast lane would be thrown into the slow lane at best. RMN and a million other sites fall into this category. This includes programs too, you can analyze packets and if they're stuff like bittorrent packets ISPs can drop those altogether as well, or online games if the game provider doesn't pay up.
Now this can extend to new services too. There's been times where telecoms who are both ISPs and selling streaming TV/movies try to sweeten the deal of using their services over competitors like Netflix, usually by offering that using the ISP's stream service doesn't count against a customer's bandwidth limit while Netflix would. This was rejected in Canada but without net neutrality would be fine to do, or even just disallow communication with the new service entirely. Netflix has enough money and influence to avoid the heel of Telecoms but what about the next Netflix? It's a goal to strangle these things before they can grow.
This extends to something offered as a service too. An ISP might not have a bone between a customer and a service provider but a non-ISP might and now the ISP has something to gain by offering a competitor of the service to pay to throttle customer speed's to the service.
This is just shooting from the hip, I'm sure Ajit and his bosses got much better ideas and if/how to implement them.
e:
That's the current plan. As I posted earlier New York plans to sue the FCC (and I'm sure many others are too) and if they can successfully get an injunction from the courts on the ruling to put the FCC ruling that ends net neutrality on hold until the court case concludes. And the endless appeals process that might end up in SCOTUS with another Trump appointee sitting on it, and really with its makeup I don't see a SCOTUS ruling ending well for NN advocates. It'd have to stay mired in until 2021, even with a wave there's no change of getting enough non-Republicans in the senate to override a Trump veto of any legislation (getting 51 Dems is already going to be tough in 2018 and you need 67 to override a presidential veto. That's a lot of Republican wolf criers to turn at best) so you'd have to hold out for a new president to change the makeup of the FCC board.
Now this can extend to new services too. There's been times where telecoms who are both ISPs and selling streaming TV/movies try to sweeten the deal of using their services over competitors like Netflix, usually by offering that using the ISP's stream service doesn't count against a customer's bandwidth limit while Netflix would. This was rejected in Canada but without net neutrality would be fine to do, or even just disallow communication with the new service entirely. Netflix has enough money and influence to avoid the heel of Telecoms but what about the next Netflix? It's a goal to strangle these things before they can grow.
This extends to something offered as a service too. An ISP might not have a bone between a customer and a service provider but a non-ISP might and now the ISP has something to gain by offering a competitor of the service to pay to throttle customer speed's to the service.
This is just shooting from the hip, I'm sure Ajit and his bosses got much better ideas and if/how to implement them.
e:
author=Blind
Can this decision be legally challenged or delayed via the court system?
That's the current plan. As I posted earlier New York plans to sue the FCC (and I'm sure many others are too) and if they can successfully get an injunction from the courts on the ruling to put the FCC ruling that ends net neutrality on hold until the court case concludes. And the endless appeals process that might end up in SCOTUS with another Trump appointee sitting on it, and really with its makeup I don't see a SCOTUS ruling ending well for NN advocates. It'd have to stay mired in until 2021, even with a wave there's no change of getting enough non-Republicans in the senate to override a Trump veto of any legislation (getting 51 Dems is already going to be tough in 2018 and you need 67 to override a presidential veto. That's a lot of Republican wolf criers to turn at best) so you'd have to hold out for a new president to change the makeup of the FCC board.
