news Internet Freedom Under Attack Says GoDaddy

[Silentptnr]

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]

Net Neutrality is the current norm now. What I am against is a change in the status quo not a new regulation. There has been a lot written about net neutrality already a google search will bring up some good summaries but in a nutshell it is the idea of keeping the internet a level playing field for an average person or small company and a big company. The new regulations would allow for an ISP to charge more for people to get preferential treatment. For instance if I were starting a new Netflix or Youtube my video would be throttled in its delivery to you if I didn't pay more to deliver it meaning Internet Giants such as Youtube and Netflix could afford to pay more and their videos would load fast and my new idea for a great service would load slow and potentially gain less traction. There is more to it than that, but my personal belief is this is going to hurt innovation, small business, and entrepreneurs and enable bigger businesses to have an advantage. One of the great things about the Internet in my opinion is that is gives everyone an equal opportunity for success and for their product, service, voice, to be seen and heard. I have voiced my opinion officially to the govt on several occasions including today. This is US only policy and if you would like to make your voice heard you can express a comment using the following link https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))
(stepping down from soapbox)

I do highly appreciate your thoughtful response.

I believe your intents are good and as you said it is the new norm, but sometimes things go through that never should have.

Your argument is valid to an extent on the throttling issue - but it comes down to someone does have to pay the cost for the network infrastructure to support all this new streaming data. It is going to be passed on to the end user one way or another. Either from your video providers in their fee since they would have to pay the ISP - or by your ISP to average out the bandwidth use across their customer base.

I feel this should be a company choice and not a government choice - therefore net neutrality never should have been introduced. If it wasn't there would have been slight "turbulence" while companies figured out how to shift the costs - but that is how businesses work in America. It would balance out quickly to shift cost and keep customers on all fronts. New innovations could have been developed because of this problem such as better video compression or alternate methods of internet delivery. (even for rural areas - see what some companies are doing out there)

If the true goal of Net Neutrality is to stop ISPs from throttling connections I do not see how accepting the new norm as a good thing - when you could pass laws specifically to do that without "seizing control" of the internet. Some times you have to take a step back before you can walk forward on the correct path.

None-the-less - My point is this is a political subject and I feel many other people in the internet industry that were as offended by Net Neutrality as me in the first place are going to find offense in Internet Companies jumping to support it. I find such offense by it since I basically spent my entire life on and developing for it.

But as I said before the method you use to show your support is also important - and I appreciate that yours is not as intrusive and misleading as others.

 

[Joe Styler]

I do highly appreciate your thoughtful response.

I believe your intents are good and as you said it is the new norm, but sometimes things go through that never should have.

Your argument is valid to an extent on the throttling issue - but it comes down to someone does have to pay the cost for the network infrastructure to support all this new streaming data. It is going to be passed on to the end user one way or another. Either from your video providers in their fee since they would have to pay the ISP - or by your ISP to average out the bandwidth use across their customer base.

I feel this should be a company choice and not a government choice - therefore net neutrality never should have been introduced. If it wasn't there would have been slight "turbulence" while companies figured out how to shift the costs - but that is how businesses work in America. It would balance out quickly to shift cost and keep customers on all fronts. New innovations could have been developed because of this problem such as better video compression or alternate methods of internet delivery. (even for rural areas - see what some companies are doing out there)

If the true goal of Net Neutrality is to stop ISPs from throttling connections I do not see how accepting the new norm as a good thing - when you could pass laws specifically to do that without "seizing control" of the internet. Some times you have to take a step back before you can walk forward on the correct path.

None-the-less - My point is this is a political subject and I feel many other people in the internet industry that were as offended by Net Neutrality as me in the first place are going to find offense in Internet Companies jumping to support it. I find such offense by it since I basically spent my entire life on and developing for it.

But as I said before the method you use to show your support is also important - and I appreciate that yours is not as intrusive and misleading as others.

At least it has us discussing the issue thanks for your comments and well thought out response.

 

[namezest]

That pop up is coming up all over especially on web related subject sites. First one today I thought hmm okay then the others (namecheap) I thought no way I've been hijacked, I just made a clean new system and I have the security suite not blowing errors or warnings so I guess this is going to happen more and more.

 

[Michael M]

@Joe Styler - Personally I would like to see less politics out of the companies I do business with. We are so inundated by it on a daily basis a lot of people are fatigued and tired of it. It is injected into every part of our lives and it is VERY divisive these days. You can split your customer base in half with a bad political statement as some companies have shown recently. This can happen in either direction.

I imagine as a hosting provider you are taking this stance as a show of support to your web hosting clients, but do realize you are taking a political side of an argument which causes unneeded possible friction from a marketing perspective.

I just wanted to share that thought with you. Thank you for your time.

 

[Wannabean]

The problem with absolute freedom is the bad guys use it to make life difficult for everybody. The problem with a police state is if the bad guys happen to gain power, which happens from time to time, life again becomes difficult for everybody.

The preference is therefore an eternal and equally matched struggle between the two extremes, which results in neither overpowering the other and the prevalence of a state of middledom.

 

[Rinkuji]

Hope This Article Help ..

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

 

[xn--v4h.com]

@Michael M, your ignorance is spreading misinformation. Learn what you're writing about or stay out of it.

The fact that you think you understand this better than one of the largest tech companies in the world (GoDaddy) is preposterous. You don't have a clue what you are writing about, and I'll tell you why.

Your primary argument is that if an internet service provider (ISP) does something deplorable, then consumers will unite together and abandon ship! While this may sound plausible in your fantasy world, it lacks reality. The greater part of America does not get to choose their ISP.

In rural areas, there is seldom more than a single choice: satellite. Consumers rarely have the luxury of abundance and choice, and when they do, their financial means tend to restrain them to a single provider.

In cities, most consumers are beholden to property owners who make those decisions, generally based wholly on profits without regard for the consumer. I have rented places all over (as do ~31.8% of Americans in 2017) and experienced this firsthand. Want to change your ISP? Too bad; it's not an option. Want to move somewhere else? That's too expensive and impractical for the majority of Americans.

The remaining few who would take the time and money, and have the capability, to switch providers would not be enough to offset the profits those companies were making from controlling the internet in their favor.

To make it more impossible, every major ISP would be doing it. If not right away, then absolutely as soon as they were attacked by one of their competitors. The only uncorrupted choices left would be smaller ISPs, which aren't available everywhere.

Yes, net neutrality protects the less fortunate more than it does the wealthy, which you seem to represent. Stop misrepresenting the issue or take a hike. Minds far greater than yours have already weighed the pros and cons, and your attempts to undermine and insult their intelligence is deplorable.

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Economists like Gary Becker are against net neutrality and the arguments are convincing, namely do you want the gov to control it instead? Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Who's going to pay for new infrastructure? Would there be more options if consumers WANT to pay more for more speed or are they stuck with everyone?

 

[Addison]

@Michael M, I did not discuss politics. You're the only one in this thread yapping about politics, yet you say you don't want to discuss them. Then put your fingers away. You're arguing with yourself.

I've explained it as simply as possible for you. If you don't get it, then post another comment about politics, and then go write about a topic that you understand.

(Yes, I'd enjoy a sensible debate, but you're too lost on this subject for that to happen. I'll pass.)

 

[Michael M]

@Addison - And above with a nice conversation with the representative from GD I explained why it should have never been implemented in the first place and how the market would have fixed itself as it always does.

I avoided conversation with you because I can tell you are only interested in the talking points I heard years ago in favor of it. As far as the case against it - I present the decades of internet success and innovation without it. We could only talk in another decade or two to possibly prove who was right. Either way that means it's political and doesn't belong on a company's public position. But each company has a right to choose their policies and each customer has a right to use their wallet to show the companies what they think of them. At least for now - unless you are talking about an ISP - which now have to listen to the government on how to manage their networks and charges. But that is not the most problematic thing - which is the amount of control Net Neutrally will ultimately succeed to the government on the basis of a single case of abuse that could have been litigated.

But I don't think me and you could ever get anywhere in an intelligent conversation. No offense. Maybe I am assuming wrong but even through message boards I've gotten decent at detecting tone and intent.

For the record my intent was neutral as far as i didn't want it to go political. I just wanted the misleading popups to be on record for what they are. One side of a two sided argument that is not settled as you and the popups claim. They are misleading and slanted BIG time. If we must listen to everything the government does as the right thing then if they decided to revoke their claim on the internet you should honor it. They are all knowing. Or is it only one political side that can be right? (yours?)

I think both sides are wrong right now and you are a product of them. But I am probably getting too personal and I apologize, but I don't appreciate being called ignorant because I view things differently than you.

 

[Michael M]

free mar·ket
ˈˌfrē ˈmärkət/
noun

1. an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

^ The internet was the last standing pure example and engine of this for the most part.

 

[Michael M]

This as well:

free·dom of speech
noun

1. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Look into true intents behind Net Neutrality and look into the Fairness Doctrine for further understanding of the goals of the political parties.

I don't know if you care about either, but to me - the Internet was the last stand for them in their original intent. Net Neutrality - in the end - can effect both of these rights of US citizens.

Maybe that seems worse case scenario or not likely to you, but it seems like the goal of the movement right now to me. And it does grant them the power. (once things progress a little further as they will)

 

[Addison]

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.

 

[Michael M]

Please read the article from the Forbes website I included below to see someone who has a similar view as me. I am not alone – but may under-represented here.

I wanted to share an article I had saved in the past because I found it important to my Industry's livelihood and future. It is amazing how close this is to how I feel today - as I stand in this forum alone.

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshst...y-techie-against-net-neutrality/#ef0ba5270d51

Truth is most are not informed on the matter and a lot of others are mislead. Then you have the political element on both sides pushing for or against the issue rather they know what it is or not. Not sure which you are. To worry about me having a different opinion than you on a matter so much - it shows me you are invested deeply into some ideologies or something.

My interest in the subject has been explained and have encouraged others to disagree with me if they like. I encourage them to learn about the subject and make their own decisions without just reading the Title. That is like judging a book by it's cover.

I encourage everyone being educated on a petition they sign or something they choose to defend. It tends help people make better decisions. What do you encourage? Blind following and one point of view?

Good day, sir.

 

[Michael M]

Actually. Retracted.

That post might possibly violate a rule by quoting what I was going to across threads.

Also it kind of looses some of it's point without the whole thread.

This topic was discussed with NPs staff here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/battle-for-the-net-july-12-petition-popup.1029678/

Please read through if you are interested in my point of view and Paul's point of view. Then decide for yourself. (Further research would be recommended)

 

[Addison]

Please read the article from the Forbes website I included below to see someone who has a similar view as me.

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?

 

[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.