Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
Where does he plan to put those satellites, by the way? The man understands how to create a dream and how to accrue capital for a startup. Beyond that… simple physics seems to elude him. SpaceX as a concept has worked very well, simply because the tech was already there and it’s not doing anything unreasonable.
Anyway, LEO is unreasonable. 4000 new bullets there will block our access to space for decades. GEO is getting very crowded, but might be the best bet. He can’t put them at the halfway point (12 hour orbit) because the GPS satellites are there, and anything above GEO is so mechanically complex (handling the position calculations to give accurate data to the right people) that the system balloons in complexity. I dunno, man. Between cars with lithium ion batteries and pretending that a hundred mile long pneumatic tube is in any way safe (or feasible), I say he should stick exclusively with the plan of making space travel cheap enough for true space commerce to begin. Because the first nation (No, autocorrect; I’m not talking about the indioes. Don’t capitalize those words.) to conquer space will be the ONLY nation to do so, since they’ll have the ability to lock it off to everyone else and control planetside geopolitics. Though “SpaceX Mining” is an equally important (and parallel) path on which he should be flying.
Was there an actual problem that caused Net Neutraliy to be enacted or was it enacted because of fears of a potential problem?
It was expressly enacted as a means to censor the entire Internet and monitor and control any future speech spread thereon. It’s a statement of truth. It’s what the bill itself says. It had nothing at all to do with “net neutrality” as a concept. I’m probably the only one here who had the time to read the damn thing, of course; people have too much of import in their lives to flip through the multi-thousand page “laws” that get forced on us at gunpoint these days.
So how’s about the government actually start enforcing real freedom? How about they stop the collusion (both between ISPs and with local governments) and FORCE a free market to exist? The “net neutrality” bill did NOTHING about that. It being gone is a godsend to the tattered remnants of America. One fewer illegal law to get rid of in the future. That’s one of the few tasks the federal government is supposed to be doing–protecting the American people from all threats, foreign and domestic.
Not to mention when you create more rules, you then have to hire more useless tax draining buerocrats to enforce those rules.
In what world (country) do you live? Not in the US. Monthly caps range from 100 GB to 250 or so. That’s just “high enough that most people won’t notice” and “you’re unfairly hurting everyone else if you use more.”
Ending Net neutrality opens the door for censorship.
The “law” you’re whining about was nothing but censorship. It wasn’t “net neutrality.” And don’t get me fucking started on censorship on the Internet, with or without the topic.
Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech?
Ask Google. And the ISPs. And the domain name registrars. Et. al.
I know, let's call it 'Net Neutrality' that way they won't notice that we want to create a less neutral internet.
Standard commie tactic. “If the name has bad connotations, change it to words with good connotations. It doesn’t matter that the good words now have no real definition because we’ve poisoned them, because we’re building a new social order in the first place and killing anyone who resists.” War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
This whole internet censorship thing you're going on about is silly TS. I can find anything I want on the internet.So can you. Fac.
To you it's unfair you can't find anything you want on the internet anywhere and everywhere you want to see it? To me it's as common sense as "regulating" what is done in my home but not in yours. Google and Apple as private companies should have the freedom to host the content they want, and not host what they are uncomfortable with. For someone who continuously rants "FREEDOM!" why is that so difficult to wrap your head around? You don't see the disconnect between you thinking Apple and Google should be required by the government to allow any content on their platforms but government NN restrictions on service providers such as Comcast and Verizon should be done away with because FREEDOM! The freedom you permit in your home goes as far as you allow it to and you do have limits. So does Apple. So does Google.
For someone who continuously rants "FREEDOM!" why is that so difficult to wrap your head around?
I can understand why you’re confused, since you don’t know what freedom actually is, nor what the US Constitution says about the matter. Fun fact: anarchy isn’t freedom. Neither is autocracy (not the dictatorial kind, the other definition), for that matter.
You don't see the disconnect between you thinking Apple and Google should be required by the government to allow any content on their platforms but government NN restrictions on service providers such as Comcast and Verizon should be done away with because FREEDOM!
No, because there’s no disconnect. They’re entirely fucking different topics. I said nothing whatsoever about ISPs restricting access to ideological content. I have only ever spoken with regard to ISPs colluding regarding pricing, bandwidth, and infrastructure improvements. If you want to claim they’re the same, then we have to start talking about the government buying up all infrastructure and treating the PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE as a “utility”, letting any company access it. Or we have to start talking about the government having no ownership of any form of infrastructure BUT wherever government FUNDING is granted, said businesses are beholden to constitutional governmental restrictions. Our system of law allows for nothing else.
The freedom you permit in your home goes as far as you allow it to and you do have limits. So does Apple. So does Google.
Google isn’t a fucking “home.” Never has been.
Ah, so now we have defined how far TS thinks property rights go. In your view Apple should not have the right to decide what they'll host and what they won't and same for Google. Their property rights are trumped by what you want. That would obviously extend to my private company too, funded with my investments, creativity and time. What I do and who I serve can be trumped by what some other group with no investment wants, and some other group could be the neighbors or their "representatives".
Thanks, that helps me better understand where you're coming from.
This whole internet censorship thing you're going on about is silly TS.
You don't see the disconnect between you thinking Apple and Google should be required by the government to allow any content on their platforms but government NN restrictions on service providers such as Comcast and Verizon should be done away with because FREEDOM!
No, because there’s no disconnect. They’re entirely fucking different topics. I said nothing whatsoever about ISPs restricting access to ideological content. I have only ever spoken with regard to ISPs colluding regarding pricing, bandwidth, and infrastructure improvements.
You most certainly connected ISP's and censorship. Did you forget what you wrote just a few posts back, post#60?
When you were asked "Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech? you replied:
Ask Google. And the ISPs.
So no sir it does not appear at all that you see them as entirely different topics. Obviously. IMO you should reconsider how you've contrived your opinions about who has rights and freedoms and who does not, or should not.
IMO, and please note it as such, dumping NN at this point serves no purpose except for allowing a period for the rich to get richer at the expense of you and me and our neighbors who find internet access essential as a service. There is no chance of competition rising from it anytime in the near future anymore than keeping it in place will limit it IMHO. Less equal is going to be the result, the well-placed and wealthy gaining yet more power over the majority. Same as it ever was. Sounds great. Yay Freedom!
In your view Apple should not have the right to decide what they'll host and what they won't and same for Google.
Nope. Try again. Apple is not Google. Do you really think people aren’t going to notice your bullshit here? I said nothing about Apple. “Just go make your own website” is not an argument. Websites can be blocked by ISPs. Websites can also be prevented from using any system to pay for their hosting, simply because the host disagrees with their content. “Just go make your own ISP” is not an argument. Government protects existing ISPs (this is where law should refer, not to “net neutrality”) and prevents startups. “Just go make your own government” is not an argument.
Their property rights are trumped by what you want.
Try again with an actual argument. You didn’t read the court cases.
What I do and who I serve can be trumped by what some other group with no investment wants…
Ah, so you’re against the Civil Rights Act, then? Because it’s unconstitutional, you’re absolutely right about that, yet somehow I don’t think you’re actually against it. Watch as you now walk back your statements and denounce the US Constitution.
Thanks, that helps me better understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for inventing a strawman and REFUSING TO REPLY TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
So no sir it does not appear at all that you see them as entirely different topics.
Fuck’s sake, get a clue.
Obviously. IMO you should reconsider how you've contrived your opinions about who has rights and freedoms and who does not, or should not.
Nah, corporations aren’t people. They don’t have the rights of people. An ISP–particularly one which receives government funding in any amount–does not have the right to censor or throttle any speech. A website–particularly one which receives government funding in any amount–does not have the right to censor or throttle any speech. A fully independent organization, however? Depends entirely on its situation.
...dumping NN at this point serves no purpose except for allowing a period for the rich to get richer at the expense of you and me and our neighbors who find internet access essential as a service.
How do you derive that from anything the bill did? The ISPs are doing after it exactly what they did before and during it. It did nothing, at all, to fix your complaint. Why, then, are you shilling for the bill?
There is no chance of competition rising from it…
Rising from the existence of the bill, or from the removal thereof? If the former: no shit–so why have the bill in the first place since it doesn’t solve any of the actual problems and only serves to illegally expand government control? If the latter: no shit–so let’s ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEMS NOW, but there’s no excuse for unconstitutional government control; the bill being gone is good.
than keeping it in place will limit it
Read the bill. That’s literally exactly what the bill was designed to do.
Yay Freedom!
So stop supporting oligarchical socialism and keynesian economics? Not sure what you want said here. Either government-funded entities are restricted in the same way the government is supposed to be or this is what you get. Why don’t you comprehend that?
In your view Apple should not have the right to decide what they'll host and what they won't and same for Google.
Nope. Try again. Apple is not Google.
Is a selective tax break to be considered "government funding"? Is a contract to supply services and/or product to be considered government funding? Just want to establish the ground rules before replying further.
Is a selective tax break to be considered "government funding"?
Is “not receiving funding” considered “funding”? Hmm... Why not read the definition of the words you’re using before you use them? It would save time and a lot of nonsensical, unnecessary questions like this.
Is a selective tax break to be considered "government funding"?
Is “not receiving funding” considered “funding”? Hmm... Why not read the definition of the words you’re using before you use them? It would save time and a lot of nonsensical, unnecessary questions like this.
Wonderful non-answer TS.
Seems obvious to me that if my state offers tax incentives to do business here that the state is funding that company's operation at least in some small part. The state, "me", is accepting the responsibility for covering the shortfall that should have been paid under normal circumstances. You disagree? If you have any intent on having an honest intelligent discussion you could start with the first part: Be honest. It makes it very hard when you dodge and weave.
Literally answered it in the first sentence. Come the fuck on.
if my state offers tax incentives
Here’s where I’ll restate that I am against all government subsidies in all industries, bar none. It’s still not “funding.” Words have definitions.
The state, "me", is accepting the responsibility
Here’s where you vote new people in who won’t do that, if you don’t want to accept the responsibility, for example.
You're trying to play a word game to support an agenda TS. Yes words do mean something. You do know the definition of a tax subsidy? It's the thing we're talking about, ex. specially crafted tax forgiveness to support a corporations expansion. Yet you claim not to support ANY state-granted subsidies but wish to exclude tax-based ones? That doesn't sound at all honest on your part.
Yet you claim not to support ANY state-granted subsidies but wish to exclude tax-based ones?
I’m not excluding anything. You’re inventing your entire argument out of thin air based on either willful ignorance or malice. I support no subsidies. That’s what I said. Stop lying about what I said. Do you know what ‘no’ means? Funding is not a subsidy. Words have definitions. I want all companies receiving government funding to be held to the same restrictions as the government. That’s what I said. Stop trying to worm around this–the topic of the discussion. Go read the implications of the two court cases I linked. They show what must change regarding the state of the Internet today so that we can fix it in the future. Read this, too. It directly relates to what must change about the Internet. Many Internet companies (both on the infrastructure side and the web service side) are abusing the law and the Constitution. This must change, regardless of one’s feelings.
Yet you claim not to support ANY state-granted subsidies but wish to exclude tax-based ones?
I’m not excluding anything. You’re inventing your entire argument out of thin air based on either willful Iignorance or malice. I support no subsidies. That’s what I said. Stop lying about what I said. Do you know what ‘no’ means? Funding is not a subsidy. Words have definitions. I want all companies receiving government funding to be held to the same restrictions as the government.
Comments
Anyway, LEO is unreasonable. 4000 new bullets there will block our access to space for decades. GEO is getting very crowded, but might be the best bet. He can’t put them at the halfway point (12 hour orbit) because the GPS satellites are there, and anything above GEO is so mechanically complex (handling the position calculations to give accurate data to the right people) that the system balloons in complexity. I dunno, man. Between cars with lithium ion batteries and pretending that a hundred mile long pneumatic tube is in any way safe (or feasible), I say he should stick exclusively with the plan of making space travel cheap enough for true space commerce to begin. Because the first nation (No, autocorrect; I’m not talking about the indioes. Don’t capitalize those words.) to conquer space will be the ONLY nation to do so, since they’ll have the ability to lock it off to everyone else and control planetside geopolitics. Though “SpaceX Mining” is an equally important (and parallel) path on which he should be flying.
Aw, crap. I thought I had another quote handy about subsidies… Something meaningful. Anyway, they shouldn’t exist in any field.
To you it's unfair you can't find anything you want on the internet anywhere and everywhere you want to see it? To me it's as common sense as "regulating" what is done in my home but not in yours. Google and Apple as private companies should have the freedom to host the content they want, and not host what they are uncomfortable with. For someone who continuously rants "FREEDOM!" why is that so difficult to wrap your head around? You don't see the disconnect between you thinking Apple and Google should be required by the government to allow any content on their platforms but government NN restrictions on service providers such as Comcast and Verizon should be done away with because FREEDOM! The freedom you permit in your home goes as far as you allow it to and you do have limits. So does Apple. So does Google.
Anecdotes aren’t arguments. “Want” isn’t relevant.
Nope. Not what’s being said.
You’ll want to look up both Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Marsh v. Alabama.
I can understand why you’re confused, since you don’t know what freedom actually is, nor what the US Constitution says about the matter. Fun fact: anarchy isn’t freedom. Neither is autocracy (not the dictatorial kind, the other definition), for that matter.
No, because there’s no disconnect. They’re entirely fucking different topics. I said nothing whatsoever about ISPs restricting access to ideological content. I have only ever spoken with regard to ISPs colluding regarding pricing, bandwidth, and infrastructure improvements. If you want to claim they’re the same, then we have to start talking about the government buying up all infrastructure and treating the PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE as a “utility”, letting any company access it. Or we have to start talking about the government having no ownership of any form of infrastructure BUT wherever government FUNDING is granted, said businesses are beholden to constitutional governmental restrictions. Our system of law allows for nothing else.
Google isn’t a fucking “home.” Never has been.
Thanks, that helps me better understand where you're coming from.
When you were asked "Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech? you replied: Ask Google. And the ISPs.
So no sir it does not appear at all that you see them as entirely different topics. Obviously. IMO you should reconsider how you've contrived your opinions about who has rights and freedoms and who does not, or should not.
IMO, and please note it as such, dumping NN at this point serves no purpose except for allowing a period for the rich to get richer at the expense of you and me and our neighbors who find internet access essential as a service. There is no chance of competition rising from it anytime in the near future anymore than keeping it in place will limit it IMHO. Less equal is going to be the result, the well-placed and wealthy gaining yet more power over the majority. Same as it ever was. Sounds great. Yay Freedom!
Try again with an actual argument. You didn’t read the court cases.
Ah, so you’re against the Civil Rights Act, then? Because it’s unconstitutional, you’re absolutely right about that, yet somehow I don’t think you’re actually against it. Watch as you now walk back your statements and denounce the US Constitution.
Thanks for inventing a strawman and REFUSING TO REPLY TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
Fuck’s sake, get a clue.
Nah, corporations aren’t people. They don’t have the rights of people. An ISP–particularly one which receives government funding in any amount–does not have the right to censor or throttle any speech. A website–particularly one which receives government funding in any amount–does not have the right to censor or throttle any speech. A fully independent organization, however? Depends entirely on its situation. How do you derive that from anything the bill did? The ISPs are doing after it exactly what they did before and during it. It did nothing, at all, to fix your complaint. Why, then, are you shilling for the bill?
Rising from the existence of the bill, or from the removal thereof? If the former: no shit–so why have the bill in the first place since it doesn’t solve any of the actual problems and only serves to illegally expand government control? If the latter: no shit–so let’s ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEMS NOW, but there’s no excuse for unconstitutional government control; the bill being gone is good.
Read the bill. That’s literally exactly what the bill was designed to do.
So stop supporting oligarchical socialism and keynesian economics? Not sure what you want said here. Either government-funded entities are restricted in the same way the government is supposed to be or this is what you get. Why don’t you comprehend that?
Seems obvious to me that if my state offers tax incentives to do business here that the state is funding that company's operation at least in some small part. The state, "me", is accepting the responsibility for covering the shortfall that should have been paid under normal circumstances. You disagree?
If you have any intent on having an honest intelligent discussion you could start with the first part: Be honest. It makes it very hard when you dodge and weave.
Here’s where I’ll restate that I am against all government subsidies in all industries, bar none. It’s still not “funding.” Words have definitions.
Here’s where you vote new people in who won’t do that, if you don’t want to accept the responsibility, for example.