Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
OT.: net neutrality
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Topic 4: Net Neutrality
Screen 7: Concept of Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality, or Network Neutrality, is simply the concept of allowing unrestricted access to the internet. Net neutrality is a contentious policy issue. Proponents of net neutrality claim that the FCC must impose net neutrality to prevent carriers from tiering their internet services. Tiering of services would require different pay levels for amounts of access to network resources. For example, ISP’s have several times attempted to slow the amount of bandwidth used by their subscribers – throttling bandwidth for peer-to-peer network usage. And some cell phone providers restrict neutrality by charging higher rates for users who download over a certain threshold of MB’s per month and the like. Service providers have also tried to attempt throttling VOIP communications by slowing their communications and preventing the service from offering QOS (Quality of Service) which in effect makes the level of call quality too low, causing calls to break up or sound fuzzy due to packet transmissions being slowed.
Screen 8: FCC’s Role in Net Neutrality
In 2005 the FCC released a policy statement on Net Neutrality containing 4 principles of net neutrality. The FCC stated:
"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:
● access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
● run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
● connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
● competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.”
Screen 9: Pros & Cons of Network Neutrality
To date, the FCC has largely supported Net Neutrality. There are, however, opponents of Net Neutrality – including telecommunications providers. They make several arguments why Net Neutrality is harmful. Earlier we learned that as adopters of a platform technology cascade, they enable the telecom provider to pay for the infrastructure costs of expanding their network, which in turn allows more interconnectedness between users which is a value-add for them and the provider. Telecommunications companies make this same argument for against net neutrality. They argue that allowing for tiered service – where users could pay for increased bandwidth access or QOS guarantees would not be harmful and would allow the funds received for these service upgrades to pay for increasing infrastructure and providing more users with service. However, tiered services, from a technical standpoint, are contentious because once a bandwidth infrastructure is in place – there is no cost increase, or very minimal increase in passing traffic. In other words, even if bandwidth consumption increases – so long as the infrastructure exists, it’s not costing the provider to pass more traffic. There are many issues with tiering. For example, tiered users would likely have their traffic considered preferred or prioritized. Prioritization of traffic would likely have adverse effects on non-paying users. Also, if content was controlled in this fashion, the content providers would have the ability to slow traffic to companies who compete with them. For example, Hulu, a popular video site of NBC, owned by Comcast, could be slowed on Verizon’s network in order to prevent its competitiveness.
Screen 10: Activity – FCC & ISP
Scenario: A major ISP is having problems with the amount of bandwidth being passed across its networks. The proliferation of free video sites, increased subscribers, malicious traffic and the like has weighed down the ISP’s network to the point where customers are losing service, experiencing time-outs, and being infected with more and more malware. On top of this, much of the traffic passing across the ISP’s network is related to free video sites hosted by companies that compete directly with the ISP. The company is considering several ways of decreasing this “bad” traffic on its network – including bandwidth throttling, offering tiered subscription services for bandwidth access, and performing deep packet inspection to drop what it determines to be bad traffic. Let’s explore:
Should a company be able to throttle bandwidth in the interest of security? An example would be throttling traffic they know to be from a botnet or DDOS attack.
If Yes: Would you let the company be free from liability if it made a mistake and instead filtered critical corporate or governmental communications?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
If No: Would this be a case where a tiered bandwidth service be an effective market mechanism?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
Should a company be able to throttle bandwidth for economic reasons? An example would be throttling bandwidth for a free video service that passes tetrabytes of data every day.
If Yes: Would you let the company make all decisions about what it can throttle – or is government intervention required here?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
If No: Would this be a case where a tiered bandwidth service be an effective market mechanism?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
Should a company be able to throttle bandwidth for competitive reasons? An example would be throttling bandwidth from a company that offers a free video service and passes tetrabytes of data everyday – and this company was part of a larger umbrella company that also owns an ISP so effectively forcing the company to pass huge amounts of traffic for its competition.
If Yes: Would you let the company make all decisions here or is government intervention a better idea?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
If No: Would this be a case where a tiered bandwidth service be an effective market mechanism?
A. What are the implications for net neutrality in this situation?
Rant time
I wouldn’t mind seeing the internet perish. It’s being used to brain wash us all. Little nuggets of dispersed truth polluted by dung loads of disinformation. A dispenser of opposing lies to get everyone and everything at each others’ throats blinded by rage. Pick your issue, get enraged, pollute the web and your life more. The addictiveness of the internet. The rewiring of our brains. The anxiety of over choice and the illusion of choice. Monies flushed down a toilet every month year after year for what. Dehumanizing porn popping up when children are researching for school assignments. They are encouraged to use this technology and the families are left to grapple with paying for and installing protection for family computers. Smart phones with easy access to the internet, AI games, Virtual reality, soon to receive significantly more powerful cellular beams for 5g from retrofitted towers, and why because the consumers have been brainwashed to believe they need faster internet and load times . Faster is better we’re told The pushing of wifi everywhere without informing the world of its multitude of dangers. The massive data collecting of everyone , every search you’ve ever made leaves a trace of info, they are especially interested in gathering data from children and selling it for astronomical profits....etc etc...but if we look at the web and technology as a gift and use it responsibly that could make a great ripple effect. Be less of a machine and more human and say no to temptation that’s foisted upon us every day through any and all delivery systems including the net. Check our checking of email, facebook, forums etc so we and our precious time doesn’t run amuck and waste away. Learn the benefit of being less connected to connect more meaningfully to your family. I longingly remember sitting down at the dinner table with Mom, Dad and four brothers long ago. No cell phones or internet and we most of the time did just fine.
I must say this forum is a gift in many ways and something to be thankful for. Sometimes this technology shines
Nicely said
Thanks and thanks for your post because mine grew from yours. One very important and sensitive issue that must be mentioned is all those hard working decent people who make an honest wage via the net or those who help others in a multitude of ways. They and their families would suffer if the net were to “perish”
Yes, and that would be a real shame. Yet goodness and support, hard work and creativity can all survive without the net. All the major radical changes I see coming anyway are probable not going to be within my lifetime anyway. So, I leave all my good wishes to the youth of today and the hope that what we have managed to taint, they will manage to make into something brighter one day
Provider already do this but it is through ways people don't even get. Personally I am not a fan of international corporations or the government so I just hate them all and make my music.
However, it is not deregulation. It is releasing control FROM the government. Over the last several years, the government of the US have tried to make inroads to regulate content.
Have you heard of Google's "army of rats" paid to watch for content that is "not ok or offensive".........meaning control political and social commentary.
Under title 2 if this didn't happen soon licenses for websites would be needed like radio stations.
Net Neutrality is a not "equality". Far from it. There is no such thing as equality in anything.
The gouging of prices is already present.
Anything that government regulates retards the long term growth.
We could have had cell phones in the 1950s' but Gov regulation stifled the ability to bring it forward because radio and telephone companies blocked it.
So people pining for the government to regulate anything is crazy.
Gigabit ethernet is the solution for me anyway. That is never gonna be the cheapest option because it is superior.
same thing going on in yours. buncha old folks got all tetchy bout the pace of progress, so we had an "eat the young" election last year, same as y'all, and we're dealing with the fallout.
True, those times with the family like distant fading gems, but we can't rewind.
It is...except that the option to select your ISP is a luxury that very many Americans don't have, especially those living in rural communities. That is precisely why net neutrality is preferable. Big corporations still win (different ones), but I can freely choose not to use FB, Google, Amazon, Apple, whatever. I live in a medium-sized city (still considered backwoods by metropolitan areas) and have 3 ISP options: Charter at 60Mb, AT&T DSL at 6Mb or a local wireless provider at fast speeds as long as there are no trees in the way. I live in a forest (in a city of trees) so can't use the latter option, and the 2nd option is inadequate so Charter is it. There is no real choice that doesn't hurt me. Massive regions of the nation have it worse, and I assure you that large telecoms have no interest in building out the infrastructure in those areas as the cost per subscriber is too high.
Someone else used a highly accurate analogy of ISP's serving as roads. Huge segments of the economy have moved online which is why this is a big deal if those who control the "roads" are allowed to charge tolls for elite access to quick and well-maintained paths and stick everyone else in slow traffic. It is not a case of reduced regulations to encourage competition, it is in fact anti-competitive.
That about sums it up. Keep waiting for the young to fight back, but they just seem complacent and disinterested in what the old guard are doing to their future.
Wondering if that's really what's going on with this NetNeutrality thing. The old crusty, xenophobic dip shits want to jack up prices, make the internet more for the elite who can afford it, get rid of the riffraff, and hopefully prevent a mass uprising like they saw with the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement. That scared the shit out of them, so they started trying to shut it all down, turn off the information faucet, and start taking everything their greedy souls believe they're entitled to. I think creating a scenario where the less fortunate can't afford to be online to as easily organize themselves and revolt... might just be what they're really after with all this. Control information and disperse the masses so they go back to fishin', consuming, watching Kardashians and stop thinkin' about all this "revolution" nonsense.
>
Rant (while it is in fashion)
I know you are being sincere, so apologies in advance, but the above made me almost choke on my cuppa.
What I mean is a large part of why social media is such a stinking hole, is down to young people. Both brainwashed youth too scared to discuss anything honestly for fear off offending, and gutless millennials blaming everyone older because they failed to realise they were frogs in a pan of water, slowly being brought to the boil!
If either or both groups had any rebellion in them, the world might be a lot better off. Instead, it’s left to plump old multi millionaires such as John Lydon to explain how things are. But they won’t listen to him, either, ‘cause he’s old and therefore responsible for stealing their future. Useless fuckers. *
I have no idea if this story is true or not, but surely that's not an argument against regulation, but an argument against lobbying and crony capitalism. Government itself is not necessarily a problem, but government captured by vested interests surely is.
Blanket ideological statement. The world is not black and white. Government regulated against child labour in the Victorian era, and yes some people claimed it would hurt growth (because like every progressive policy ever it was fiercely resisted by vested interests). Growth continued just fine, even after we stopped sending children up chimneys. Sometimes regulation can be good, if it protects people from predatory capitalism.
Deleted.
While I agree in some senses of what you are saying, it bares little to what I said in that - I had my shot at changing the world, I fucked it up. Their chances are now beginning. If they make it better or worse, I still believe it’s myself and many of my generation that must take some of the responsibility - the rest is up to the new generation to learn from our mistakes. Will they learn? Every young millionaire is just another society raping billionaire in the making, so maybe not, but hey let’s be hopeful and go for a beer
Since I have many friends in the US I'm aware of this. But I feel like this is one of the things that just has to become so bad that non-nerdy people start actually caring about it before anything can be done about it that works as a long term solution.
I feel like the the fight for net neutrality cannot be won as long as access to fast internet has not become a human right just like access to clean water. Until that is put somewhere where it cannot just be changed by some idiot who's running the FCC or whatever entity that just gets to decide this without a public vote on it, the fight is always just barely not lost. So for me it was just a matter of time until net neutrality would be gone in the US.
I've stopped caring after the 10th or 20th call to 'fight for the internet'. People can only care for so long until. Enthusiasm and rage that can be turned in to action are limited resources. The upcoming state of utter brokenness of the web is going to be another source for motivation and maybe, just maybe a permanent solution can be cemented.
...but hey let’s be hopeful and go for a beer
>
I am hopeful, love a beer, and raise my glass to you.
Is this a photo from the future, of President Zuckerberg.
Another interesting point garnered from the stat sites, was how much people tend to take more notice of pictures as communication online. Studies have shown that in general attention spans are reducing. Soon we won’t use words as no one will read them!
Cool. Remember though it’s karaoke night tonight!
See! I wasn't kidding in my earlier post; that despicable tool has appeared in a number of unintentionally hilarious videos. I suspect that they are ill-considered attempts at "getting down" with the millinneals. If I had an iota of empathy for him I would feel sorry for him. However, I don't.
I thought it was future president Madonna with make up
Why always a president? We have our share of dark side politicians in the UK
They’re all selected puppets acting on a stage. We all know it
Except this man!
One of a kind!
...and doesn't he look happy....
Hollywood can’t even make movies like this anymore. It’s now all about propaganda mind control of alien invasions and quantum deceptions.
Killing two birds with one stone, discredit this man and make pizzagate theorists seem ridiculous too when the reality of child trafficking in the world is so unbelievably heinous.
Clever and devious who runs and controls the media