'Net Neutrality'

[pbm]

Most of us have no idea what the upcoming decision on 'net neutrality' means.
The president and his party seem to favor it so I researched it and have decided that I oppose it.

From what I can tell it is an attempt by our government to control our access to the internet.

If you agree, you should let your congresspeople know how you feel.

PS: Let's not turn this political but rather keep it factual.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/...public-utility/

 

[Rand]

Its basically so ISP's cant hold content providers hostage.


you must be reading the propaganda instead of real research.

 

[pbm]

I guess government agencies would never do anything political like audit certain groups based on their political leanings. I trust the Forbes article.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

At first, providers wanted to provide higher priority to companies that paid them (IE - netflix pays more than youtube, so netflix is given higher priority). Net Neutrality is supposed to be the lack of any sort of prioritization.

Now that the Federal Government is involved, who knows.

 

[Nick R]

"It sounds like a conspiracy for the government to control the internet"

No. Just, no. Please stop. You are making me want to break my computer screen with my face. You obviously don't understand the internet, and what this is supposed to do. Apparently you like getting bent over the bench and whipped by your ISP, and want them to do it more. "Control access to the internet" I see. That is why the government is donating TONS of money to make sure MORE Americans can get high speed internet access.

Net neutrality is a good thing. In no way does this give the government "control" over the internet. If you had read the actual plan by the FCC you would understand that. Instead it's propoganda.

Tell you what. The fact that Verizon, ATT, Comcast, TWC, the NCTA oppose it, is reason enough for me to promote it. Because clearly it is making it harder for them to shake down their customers for more money.

 

[Nick R]

I suggest you read something real, instead of an opinion piece (hint, that is what the Forbes article you linked is.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/op...matter-everyone

 

[Nick R]

http://gizmodo.com/the-grim-future-of-a-world-without-net-neutrality-1501161513

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: NickR
You are making me want to break my computer screen with my face. You obviously don't understand the internet,

By all means start breaking because you obviously don't understand government. This con job is opening the door for a government shakedown to provide welfare bums and illegals with free internet and telephone and we are going to pay for it, nothing more or less.
You are very naive if you believe that at some future date isn't just 6 months to a year away.

Quote:
Internet providers won't be asked to contribute to the subsidy fund, known as Universal Service, right away. The draft rules merely open the door to that obligation down the road should the FCC determine that step is necessary. (The Universal Service Fund helps schools and libraries buy Internet service and reduces the cost of telephone service for low-income Americans. It also subsidizes connectivity for rural areas. If the FCC later decides to ask Internet providers to pay into the fund, the money would go toward these programs.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...ity-rules-ever/

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: pbm

The president and his party seem to favor it so I researched it and have decided that I oppose it.

PS: Let's not turn this political but rather keep it factual.

 

[TBM900]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
I suggest you read something real, instead of an opinion piece (hint, that is what the Forbes article you linked is.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/op...matter-everyone


How is your article NOT an opinion piece.....

 

[TBM900]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
That is why the government is donating TONS of money

That they first must confiscate from taxPAYers.

Quote:
to make sure MORE Americans can get high speed internet access

That is not their job.

Quote:
In no way does this give the government "control" over the internet

Keep repeating the talking points.

Quote:
If you had read the actual plan by the FCC you would understand that.

Funny how each time I see this issue in 'debate', the 'pro' folks repeat this same exact talking point.

Quote:
The fact that Verizon, ATT, Comcast, TWC, the NCTA oppose it, is reason enough for me to promote it. Because clearly it is making it harder for them to shake down their customers for more money.

Clearly you have never run a business in your entire life....

 

[pbm]

Clearly you have never run a business in your entire life.... [/quote]


....and neither has the president or my Senator Chuck Schumer (who has never had a real job outside of politics).

Obviously there are two sides to this but I tend to lean to the side that wants LESS government in my life....the government collects road taxes, tolls etc...and they can't even keep our roads and bridges in good shape because they use the money elsewhere (to buy votes)...

 

[hatt]

More taxes, regulations, special interests, crony capitalists, etc!!!! What's not to like about that.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: TBM900
Originally Posted By: Nick R
That is why the government is donating TONS of money

That they first must confiscate from taxPAYers.

Quote:
to make sure MORE Americans can get high speed internet access

That is not their job.

Quote:
In no way does this give the government "control" over the internet

Keep repeating the talking points.

Quote:
If you had read the actual plan by the FCC you would understand that.

Funny how each time I see this issue in 'debate', the 'pro' folks repeat this same exact talking point.

Quote:
The fact that Verizon, ATT, Comcast, TWC, the NCTA oppose it, is reason enough for me to promote it. Because clearly it is making it harder for them to shake down their customers for more money.

Clearly you have never run a business in your entire life....


And you have explained the problem in a nuthshell. Let me be abundantly clear. The fate of the internet, acknowledged by both the EU, and the UN as a fundamental human right, should NOT be decided by greedy old rich [censored] who don't understand the difference between a Megabyte and a modem, and simply are interested in making as much money as they possibly can. To be frank, I don't give a single [censored] about them. I really don't. Because in this day and age, and only more so in the future, access to reliable high speed internet will only more and more important to our daily lives.

And if that means that I pay a little bit more every year so that everyone can have access to the internet, so be it. The big Telecoms and ISPs have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted to do the right thing for their customers. And it's not like we have the option of choice. If I don't like what Time Warner is doing, I don't have any other options. Well centurylink, but that isn't comparable. 50mbps vs 7mbps? Yeah ok.

People think regulation is bad? Sometimes it is. But when the regulation is keeping it so that our access to the internet is unfettered by the theives who make their offices at comcast, Verizon, ATT, TWC, and others like them, so that I don't have to pay extra to use netflix, or shop at amazon. Then it is ok by me.

 

[hatt]

Everyone buys into these catchy names. This "net neutrality" ruing will make the net neutral about like the Affordable Care Act lowered medical care costs.

 

[JerryBob]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

Tell you what. The fact that Verizon, ATT, Comcast, TWC, the NCTA oppose it, is reason enough for me to promote it. Because clearly it is making it harder for them to shake down their customers for more money.



Exactly. Follow the money. Here in the DC area, we're bombarded with radio ads that say something to the effect: "Call you representative and tell them 'no internet taxes'"

Hilarious scare tactics, trying to conflate FCC regs with new taxes on your ISP bill. They obviously think most people are stupid, and they may be right.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Everyone buys into these catchy names. This "net neutrality" ruing will make the net neutral about like the Affordable Care Act lowered medical care costs.


Oh please, stop buying into that [censored]. What this is designed to do is keep it so Verizon, comcast and their ilk cannot charge you more to receive better netflix service.

"Want to watch netflix or shop at amazon? Well if you don't want to receive it at dial up speeds, you have to pay an extra $10/mo on top of the $60 you already pay us!"

At it's core, this is what it's supposed to stop.

Basically what this shows is that the people who are anti net neutrality blindly follow whatever the likes of Ted Cruz spout, without understanding a single [censored] part of it. "obamacare for the internet" indeed. Makes me laugh at the stupidity.

 

[lars11]

Exactly. If you want to pick which sites and services you want to use and not ask your ISP what they have prepared for you, the you DO want net neutrality.

This legislation is about ensuring the internet is not turned into some corporate intranet. It affects everyone. And it's great. A brave man, that new guy.



Originally Posted By: pbm
Most of us have no idea what the upcoming decision on 'net neutrality' means.
The president and his party seem to favor it so I researched it and have decided that I oppose it.

From what I can tell it is an attempt by our government to control our access to the internet.

If you agree, you should let your congresspeople know how you feel.

PS: Let's not turn this political but rather keep it factual.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/...public-utility/

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Nick R


"Want to watch netflix or shop at amazon? Well if you don't want to receive it at dial up speeds, you have to pay an extra $10/mo on top of the $60 you already pay us!"

Post where an ISP was doing this?

 

[redhat]

This is a very interesting time for broadband internet service here in the US.

Opposition of NN: companies will no longer see the reason to, or have the desire to innovate, create new technologies

In Favor of NN: the internet will be regulated and there will be no super-highways or tolls for bandwidth intense multimedia and/or any sites so deemed exclusive on an access/connectivity level

I am torn between this. In one hand, I am not sure that government regulations upon these telecoms would be the "end-all-be-all" happy go lucky everything's peachy merriment we are all so presented with.

On the other side of the coin, if I pay my monthly ISP bill, I should be able to access the internet with my potential bandwidth speeds; and of course I understand routing, hops, network congestion, etc.

Perhaps this idea, while probably incredibly crazy, would work very well in a company's favor. What's if one of the telecom giants supported net neutrality. They would look like a hero. Perhaps American consumers could voice their opinions with their dollars that they find a lot of value, even if the rated bandwidth isn't as high or prices aren't as low, in doing business/having service from a company with ethics and morals.