Net Neutrality

[VaporTrail]

What is net neutrality?

 

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

-Wikipedia

 

Where I stand on it:

I hate the fact that TWC and Comcast have a monopoly on internet service in the US, and until Google fiber comes along to save the day, I have to deal with TWC's bullshit. If I watch Netflix, my bandwidth gets throttled. If I use a torrent to share files, my bandwidth gets throttled. As it is now, we have big brother cable companies keeping an eye on our network traffic, and they can limit our use at will if they don't like what we're watching or if they don't like companies whose content we receive (ie. netflix). They also set arbitrary data cap limits, where they are essentially making money off these caps and we get no improvement in infrastructure in return.

 

This week, Obama's come out in support of FCC mandated Net Neutrality, with the stipulation that the prices will be set by the market and not the government. For those of you who are against net neutrality, I guess I'm curious as to why.

 

[MLD Woody]

I'm on your side here. As it seems most people are.

[sadbrownsfan]

I don't think you would find anyone outside of the big companies who disagree with you.

 

If TWC and Comcast would start upgrading their network to fiber(like google has started to offer) they would find that there is no need to have caps\throttle connection(for at least the foreseeable future).

[The Cysko Kid]

TWC is the worst. And now they want to provide home security and automation? With the service they provide for cable and internet? Why in the HELL would I ever allow time Warner to handle my security?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I was on your side vapor until I found out Woody was also, now I'm not.

[calfoxwc]

Posted Yesterday, 05:35 PM

I was on your side vapor until I found out Woody was also, now I'm not. Diehard

**************************************************************************

ROF,LMAO !

Oh, man, that is really over the top funny !

[Westside Steve]

It's somewhat complicated in that free market should dictate that whoever spends the money to lay the cable should be able to control it right?

I have no love for Time Warner and wish there was a better cheaper alternative to internet service. But remember all of our gallant attempt to break up monopolies in the past haven't really been the panacea we hoped for.

 

I usually assume that government regulation will lead to more money going to, guess who.

 

WSS

[FairHooker11]

It's somewhat complicated in that free market should dictate that whoever spends the money to lay the cable should be able to control it right?

I have no love for Time Warner and wish there was a better cheaper alternative to internet service. But remember all of our gallant attempt to break up monopolies in the past haven't really been the panacea we hoped for.

 

I usually assume that government regulation will lead to more money going to, guess who.

 

WSS

 

 

thats right - the government....

 

http://www.caintv.com/holman-jenkinss-blistering-tak

 

plus "political allies" as google portends to be in the bag for the left leaning bent

 

 

"By the way, it's not for no reason that already-dominant players like Google love the idea of net neutrality. They've already got theirs, and net neutrality precludes the possibility that potential competitors can use their economic power to make a play for some of their market share. It's a classic case of what happens when one player grows and becomes dominant, then feels it has nowhere to go but down so starts looking to politicians to protect its lofty status."

[gftChris]

Yeah, an even playing field, that's really unfair to the new people coming in. Because lord knows, if companies could pay to get better service, google would never do that and have an even bigger edge on the competition...

[sadbrownsfan]

 

 

thats right - the government....

 

http://www.caintv.com/holman-jenkinss-blistering-tak

 

plus "political allies" as google portends to be in the bag for the left leaning bent

 

 

"By the way, it's not for no reason that already-dominant players like Google love the idea of net neutrality. They've already got theirs, and net neutrality precludes the possibility that potential competitors can use their economic power to make a play for some of their market share. It's a classic case of what happens when one player grows and becomes dominant, then feels it has nowhere to go but down so starts looking to politicians to protect its lofty status."

 

B.S..... on so many levels

[FairHooker11]

 

B.S..... on so many levels

 

 

..from John Kerry's Meeting With Staff and Families of Embassy Brasilia - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm

 

"I'm a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the 18th, 19th centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars. And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky. Well, folks, ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest, and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we’re operating in."

 

 

so leave the internet out the governments hands....NO REGULATION WANTED, except by those who feel threatened by it?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I think the internet will be tightly controlled eventually.

[gftChris]

I think the internet will be tightly controlled eventually.

I think it's very difficult to control the internet. If ever there were to be a stage where there's complete control by some government or international agency, a new version will pop up. this kind of technology is very difficult to control anyway - like trying to ban torrenting, you can make it illegal in your country, but it's legal in others (like Sweden) and so people will download from there. Then you're chasing individuals for the money and it becomes a lot less worth it for media companies.

[gftChris]

so leave the internet out the governments hands....NO REGULATION WANTED, except by those who feel threatened by it?

If you leave the internet out of the government's hands, at least on this issue, you'll have a cartel of internet companies creating different levels of internet (different speeds, bandwidths etc) based on how much you pay them. You can already see ISPs using throttling as a threat to clients, for example with Comcast asking Netflix for more money to host, throttling the speeds until they gave in (see graph).

 

That kind of corporate bullying is what we need to prevent, and somewhere the government can and should have a tangible impact.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I think it's very difficult to control the internet. If ever there were to be a stage where there's complete control by some government or international agency, a new version will pop up. this kind of technology is very difficult to control anyway - like trying to ban torrenting, you can make it illegal in your country, but it's legal in others (like Sweden) and so people will download from there. Then you're chasing individuals for the money and it becomes a lot less worth it for media companies.

Right now what you say is true yes. But down the road I think it will happen. How far? I have no idea.

[sadbrownsfan]

 

 

..from John Kerry's Meeting With Staff and Families of Embassy Brasilia - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm

 

"I'm a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the 18th, 19th centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars. And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky. Well, folks, ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest, and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we’re operating in."

 

 

so leave the internet out the governments hands....NO REGULATION WANTED, except by those who feel threatened by it?

 

You realize Net Neutrality is the belief that Government and ISP's should not control the content you are able to view by favoring certain groups(either financially or politically)? To basically allow the internet to be free, with the flow of information.

 

Companies like Google, Youtube, and Facebook would actually benefit more without Net Neutrality than with it, since start-ups would have a harder time competing against an established company.

[sadbrownsfan]

I think the internet will be tightly controlled eventually.

 

While possible, currently in countries that monitor and have firewalls to prevent content from getting into their countries(such as China, and much of the Middle East) the internet has found ways to get around the road blocks.

[FairHooker11]

 

You realize Net Neutrality is the belief that Government and ISP's should not control the content you are able to view by favoring certain groups(either financially or politically)? To basically allow the internet to be free, with the flow of information.

 

Companies like Google, Youtube, and Facebook would actually benefit more without Net Neutrality than with it, since start-ups would have a harder time competing against an established company.

 

 

I think we all learned this week - who WAS and was not "grubered", you are not really believing that the "free flow" of internet use is best left

 

up to the decision makers in dc do you? ( insert gruber reference) They are very interested in controlling the net on all levels as you said ^^

 

heres another reason - http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/14/obamas-plan-backdoor-internet-tax/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[calfoxwc]

everything has to be taxed to support a socialist state.

 

They'll tax gun owners, if they can get em registered, farmers

for cows farting......

 

everything. It's a disaster, this obamao crap.

[MLD Woody]

Aaannnddd We're gone

[Westside Steve]

one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.

While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.

While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.

 

WSS

 

Considering the current state of internet service providers, I truly wonder how competition might make it worse.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Time Warner sucks. I have constant outages at all times of the day.

[Westside Steve]

Time Warner sucks. I have constant outages at all times of the day.

I hear ya. But how will net neutrality change that? Not everybody is going to run cable.

And wouldn't that mean everybody shares the same cable? Even after they get the light pipe run?

 

WSS

[gftChris]

one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.

While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.

 

WSS

But that's the free market, allowing everyone to compete with everyone. It's led to better service over here from broadband-only companies that have popped up. The alternative is just to ring fence the existing companies and let them form a cartel.

[Westside Steve]

But that's the free market, allowing everyone to compete with everyone. It's led to better service over here from broadband-only companies that have popped up. The alternative is just to ring fence the existing companies and let them form a cartel.

Well not quite. Forcing the person who spent the money and effort to lay the cable to share that commodity with startup companies isn't the free market.

If in fact that's what the law might do. I admittedly don't understand every nuance and I'm not an attorney.

WSS

[gftChris]

That's not what this is about though, this is about not letting service providers throttle websites that can't afford to pay.

[Westside Steve]

It sounds like it Chris. It sounds like company x has run the infrastructure to provide cable or Internet to wherever and they are extracting a fee for those who want to use that. Where am I going wrong?

WSS

[gftChris]

It sounds like it Chris. It sounds like company x has run the infrastructure to provide cable or Internet to wherever and they are extracting a fee for those who want to use that. Where am I going wrong?

WSS

It's about enabling competition - for example, if a new service like Amazon pops up, it could be just as good if not better than amazon, but if it's being throttled because it can't pay extortionate fees, while amazon can, that company won't survive.

 

Or netflix, a website that relies on its speed of streaming for customers - if you can't watch instantly because of low bandwidth, their business model is null and void, so they're forced to pay extra for the higher download speeds, and again, newcomers to the market, unless they are from another existing massive company that can jump in and compete straight away, won't survive.

 

It's about cultivating an environment where competition can thrive and new business can challenge the established regime.

[Westside Steve]

You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.

 

So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.

I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.

Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?

 

WSS