So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Lobotomist

This is not even a question. Only thing why they are doing it is to be able to charge us even more.
The greed is reaching incredible proportions.

Just look at streaming network services like Netflix. Everyone thought cable will be thing of past with rise of Netflix like services. And its not like they didnt make a lot of money. 

But now all these services are looking back and saying " why can we not be more like cable " and slowly now they are starting similar pricing as cable and program packages and all. Basically being cable but over internet.

Just so they could make much more money, because why not ...


So now they are trying to "cable-tise" internet. You will need to buy Facebook package, MMORPG package ... etc

k61977

Scot said:

The problem with "net neutrality" is it has become a label for doing what you like on the net. We do not have "neutrality" when it comes to phone calls, the post, anything else for that matter.

The idea that a neutral zone could be established that went beyond our social bounds was a grand one. But it was a naïve one too. I am still in favour of one speed for everything, but not the idea that no censorship is required. I guess I grew up.

You have no idea what this is even about it seems.  Just uniformed, take some time to actually look at what this is about.  It has nothing to do with neutrality of content.  It has to do with ISP's dictating what you can and can't do or have access to.  Do you want someone else to decide when you can be online or what you can do.  Sorry we don't agree with this post so you cannot post it, that is what removing this can lead to, but not from the forum, but from your ISP itself.

Here is probably something you can understand.  Going adult content here!  You like porn but your ISP doesn't so guess what, no more porn for you period.  Don't have access to a secondary provider either as most of the country doesn't already unless you live in a city, damn that sucks, no more porn.

Asm0deus

k61977 said:

Scot said:

The problem with "net neutrality" is it has become a label for doing what you like on the net. We do not have "neutrality" when it comes to phone calls, the post, anything else for that matter.

The idea that a neutral zone could be established that went beyond our social bounds was a grand one. But it was a naïve one too. I am still in favour of one speed for everything, but not the idea that no censorship is required. I guess I grew up.

You have no idea what this is even about it seems.  Just uniformed, take some time to actually look at what this is about.  It has nothing to do with neutrality of content.  It has to do with ISP's dictating what you can and can't do or have access to.  Do you want someone else to decide when you can be online or what you can do.  Sorry we don't agree with this post so you cannot post it, that is what removing this can lead to, but not from the forum, but from your ISP itself.

Here is probably something you can understand.  Going adult content here!  You like porn but your ISP doesn't so guess what, no more porn for you period.  Don't have access to a secondary provider either as most of the country doesn't already unless you live in a city, damn that sucks, no more porn.

Better yet they will charge you a special $$ "porn fee" because... streaming video and they already have porn channels plus net porn is risky due to them viruses etc etc ...lolz

Bladeburaiba

I went to a net neutrality rally in my city, no one else was there. Lol.

Verizon has already implemented methods to throttle access to youtube.com and netflix on their phones, so they are ready to do..w/e they want to increase profits when this hits.  But out of all the people I talked to, I could only convince one person.  When people hear "net neutrality" they either don't know what it is and don't care, or they guess what it is and say stupid things.

It is like micro-transactions discussions I've seen here.  People think it's not a big deal until one day they pay to get in the game, then have to pay separately for the rides, and then one day they pay 100 dollars just for parking.

That's the way things go with things that get popular...they just accept anything.

Horusra

SomethingUnusual said:

Horusra said:

What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.

Because net neutrality has literally nothing to do with investment and predictions. Improving the networks requires the same money whether net neutrality is present or not. Investment incentive is also non-existent in the US. These giants are only out to make money, not spend it giving neighborhoods better connection services. 

The telecomms would just love net neutrality to go away, they can maximize profit without spending a dime on infrastructure investment. And that's all this garbage is that the chairman is pushing through. With net neutrality in place, the telecomms have been trying to skate by wireless investment -- which is still an unstable technology -- where they can do this practice of throttling and service funneling that should also be regulated. In most of the US, cell service still sucks, they still do the unethical service charges, and have barely spent anything other than signal boosting existing towers.

This doesn't benefit the people, and severely harms small business and startups. In a digital age, there is no Main St. The only street is the internet, and if an ISP can block or slow your storefront it's the equivalent of throwing a brick through a window of a downtown store. No one will shop there until the money is spent repairing the window and clearing dangers. 

It's purely corporate controlled fascism. Where stockholders and CEO's are the dictators. 

Net neutrality needs to remain, and broaden to include wireless.

But, the internet as we know it is out for the count. Remember all those free wifi hotspots everywhere? Gone next year under the proposed and likely pushed agenda. 

Local libraries can even be devastated -- having to pay huge amounts to maintain services with local ISP's-- and only one example. That's your tax dollars. So this will cost us in another way. Municipality expense to these hacks. 

Yes because socialist countries are hot beds of innovation.

Anthur

I am all for net neutrality.

Some people here mention that without further ways to make profit there will be no further innovation. That is nonsense. In 1986 we had an internet speed of 56 Kbps, today we are at 100 Giga bps. And all that with net neutrality. I wonder how we managed that ?

If you drop net neutrality all you do is allow companies to make money by throtteling internet speed for customers who don't pay extra money. There is no gain, the customer will just loose.

But I am a realist and therefore I am quite sceptical that net neutrality will stay for very much longer. There is too much company money to be made by dropping/weakening the net neutrality. And the latest news from U.S.A. regarding approaches to drop net neutrality are not promising at all.

They are trying to sell you the removal of net neutrality by telling you that net neutrality hinders/blocks innovation. But what kind of innovation does it prevent ? The most innovations we will see would be new "business models" increasing profit. And probably more censorship which is even worse.

YashaX

Horusra said:

SomethingUnusual said:

Horusra said:

What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.

Because net neutrality has literally nothing to do with investment and predictions. Improving the networks requires the same money whether net neutrality is present or not. Investment incentive is also non-existent in the US. These giants are only out to make money, not spend it giving neighborhoods better connection services. 

Yes because socialist countries are hot beds of innovation.

Well, you are the expert on "socialist" (sic) countries.

Horusra

YashaX said:

Horusra said:

SomethingUnusual said:

Horusra said:

What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.

Because net neutrality has literally nothing to do with investment and predictions. Improving the networks requires the same money whether net neutrality is present or not. Investment incentive is also non-existent in the US. These giants are only out to make money, not spend it giving neighborhoods better connection services. 

Yes because socialist countries are hot beds of innovation.

Well, you are the expert on "socialist" (sic) countries.

Go to college and study and you can too.

laxie

I find the whole lawmaking process strange. Some laws are proposed over and over again, with the hope of slipping through. People have to rally against them, just for the situation to stay as it is. And if once the opposition lapses, the law is implemented and it becomes the norm for the foreseeable future. Doesn't seem very democratic to me.

It's like Dark Souls. You fight a boss over and over, getting obliterated within seconds. Then on your attempt #63 the boss glitches in a wall, you hack at it for 10 minutes from behind, it dies, you collect your riches and never see it again.

grimal

100% for.  It should remain a utility.  This is a power grab by the telecom industry and the FCC is handing it right over.

YashaX

Horusra said:

YashaX said:

Horusra said:

SomethingUnusual said:

Horusra said:

What makes people think Net Neutrality means more providers and better speeds.  Everyone always paints the rosiest future for Net Neutrality and the worst for the other side.  Maybe Net Neutrality means slow speeds because there is no incentive to make it faster and less providers because there is no cash for providing something better.

Because net neutrality has literally nothing to do with investment and predictions. Improving the networks requires the same money whether net neutrality is present or not. Investment incentive is also non-existent in the US. These giants are only out to make money, not spend it giving neighborhoods better connection services. 

Yes because socialist countries are hot beds of innovation.

Well, you are the expert on "socialist" (sic) countries.

Go to college and study and you can too.

Let me guess, Trump University?

KezBot

Net neutrality will do nothing to ensure that you will be able to access the information you want when you want to.    90% of all internet traffic is hosted by 3 hosting providers.   Net neutrality says nothing about hosting providers people.  Net neutrality is an obsolete concept.   We need cloud neutrality.

cameltosis

KezBot said:

Net neutrality will do nothing to ensure that you will be able to access the information you want when you want to.    90% of all internet traffic is hosted by 3 hosting providers.   Net neutrality says nothing about hosting providers people.  Net neutrality is an obsolete concept.   We need cloud neutrality.

Care to explain yourself?

That's a pretty bold claim that 90% of the internet's content is hosted with 3 companies. Are there some mega hosting companies that we've never heard of that somehow own most of the world's servers? 


Also, I'm fully aware that net neutrality is only about data being treated equally during transmission. That's all it needs to be about. Cloud neutrality?!?!? wtf. I don't even know where to begin. 

Scot

Asm0deus said:

Scot said:

The problem with "net neutrality" is it has become a label for doing what you like on the net. We do not have "neutrality" when it comes to phone calls, the post, anything else for that matter.

The idea that a neutral zone could be established that went beyond our social bounds was a grand one. But it was a naïve one too. I am still in favour of one speed for everything, but not the idea that no censorship is required. I guess I grew up.

I think you are confused about what the issue is here and what "net neutrality" really is.  Go look at that chart/picture posted earlier and realize the issue isn't about anonymity or breaking laws as you are implying here.

The internet is a relatively new beast, it's a little like the wild wild west where huge rich ranch owners kinda made up laws in smaller areas until the west was tamed so to speak and the "laws these ranchers made" were put down and proper laws fair to all were made by the ones that are suppose to be making them in the first place.

Right now some of the huge ISPs in the USA are wanting to make up their own laws as they go , like them ranchers did, when it shouldn't be up to them to make laws for these new areas of business.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

A number of posters seem to think I have missed the point, as you will see from Wikipedia, the term covers everything I mentioned. Yes its about an ISP "land grab" as well, but in fact over the years that has been the issue I have seen the least in the media.

KezBot

Google, Amazon, Facebook is where all of the content is.   In my mind cloud neutrality would include the concepts of net neutrality.

Scot

KezBot said:

Google, Amazon, Facebook is where all of the content is.   

Its funny, or sad really, the internet was once a place of untold number of sources, content and ideas. We pointed to AOL and thought the idea of an internet environment, corralled of from the web was crazy. But now that's effectively what we have, how many videos do you watch which are not on You Tube?

It has become all about big names, focused content; a huge world of the net, narrowed to some sort of "My Internet". Yes, the other content out there may not be as good as the big names, but our experience of the internet has become more insular.

Talonsin

I'm for it.

All it takes is for Time Warner/Spectrum to buy Hulu and then choke the speed from netflix and there goes Netflix down in flames.

Why anyone would think surrendering control of the internet to big business is a good idea is beyond me.

Asm0deus

Scot said:

Asm0deus said:

Scot said:

The problem with "net neutrality" is it has become a label for doing what you like on the net. We do not have "neutrality" when it comes to phone calls, the post, anything else for that matter.

The idea that a neutral zone could be established that went beyond our social bounds was a grand one. But it was a naïve one too. I am still in favour of one speed for everything, but not the idea that no censorship is required. I guess I grew up.

I think you are confused about what the issue is here and what "net neutrality" really is.  Go look at that chart/picture posted earlier and realize the issue isn't about anonymity or breaking laws as you are implying here.

The internet is a relatively new beast, it's a little like the wild wild west where huge rich ranch owners kinda made up laws in smaller areas until the west was tamed so to speak and the "laws these ranchers made" were put down and proper laws fair to all were made by the ones that are suppose to be making them in the first place.

Right now some of the huge ISPs in the USA are wanting to make up their own laws as they go , like them ranchers did, when it shouldn't be up to them to make laws for these new areas of business.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

A number of posters seem to think I have missed the point, as you will see from Wikipedia, the term covers everything I mentioned. Yes its about an ISP "land grab" as well, but in fact over the years that has been the issue I have seen the least in the media.

You really need to go and actually read that wiki page. It not at all about what you were implying and it is all about putting control into the ISP hands which is frankly the lamest idea ever.

Edit: removed stuff that wasn't really relevant

Sinsai

100% for it as @DMKano took the words right out of my mouth.

Asm0deus

Wow almost prophetic ...lolz
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml

This idea is just as awesome as building the Trump wall....but hey Trump will make America great again.....sure!



Why NN should stay and is still needed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5

linadragon

KezBot said:

Google, Amazon, Facebook is where all of the content is.   In my mind cloud neutrality would include the concepts of net neutrality.

The thing is is that google, facebook, etc are neutral unless the law requires otherwise for the most part, but that whole situation is apples to oranges comparison as they differ entirely. One is the delivery method by which you actually get data you request sent to you. The others are just methods to well get content. The whole thing is silly regardless, because we should of never allowed last mile providers basic monopoly rights in many areas. This is why most of the rest of the western world includes things like LLU as a mandate anymore because with it you don't even need net neutrality as they are basically selling access to their lines which go back to the tier 1 providers to begin with. 

LLU uses the lines, but the third party ISP adds in their own hardware and own "style" of internet after the fact as a delivery mechanism. For instance BT owns pretty much all the internet lines in the UK. Third party isps rent from BT and people can get fiber, cable, ADSL etc as a delivery mechanism.  BT is also an ISP in their own right and sell their own services still, but they need to compete with others using their lines which leads to them actually having to have the better service. The government mandates this and even if you go with another company for internet you end up paying a slight fee back to BT so they make money regardless in the form of the "tax" added on.

LLU in countries has led to increased investment in their networks and the like. We have let corporate america run rampant and we have the republican/libertarians who somehow think companies able to do what they want and run roughshod on everyone is somehow a good idea because "yarg i hate government" even though their outmoded concept of regulation is unfounded because they have some fear that the government is going to come and take their guns because they continually listen to party rhetoric that tells them that the liberals / democrats want to take their guns away entirely. 

People need to realize that when any kind of company particularly one that is delivering something that uses what would be infrastructure that has become almost as important in the modern world as food, shelter, and water, and power that they should be somewhat regulated ultimately. People also need to realize that the FCC did not actually put any heavy handed regulations into action at all when tom wheeler classified as Title II. He simply enshrined NN in with Title II as was necessary to do and the only real thing he enabled other than that was saying that if ISPs wanted to sell our data the customers had to opt into it. That 

linadragon

Asm0deus said:

Wow almost prophetic ...lolz
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml

This idea is just as awesome as building the Trump wall....but hey Trump will make America great again.....sure!



Why NN should stay and is still needed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5

To be fair the whole Portugal thing is a goofy thing that people need to realize is for Phone based internet and has no real bearing on NN debates and the like. This is a company that is basically saying "hey if you give us extra money this stuff won't count for your data cap" it isn't playing favorites and it is actually treating all types of those same packets fairly so they are actually neutral to begin with.

They are basically saying that they will provide unlimited high speed access to those type of services. Net Neutrality actually doesn't prevent a company with data caps from doing that. It makes sure that all packets of a certain type are treated fairly. 

ScotchUp

linadragon said:

ScotchUp said:

Against, the whole idea is smaller Government, not bigger! Plus once Government controls something they screw it all up for the citizens. We already have laws on the books to control companies, along with consumers pocket books.

And yet Ajit Pai wants to get rid of states ability to do anything about net neutrality. Not to mention that someone using spectrum can't go unregulated. Regulation is a key to making the free market work and while there are laws on the books they are not enforced in any meaningful way. Smaller government and larger government isn't the answer. It is smarter government that is the answer. Your type need to realize that sometimes regulations are a necessity because they are to protect consumers when other laws put in place fail to do so. The FCC regulates telecommunications. 


Regulations are there because it has been shown that sometimes state laws and corporations are not to be trusted. There is a reason regulations exist largely and repealing them for the sake of large corporations so they can eek out more money and create an uneven playing field where they can pick winners and losers in what is an important medium for services of all sorts is asinine. This is a necessary regulation and you libertarian types are bat shit crazy. 

Well you do show a compelling argument for it. Yet I do wonder what laws are you ignoring to allow just one more law to go on books that controls certain areas of the internet.

This reminds me of the immigration laws being ignored and politicians everywhere are screaming for reform when they ignore the laws already on books.

Follow the laws already on books we wouldn't be having a lot of these BS debates.

Why must the Socialists (you called me libertarian) always want more laws and to ignore laws that already fix the problems?

By the way am a Constitutional Conservative! 

linadragon

Scot said:

KezBot said:

Google, Amazon, Facebook is where all of the content is.   

Its funny, or sad really, the internet was once a place of untold number of sources, content and ideas. We pointed to AOL and thought the idea of an internet environment, corralled of from the web was crazy. But now that's effectively what we have, how many videos do you watch which are not on You Tube?

It has become all about big names, focused content; a huge world of the net, narrowed to some sort of "My Internet". Yes, the other content out there may not be as good as the big names, but our experience of the internet has become more insular.

The thing there is those "big names" became big because they offered better service in the people's eyes and the people are the ones that have chosen to use them. It isn't some gatekeeper in front of them making them successful or not. If someone sprang up tomorrow that was actively better than google in every possible way while offering the same services google had people would flock to it. The same goes for amazon, facebook, or really any big name service.

People watch plenty of videos that are not on youtube when you consider video is on netflix, etc. I watch videos that are on twitch, hulu, amazon prime video, youtube, vimeo, and quite a few others we won't mention here. There are varying sites for video that deliver different kinds of video content. Youtube is popular because it is easy for people to use and is free and the like. 

The difference is they got popular of their own accord and stay popular of their own accord. As stated, they don't have some gatekeeper in front of them basically picking winners and losers based on who they personally like or who can pay them more etc. 

gervaise1

A question for people who do not support net neutrality on the basis of political ideology.

Do you also believe that all roads (or maybe all future roads) should be toll roads? The principles are the same after all - why should government build roads, shouldn't it be left up to companies (or communities!) to build (if they wish) and charge a toll? Why should someone living in a rural community have miles have miles of roads built to them subsidised - in essence - by those who live in cities?   

Same deal for electricity, gas and water distribution, sewage collection, telephones, postal services etc. As it used to be in Britain say in the early 19th century at the dawn of the industrial revolution?

And - in the spirit of true, unfettered capitalism - surely the government should remove all trade barriers and tarrifs and all federal/state/county/city subsidies to companies should be abolished.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander afterall.