McCain want to free "Teh Internets"

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Umm, this bill specifically aims to take smacking power away from the FCC.

Bullshit. This legislation asserts regulatory authority over the internet by the federal government.

I bet radio broadcasters didn't think they were going to be told what content could be put on the radio when the government asserted control over the airwaves in an effort to be "fair" in the allocation of the radio frequency.

See, this has happened once before yet the people of the United States keep letting it happen.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

 

[LumbergTech]

Love the fallacies on here

by getting deregulating how the internet traffic can be CONTROLLED...we get more CONTROL over it? WRONG? how fucking stupid can you be?

Do you not see the benefit to a few large companies of basically turning it into cable 2.0 ? or extremely biasing who they allow over their network? we want ISPS, not a closed service like AOL

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

hence the FREEDOM to access INFORMATION
WHEN i want it , instead of when they tell me I can have it

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

hence the FREEDOM to access INFORMATION
WHEN i want it , instead of when they tell me I can have it

This.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Phokus
This is the type of internet mikemike and the other douchebag conservatives want:

http://www.smickie.com/journal/img/tiered_internet.jpg

Sorry, not this douchebag conservative. I don't think any company should be able to throttle one persons, or a specific type of, traffic because someone else doesn't think it's important. If you pay for service, you should get what you paid for, and if the company oversold bandwidth and my downloading is interfering with some companies video confrence calling, tough shit.

yes, but if those companies work together and agree to simply provide a lesser service and no longer offer uncontrolled access to the internet..that goes down the drain

what you are talking about won't even be offered anymore if they get their way

or at least that's a paranoia of mine

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

You assume that the ISPs won't work together to simply choke off the right to even access entire sets of information through their network.

Yes a business can pick and choose what it does with its network, but that doesn't mean its healthy for the country. You do realize that in most areas a vast majority of the people have the same ISP..or one of two

It isn't like we all have access to 50 different ISPs so that they are actually forced to compete on what hte consumer wants and not just minor details like 12mb vs 16mb

I honestly think the job of the ISP is to provide unrestricted access to the internet.. IF they don't want to do that, fine, but don't classify yourself as an ISP... thats called a content provider

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

You assume that the ISPs won't work together to simply choke off the right to even access entire sets of information through their network.

Yes a business can pick and choose what it does with its network, but that doesn't mean its healthy for the country. You do realize that in most areas a vast majority of the people have the same ISP..or one of two

It isn't like we all have access to 50 different ISPs so that they are actually forced to compete on what hte consumer wants and not just minor details like 12mb vs 16mb

I honestly think the job of the ISP is to provide unrestricted access to the internet.. IF they don't want to do that, fine, but don't classify yourself as an ISP... thats called a content provider

You know whats funny, you are both arguing, but I fail to see what you are arguing about? The way I see it, the way you both explained it is a bad thing. Why would we want to restrict what information we have access to? Furthermore, why would we want to let the government have control over there? Can anyone please explain the BENEFITS to this, as I honestly can not see any to the consumer.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

You assume that the ISPs won't work together to simply choke off the right to even access entire sets of information through their network.

Yes a business can pick and choose what it does with its network, but that doesn't mean its healthy for the country. You do realize that in most areas a vast majority of the people have the same ISP..or one of two

It isn't like we all have access to 50 different ISPs so that they are actually forced to compete on what hte consumer wants and not just minor details like 12mb vs 16mb

I honestly think the job of the ISP is to provide unrestricted access to the internet.. IF they don't want to do that, fine, but don't classify yourself as an ISP... thats called a content provider

You know whats funny, you are both arguing, but I fail to see what you are arguing about? The way I see it, the way you both explained it is a bad thing. Why would we want to restrict what information we have access to? Furthermore, why would we want to let the government have control over there? Can anyone please explain the BENEFITS to this, as I honestly can not see any to the consumer.

You are being ridiculous..should we not have laws against murder because some consider it government control? sometimes the government makes rules that support democracy and freedom of information? what is so fucking hard to comprehend about that

if you want to know about the DETAILS of a bill or something..let me GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neturality

I don't mean to come off as an asshole, maybe i am one, but you are not going to get super-objective analysis of the two positions on this forum..everyone here is firmly entrenched in their beliefs about it

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
You know whats funny, you are both arguing, but I fail to see what you are arguing about? The way I see it, the way you both explained it is a bad thing. Why would we want to restrict what information we have access to? Furthermore, why would we want to let the government have control over there? Can anyone please explain the BENEFITS to this, as I honestly can not see any to the consumer.

There are no benefits to the consumer. It places regulations on ISPs that will degrade service and drive up cost.

Look at what regulation did to the price of a phone call. How much did it cost to call New York from Los Angeles only a few years ago? Thats right, because deregulation created an environment where long distance is free now.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Patranus
There is no spin here my friend...

Patranus. The O'Reilly of AT P&N

 

[herm0016]

you work for a state college "doing this stuff"? then im sure you don't have any packet shaper that slows down torrent sites and keeps the data rate from becoming nearly zero for all users when someone is downloading a movie? ( obviously oversimplified) you are saying that the college has no right to manage the data on their network so that service is good for everyone? that they have no right to firewall their networks to prevent hacking?
all data is not created equal, all data should not be treated the same.
oh and working for a college IT dept =/= a real business or isp network.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

You assume that the ISPs won't work together to simply choke off the right to even access entire sets of information through their network.

Yes a business can pick and choose what it does with its network, but that doesn't mean its healthy for the country. You do realize that in most areas a vast majority of the people have the same ISP..or one of two

It isn't like we all have access to 50 different ISPs so that they are actually forced to compete on what hte consumer wants and not just minor details like 12mb vs 16mb

I honestly think the job of the ISP is to provide unrestricted access to the internet.. IF they don't want to do that, fine, but don't classify yourself as an ISP... thats called a content provider

You know whats funny, you are both arguing, but I fail to see what you are arguing about? The way I see it, the way you both explained it is a bad thing. Why would we want to restrict what information we have access to? Furthermore, why would we want to let the government have control over there? Can anyone please explain the BENEFITS to this, as I honestly can not see any to the consumer.

You are being ridiculous..should we not have laws against murder because some consider it government control? sometimes the government makes rules that support democracy and freedom of information? what is so fucking hard to comprehend about that

if you want to know about the DETAILS of a bill or something..let me GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neturality

I don't mean to come off as an asshole, maybe i am one, but you are not going to get super-objective analysis of the two positions on this forum..everyone here is firmly entrenched in their beliefs about it

Yea, you're a bit of an asshole, but I can look past that. Please, humor me. Defend it. And don't draw up ridiculous comparisons. Outlawing murder and outlawing the prevention to access what content consumers wants are HARDLY the same thing.

What benefit is there to restricting what content people have access to?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: herm0016
you work for a state college "doing this stuff"? then im sure you don't have any packet shaper that slows down torrent sites and keeps the data rate from becoming nearly zero for all users when someone is downloading a movie? ( obviously oversimplified) you are saying that the college has no right to manage the data on their network so that service is good for everyone? that they have no right to firewall their networks to prevent hacking?
all data is not created equal, all data should not be treated the same.
oh and working for a college IT dept =/= a real business or isp network.

^This

It is not like bandwidth is an unlimited resource. Companies have to do something to ensure that ALL users have an agreeable experience.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net Neutrality essentially states that a private company cannot manage its privately owned network to ensure performance for all users.

nice spin douche bag, what net neutrality does is to say ISPs can't pick and choose who or what you are allowed to have quick access to

There is no spin here my friend.
Why shouldn't an ISP be able to manage its network so that its user base can get the best experience possible?
The ISP invested the money into the network.
The ISP signed up customers who are free to find another ISP at any time.
No where in the United States is there an option for only 1 ISP.

And don't bring in VoIP because no where in the United State is VoIP your only option for telephone service. It might be your *choice* but it is certainly not your only option.

Again, this is the first step of the government asserting regulatory authority over the internet which is a bad thing.

You assume that the ISPs won't work together to simply choke off the right to even access entire sets of information through their network.

Yes a business can pick and choose what it does with its network, but that doesn't mean its healthy for the country. You do realize that in most areas a vast majority of the people have the same ISP..or one of two

It isn't like we all have access to 50 different ISPs so that they are actually forced to compete on what hte consumer wants and not just minor details like 12mb vs 16mb

I honestly think the job of the ISP is to provide unrestricted access to the internet.. IF they don't want to do that, fine, but don't classify yourself as an ISP... thats called a content provider

You know whats funny, you are both arguing, but I fail to see what you are arguing about? The way I see it, the way you both explained it is a bad thing. Why would we want to restrict what information we have access to? Furthermore, why would we want to let the government have control over there? Can anyone please explain the BENEFITS to this, as I honestly can not see any to the consumer.

You are being ridiculous..should we not have laws against murder because some consider it government control? sometimes the government makes rules that support democracy and freedom of information? what is so fucking hard to comprehend about that

if you want to know about the DETAILS of a bill or something..let me GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neturality

I don't mean to come off as an asshole, maybe i am one, but you are not going to get super-objective analysis of the two positions on this forum..everyone here is firmly entrenched in their beliefs about it

Yea, you're a bit of an asshole, but I can look past that. Please, humor me. Defend it. And don't draw up ridiculous comparisons. Outlawing murder and outlawing the prevention to access what content consumers wants are HARDLY the same thing.

What benefit is there to restricting what content people have access to?

I was never saying that the government should restrict access to the information....I was saying that ISPs should provide unrestricted access to the internet.

Patranus sees net neutrality as government control as where I see it as government protection. I don't care if some ISPs want to convert to content providers, but I want access the entire internet.

there are plenty of people with PHDs in networking related fields who think that the net must remain neutral ..if it doesn't it basically becomes something else and a great value to our country is lost to greed...

I am not against private networks being managed to a degree, but I don't think people are aware of how valuable the instant access to information is.

One example I will give: There are companies who have faster access to stock information. It is a minuscule amount of time, but when people who know what they are doing take advantage of this..basically it annihilates the ability of the smaller players to compete in stock trade...

I think the prioritization of information is complex and dangerous and that it should not be left solely up to private companies to determine if I can have access to it

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net neutrality is a solution to a problem that does not currently exist, but has the potential to exist, that is abuse of power by ISPs.

On the other side, net neutrality is a potential cause of numerous other issues.

It says that all incoming data to the network must be treated equally.

Couple examples with net neutrality:
Cable ISPs cannot cripple IPTV services to promote their won TV services
Your IPTV service can be crippled by your neighbor's desire to bittorrent porn


Now for my hackery, net neutrality is typically supported by (1) people who live their lives based on the assumption that all corporations are greedy wealth-hoarders bent on destroying America for their personal gain, and (2) people who want to download movies/music from filesharing networks/hosts 24/7.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: herm0016
you work for a state college "doing this stuff"? then im sure you don't have any packet shaper that slows down torrent sites and keeps the data rate from becoming nearly zero for all users when someone is downloading a movie? ( obviously oversimplified) you are saying that the college has no right to manage the data on their network so that service is good for everyone? that they have no right to firewall their networks to prevent hacking?
all data is not created equal, all data should not be treated the same.
oh and working for a college IT dept =/= a real business or isp network.

^This

It is not like bandwidth is an unlimited resource. Companies have to do something to ensure that ALL users have an agreeable experience.

Than ISPs need to stop selling it as such. If they are selling consumers XXMB up down, than that's what the paying consumer should get, regardless of content.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Patranus sees net neutrality as government control as where I see it as government protection. I don't care if some ISPs want to convert to content providers, but I want access the entire internet.

How many times do we need to see examples of "government protection" turning into "government control"?

Look at what happened with radio. Regulation was setup to ensure broadcasters didn't use the same frequency. Now we have government regulating content.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Can someone please elaborate on what the net neutrality act actually wants to do? Preferably with facts from the bill and not bias and hackery taking shots at the other parties?

Net neutrality is a solution to a problem that does not currently exist, but has the potential to exist, that is abuse of power by ISPs.

On the other side, net neutrality is a potential cause of numerous other issues.

It says that all incoming data to the network must be treated equally.

Couple examples with net neutrality:
Cable ISPs cannot cripple IPTV services to promote their won TV services
Your IPTV service can be crippled by your neighbor's desire to bittorrent porn


Now for my hackery, net neutrality is typically supported by (1) people who live their lives based on the assumption that all corporations are greedy wealth-hoarders bent on destroying America for their personal gain, and (2) people who want to download movies/music from filesharing networks/hosts 24/7.

I don't think that it has to be all or nothing.. There can be some management , but it is a dangerous and scholarly topic ..not something to be taken lightly...the speed at which each individual can get information can determine a lot of things in life

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Than ISPs need to stop selling it as such. If they are selling consumers XXMB up down, than that's what the paying consumer should get, regardless of content.

Have you read your ToS?
Typically these problems arise when people do not read what they sign. The same thing happens with credit cards and mortgages.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Patranus sees net neutrality as government control as where I see it as government protection. I don't care if some ISPs want to convert to content providers, but I want access the entire internet.

How many times do we need to see examples of "government protection" turning into "government control"?

Look at what happened with radio. Regulation was setup to ensure broadcasters didn't use the same frequency. Now we have government regulating content.

Who is being kept off the radio that you think should be on there?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Patranus sees net neutrality as government control as where I see it as government protection. I don't care if some ISPs want to convert to content providers, but I want access the entire internet.

How many times do we need to see examples of "government protection" turning into "government control"?

Look at what happened with radio. Regulation was setup to ensure broadcasters didn't use the same frequency. Now we have government regulating content.

The same thing can happen by the private sector. Do you not admit this? They can control what we see just as the government can.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Who is being kept off the radio that you think should be on there?

Well, lets see, I can write fuck on the internet but if I were to say that on the radio, I would be fined for a lot of money.

I can distribute pornography over the internet. If I tried to air pornography OTA for television that would not be allowed.

Look, some regulation is a good thing until it is abused. Regulating frequencies was a good thing. Using that to control content is not a good thing.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
The same thing can happen by the private sector. Do you not admit this? They can control what we see just as the government can.

Yes but the consumer has a choice and when the consumer chooses to take their business elsewhere, the company goes out of business. Once government enters into the picture, that choice goes away.