Net Neutrality - A unifying cause?

[jackstar7]

Just wanted to get a sense of the folks here.

Are we all for Net Neutrality? Or does this issue divide folks just like all others?

 

[michal1980]

well the democrats today voted against net neutrality as they positioned themselves for their future jobs.

 

[jackstar7]

well the democrats today voted against net neutrality as they positioned themselves for their future jobs.

This topic is about this community.


EDIT: Also, as of this edit, I notice you didn't vote.


"What's the matter Col. Sanders?" - Dark Helmet

 

[Zorba]

The problem is the more unified the population is for something the more unified the politicians against it.

 

[fallenangel99]

Oops.. selected the wrong one (anti instead of pro)

 

[momeNt]

I for one would like government to be on both ends of the communication between content providers, and internet providers. This is the only way to really ensure that traffic is being treated fairly.

It puts a horrible taste in my mouth to know my ISP is treating my content unfairly and hurting my bandwidth, so I would like the government there at every step of the way to make sure that my service is as stellar as possible.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Someone explain to me why the usual suspects of pro-businesses (Koch, Walmart, etc.) are against this?

The FCC's ruling would make the already bloated profit coffers burst for these ISPs - how is this bad, yet anything else that would increase business profits is A-OK??

 

[jackstar7]

I for one would like government to be on both ends of the communication between content providers, and internet providers. This is the only way to really ensure that traffic is being treated fairly.

It puts a horrible taste in my mouth to know my ISP is treating my content unfairly and hurting my bandwidth, so I would like the government there at every step of the way to make sure that my service is as stellar as possible.

You sound like you are pro- this cause, not against it...

If so, then I believe we have unanimous support thus far... of those willing to cast a vote.

 

[thraashman]

well the democrats today voted against net neutrality as they positioned themselves for their future jobs.

Well congressional democrats are the ones trying to advance a bill to restore net neutrality. And the only reason the FCC voted for the neutrality change is that a federal court told them they had to.

 

[momeNt]

You sound like you are pro- this cause, not against it...

If so, then I believe we have unanimous support thus far... of those willing to cast a vote.

I voted against. Because typing that post made me literally vomit into my trashcan.

 

[jackstar7]

I voted against. Because typing that post made me literally vomit into my trashcan.

That's probably the flu. You should see a doctor about that.

 

[Jaepheth]

I am pro-neutrality, and anti-skub.

Neutrality made the net what it is, and making content providers pay more for access will only serve to crush new start ups.

 

[Zorba]

I for one would like government to be on both ends of the communication between content providers, and internet providers. This is the only way to really ensure that traffic is being treated fairly.

It puts a horrible taste in my mouth to know my ISP is treating my content unfairly and hurting my bandwidth, so I would like the government there at every step of the way to make sure that my service is as stellar as possible.

Yeah, because net neutrality means the government is between your content in and you ISP

Are pissed off that the government is between your car and gas pump too? Since they regulate the quality of gasoline and its additives?

 

[momeNt]

Yeah, because net neutrality means the government is between your content in and you ISP

Are pissed off that the government is between your car and gas pump too? Since they regulate the quality of gasoline and its additives?

It's really completely different. Gas is checked when it leaves the refinery for meeting the blend grade. How do you propose to check ISP bandwidth to consumers if you are not somewhere in between the ISP and the consumer?

 

[Zorba]

It's really completely different. Gas is checked when it leaves the refinery for meeting the blend grade. How do you propose to check ISP bandwidth to consumers if you are not somewhere in between the ISP and the consumer?

How is it different? The government sets up a regulation, the companies are supposed to follow it. If they do, it will be discovered in audits and/or customer complaints.

The government isn't checking all gasoline in the US and they wouldn't be watching every packet of data either*.

*For net neutrality, of course the NSA is already collecting every packet of data sent to you.

 

[Iceshot]

I'm going to call today’s Net Neutrality vote for what it is. It's all about power and the unyielding will to dominate our perception of reality. For decades TV and newspapers have represented where we get our information from. A handful of people framing our views, controlling the narrative and national discussion. The Forth Estate (Mainstream Media) was hijacked back in the 70's and brought under full control of multinational corporations and elite banking cartels in collusion with our government (who has also been "mostly" hijacked by the same groups). Today, six Corporations control 90% of all media in this country.

The Internet (Fifth Estate) has undone their stranglehold on information. There is a mass exodus of people (more everyday) that no longer turn on the TV for news or flip through a newspaper. Humanity is being “fully” informed and thus empowered in ways we never dreamed of as little as 20 years ago. People are walking up to the "real" reality of things and this seriously threatens the 1% who quite literally rule this country.

What I fear the most about the Net Neutrality ruling is it giving Corporations a “foot in the door” to reshape the internet like they did with press and television. Make no mistake, this is the REAL objective of the Fast Lane Corporate supporters. It will start with "Fast Lanes" and quickly worsen as each year new bills written by lobbyists are rammed into law building upon the framework open to them with Fast Lanes. Unless the Internet is reclassified as common carrier I see the Internet in 5-10 years reshaped to something that closely resembles broadcast TV. Heavily censored, carefully controlled, sound bite “journalism” (roll eyes) with copious amounts of nauseating advertising all the while paying more for it!

As enticing as it is, don’t waste your time and energy being angry at Tom Wheeler. Re-channel that energy and effort into activism. With very few exceptions, almost everyone in federally appointed positions is a decades established superstar “darling" of Multinational Corporations (ie Tom Wheeler). Mr. Wheeler did exactly what was expected of him and a cursory glance of his career will tell you not to expect anything other than cronyism as head of the FCC.

Honest, neutral, even handed, rational, subject matter experts in their field with a track record of serving the best interests of the People are almost never even considered for Federal appointed positions. Only shallow self-serving obedient Wormtongue's who will faithfully serve their corporate masters.

In spite of this, we must organize and stand up to the FCC. It’s going to take millions of us, tirelessly, at a deafening roar to drown out the booming voices of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. We cannot lose this fight. If we lose the Internet, we will be left in the dark….

 

[HOSED]

Someone explain to me why the usual suspects of pro-businesses (Koch, Walmart, etc.) are against this?

The FCC's ruling would make the already bloated profit coffers burst for these ISPs - how is this bad, yet anything else that would increase business profits is A-OK??

My guess is that a public stance for NN is good for the images of the corps. Lord only knows what they are doing behind the scenes.

How is this NN any differnet from tiered internet speeds? I can barely afford 15/5 and my neighbor has 500/100 ... I pay $50/month, they pay $300 ...
IceShot, I can see where you may be going here but I do not picture people rioting over this issue, and I think that is what it would take. Look how long it took for civil rights to be enacted (on paper) in the country and the continuing racist policies we face.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How is this NN any differnet from tiered internet speeds?

Because it changes every website being on that same tier to being tiered individually at the discretion of your ISP, essentially turning ISP's into toll booth operators. Pay for the fast lane or your commerce is disadvantaged. Plus it'd probably kill already pretty anemic infrastructure expansion because they'd just keep widening the fast lane at the expense of the rest of traffic.

 

[cubby1223]

I have just two issues:

(1) I believe it is fair that people who consume more bandwidth pay a higher price while those who uses their connection very sparingly should get a discounted rate. The elderly person who only checks email and sends/receives one every 3 days, absolutely should be paying less for the internet connection than the other person with utorrent running at full capacity 24/7.
(2) I have zero respect for those who believe they are entitled to piracy, entitled to avoid compensating others for their work.

Other than those two things, I support everything else about net neutrality.

Certain rules and QOS adjustments are necessary for fairness and peak performance, but the drawback is the potential for abuse. And I'm not an expert in network technology so I assume I don't know the full answers.

 

[drebo]

The problem is that 99% of this "community" doesn't understand how the internet works when it comes to massive scale networks and interlinks.

As such, any opinions this "community" has on the topic of "net neutrality" are based purely on emotion and whimsy, rather than rational, technical thought.

 

[jackstar7]

The problem is that 99% of this "community" doesn't understand how the internet works when it comes to massive scale networks and interlinks.

As such, any opinions this "community" has on the topic of "net neutrality" are based purely on emotion and whimsy, rather than rational, technical thought.

So... why didn't you vote?

 

[cubby1223]

Does net neutrality mean that harmful botnet attacks must be allowed? All data is equal, and must be treated equally.

That's why this poll question doesn't work. There are parts to net neutrality that are good, and there are parts to net neutrality that are bad. I tend to support a middle-of-the-road approach, because neither extremes look acceptable to me. There is a lot of potential harm in an internet completely open & free to users, and there is also a lot of potential harm in an internet completely open & free to service providers.

 

[jackstar7]

Does net neutrality mean that harmful botnet attacks must be allowed? All data is equal, and must be treated equally.

That's why this poll question doesn't work. There are parts to net neutrality that are good, and there are parts to net neutrality that are bad. I tend to support a middle-of-the-road approach, because neither extremes look acceptable to me. There is a lot of potential harm in an internet completely open & free to users, and there is also a lot of potential harm in an internet completely open & free to service providers.

I'd rather it be free for the users. Yeah, there are risks, but that's society as a whole.

I simply don't see it as a quandary the way you're describing.