Net Neutality

[Persian Vol]

Net neutrality: The internet holds its breath - BBC News

Thoughts?

"Net neutrality campaigners say losing net neutrality will mean internet service providers will be free to trample all over the open web, slowing down services they don't like, and speeding up ones they do.

Campaigners fear we now face an internet where you pay more to use things like Netflix, or that companies may be strong-armed into paying ISPs in order to maintain good access to their product, making things difficult for new companies who can't afford to pay for preferential treatment."

Republicans like to be considered the pro-business party, and the pro-business argument for ditching net neutrality is one of investment and innovation.

The ISPs, and trade organisations that represent telecoms interests, argue that until 2015, when the Democrat-controlled FCC went down strict on net neutrality, the internet was doing just fine.

"For decades, the internet flourished under a bipartisan regulatory approach that allowed it to operate, grow and succeed free of unnecessary government controls," Verizon says.

Investment could mean faster roll out of super-high speed fibre internet. Or, more pressingly, it could improve connections for people in rural America who barely have any kind of internet at all.

But this would require that the ISPs choose to spend money in this way. The FCC's move doesn't involve any requirement to commit to investment in internet, rural or otherwise."

 

[#VFL__]

Does anyone have a problem with the internet at this time?

This one is along party lines. It’s interesting to see the amount of money our reps have taken from the companies pushing this.

The process surrounding this move tells me a lot and if things do change, you’re going to have to accept the fact that the GOP alone made this happen.

 

[n_huffhines]

We've returned to 2015 rules. Everything is fine, so far, just like it was in 2015.

The second anything happens, it's gonna get blown way out of proportion and everyone will cry "save me government".

 

[BearCat204]

Don't really care as long as they A) don't affect the price I pay now for Netflix and other streaming services, and B)block me from visiting any site that I wish. I know the response from some if they do end up throttling or blocking my traffic to certain places, is the pick another provider and let the market dictate it. Unfortunately, many people only have 1 choice in their area for an ISP.

 

[Septic]

Don't really care as long as they A) don't affect the price I pay now for Netflix and other streaming services, and B)block me from visiting any site that I wish. I know the response from some if they do end up throttling or blocking my traffic to certain places, is the pick another provider and let the market dictate it. Unfortunately, many people only have 1 choice in their area for an ISP.

Prepare thine self for sadness.

When folks need a paid subscription to Pornhub to watch your favorite brazzers flick at something other than a 144p bit rate , sht will hit the fan.

 

[zeppelin128]

I'm cautiously watching to see how ditching the rules will affect things. As long as private ISPs are not censoring the web, it should be okay.

As stated though, many of us, especially in rural areas, only have access to one ISP. So hopefully there won't be any shenanigans.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm cautiously watching to see how ditching the rules will affect things. As long as private ISPs are not censoring the web, it should be okay.

As stated though, many of us, especially in rural areas, only have access to one ISP. So hopefully there won't be any shenanigans.

You have your local government there to protect you. :dance2:

 

[n_huffhines]

Prepare thine self for sadness.

When folks need a paid subscription to Pornhub to watch your favorite brazzers flick at something other than a 144p bit rate , sht will hit the fan.

Why wasn't this happening before? And what's wrong with pay for play? Lots of people would save $ under a model like that.

 

[n_huffhines]

First, net neutrality would ban Internet providers from blocking any legal content. The reasoning for such a ban is dubious. After all, broadband companies own their private lines and should be able to choose what goes over them. Which raises the question: Do consumers really need the government dictating a no-blocking policy that so tramples on Internet service providers property rights?

Consider one familiar, long-established industry. What if the federal government forced grocery stores to carry every conceivable food item?

Grocery stores have strong incentive to give their shoppers as many choices as possible. If a store chooses not to sell a product, it risks losing customers to competitors that carry that product. Broadband providers operate under the same restraint. They have every incentive to offer their customers maximum access to the Internet’s sites and services.

Some net neutrality proponents oppose allowing broadband companies to develop and then favor their own content, even though this is akin to supermarkets giving their own store-brand products valuable shelf space alongside recognized national brands.

American consumers experience vast and expanding choice at their grocery stores without federal mandates. There’s no reason to believe market forces wouldn’t deliver the same results online.

Second, there’s throttling, the intentional limiting of available bandwidth. It slows Internet connections to help decrease congestion due to high-use times or sites or services that use large amounts of data, such as streaming services. Throttling can happen at various points of connection. Both content providers and broadband providers are capable of throttling, but current net neutrality regulations only outlaw broadband providers from engaging in the practice.

Bandwidth is a finite resource and its owners need ways to control its use and manage congestion. Offering consumers different price points that include some throttling in exchange for lower fees and others that avoid any throttling in exchange for pricier data plans is similar to hotels charging more for rooms during busy travel seasons.

Dynamic pricing offers consumers more choices. The rules of supply and demand still hold in the world of telecommunications.

Yet, it’s the federal government that seems most inclined to block or filter content, through such misguided measures as the Communications Decency Act (and related lawsuits against broadcasters), library filtering, social networking regulation, and privacy regulations. Given that, is there any reason not to expect the FCC to apply its restriction on business practices it doesn’t like to content and apps next?

Finally, net neutrality would prevent broadband companies from accepting payment from content providers in exchange for moving their data across the network more quickly. But shouldn’t paying more get you more?

Think of Netflix content as a passenger on Broadband Airlines. Without the net neutrality ban, Netflix could pay more for a “direct flight,” getting the content passenger to its destination faster. That benefits the loved one waiting in the destination city — or, in our case, a home subscriber binge watching The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

Federal entities routinely use paid prioritization to better deliver services — including overnight and priority mail, expedited passport renewal, and airline security pre-check.

Consumers benefit from more options at different price points. Broadband service is no exception.

Net Neutrality rules makes the web unfair for broadband companies

 

[Septic]

Why wasn't this happening before? And what's wrong with pay for play? Lots of people would save $ under a model like that.

Your faith in the altruism of corporations like AT&T and Comcast is bewildering.

 

[n_huffhines]

Your faith in the altruism of corporations like AT&T and Comcast is bewildering.

It has nothing to do with altruism, bro. I expect better out of you.

Your faith in the federal government is bewildering.

 

[n_huffhines]

The FCC is corrupt and is removing regulations because of special interests! I demand the corrupt FCC not surrender its power.

Where is the logic here?

 

[midnight orange]

Your faith in the altruism of corporations like AT&T and Comcast is bewildering.

Don't do business with them then. Unfortunately I have to do business with the federal government at the end of a gun

 

[Septic]

It has nothing to do with altruism, bro. I expect better out of you.

Your faith in the federal government is bewildering.

When it comes to regulations that keep the internet open and free, I have no choice but to pick the lesser of two evils.

 

[Septic]

Don't do business with them then. Unfortunately I have to do business with the federal government at the end of a gun

You assume people have that luxury. Some don't have but one option.

 

[n_huffhines]

When it comes to regulations that keep the internet open and free, I have no choice but to pick the lesser of two evils.

The government is the biggest denier of freedom when it comes to this sort of thing. Government regulation is what gave us the behemoth Ma Bell. Government contracts are the reason most small towns have potential issues with a monopoly IP. Who is more likely to block websites/content? The FCC or an ISP?

Why not go to the local governments to fix these issues? Could it be because the government is the problem in the first place? Could it be because government is corrupt?

Now let's do that on the federal level so that everyone is ****ed, not just the people that choose to live in ****-town Arkansas.

How could more government be the best solution when corruptible government is the only way this could actually end up being a substantial problem?

 

[Septic]

This conversation has been had. Let's just say that it's a good thing people are about to save a little coin in taxes, they're going to need it. Telecoms haven't spent millions on their lobbying efforts not to expect a significant ROI on purchasing of votes.

 

[n_huffhines]

This conversation has been had. Let's just say that it's a good thing people are about to save a little coin in taxes, they're going to need it. Telecoms haven't spent millions on their lobbying efforts not to expect a significant ROI on purchasing of votes.

You're fear-mongering and completely ignoring plenty of valid points. If the conversation is bad, it's because of you.

 

[midnight orange]

You assume people have that luxury. Some don't have but one option.

They do. Still don't have to do business with them.

 

[midnight orange]

When it comes to regulations that keep the internet open and free, I have no choice but to pick the lesser of two evils.

The lesser of two evils is usually the entity that is not the government.

 

[MT LeConte]

Your faith in the altruism of corporations like AT&T and Comcast is bewildering.

Come on man. I love the way these corporations are always looking out for my best interests. You don't think they will charge me more now just because they can?

 

[Septic]

You're fear-mongering and completely ignoring plenty of valid points. If the conversation is bad, it's because of you.

Pointing out the obvious is fear mongering? Companies don't lobby the sht out of legislators for years because the efforts will allow them to remain revenue neutral.

If this isn't anything more than money grubbing shakedown, I'll be the first to say I was wrong.

 

[orangeluvr]

Does anyone have a problem with the internet at this time?

This one is along party lines. It’s interesting to see the amount of money our reps have taken from the companies pushing this.

The process surrounding this move tells me a lot and if things do change, you’re going to have to accept the fact that the GOP alone made this happen.

Oligarchical governence as long as the G.aurd O.ur P.rofits controls stays in control of every branch of government. Mid term elections will help turn the tide, but a lot of damage has already been done to the middle-class, ironic that they voted for it. :crazy:

 

[#VFL__]

The government is the biggest denier of freedom when it comes to this sort of thing. Government regulation is what gave us the behemoth Ma Bell. Government contracts are the reason most small towns have potential issues with a monopoly IP. Who is more likely to block websites/content? The FCC or an ISP?

Why not go to the local governments to fix these issues? Could it be because the government is the problem in the first place? Could it be because government is corrupt?

Now let's do that on the federal level so that everyone is ****ed, not just the people that choose to live in ****-town Arkansas.

How could more government be the best solution when corruptible government is the only way this could actually end up being a substantial problem?

Yeah, the government is corrupt. That’s why I’m not siding with the money in this situation but instead I’m going to go with the opinions of the people outside of the gov on this issue. However, I know absolutely nothing about the ramifications of the move even after researching the topic. I’m in no position to argue one way or the other.

 

[midnight orange]

Pointing out the obvious is fear mongering? Companies don't lobby the sht out of legislators for years because the efforts will allow them to remain revenue neutral.

If this isn't anything more than money grubbing shakedown, I'll be the first to say I was wrong.

So let's give more power to the government that's so easily shaken down. I would say that this is a logical black hole.