So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

2456712

Comments

  • malikhigh1978malikhigh1978 Member CommonPosts: 2
    Net Neutrality is where it's at. I have witnessed a friend go from no connection in the country, to where him and his family can run a few netflix accounts, a phone, and he can be gaming at the same time. I think that's progress. I don't want the government involved with the internet, especially in an age where everyone gets butthurt over not being politically correct. Censorship is at an all time high. Make it a rule of law, and we may as well say goodbye to the first amendment. Politicians were already positioning to remove net neutrality, hence why Obama gave the keys over the China back in October of 2016. 
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,017
    I hear what folks are saying about some regulations being a bit heavy handed, but we're not talking about new regulation. We're talking about the rollback of something that was already in place, something we already have.

    If the regulation gets rolled back it would be a companies fiduciary responsibility to take advantage, because capitalism. Assuming that Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/Spectrum or even Google would not take advantage is being willfully obtuse.
    Asm0deusAvarixMrMelGibson
  • PsythosPsythos Member UncommonPosts: 124
    Give us complete control, I promise we won't abuse it.................
    SedrynTyrosAllerleirauhMrMelGibson
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 67
    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.
    TillerAsm0deusMrMelGibson
  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbourneMember UncommonPosts: 1,279
    The problem with this entire Net Neutrality debacle is because this issue is not really up for vote, the people really have no say in this.

    That douchebag Ajit Pai can propose whatever he wants.

    You can only only hope the Supreme Court makes the sensible call.
  • frostymugfrostymug Galveston, TXMember UncommonPosts: 352
    Short answer...


    Asm0deusSedrynTyroscameltosisDMKanoAvarixbartoni33MrMelGibson
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 2,017
    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.
    Last time I checked the government didn't "accidentally" throttle speeds to Netflix content because they were too lazy to compete fairly. Rules and regulations =\= bigger government.
    Asm0deusSedrynTyrosGorweAvarixbartoni33MrMelGibson
  • t0nydt0nyd Evansville, INMember UncommonPosts: 306
    What I'm tired of is new industry or tech developed using taxpayer money and then sold back to us for profit. The internet was funded by us then sold back to us. Big pharma does the same shit. I find it funny that the tax payer is the original Kickstarter...

    OldKingLog
  • xNIAx1xNIAx1 UrUhGayMember UncommonPosts: 48
    Doesn't effect me, never will because there more than enough people who are taking action against. no effect on me
    Asm0deusFlyByKnight

    Nickydoo loves you!

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,190
    I worked for the W3C for a bit. I am Definitely for it.
    DMKanoMrMelGibson



  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,075
    frostymug said:
    Short answer...


    Just cause it bears repeating.
    MrMelGibson

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONMember UncommonPosts: 1,756
    The problem with this entire Net Neutrality debacle is because this issue is not really up for vote, the people really have no say in this.

    That douchebag Ajit Pai can propose whatever he wants.

    You can only only hope the Supreme Court makes the sensible call.
    Yup, Ashit Pie has you all by the balls.  And boy is he going to be picking up a fat paycheck soon!

    And the funny thing is once you lose net neutrality, you are all going to be crying salty tears to have it back.

    And you will never get it back.

    Because Amurica is all about the corporations, and the rest of you are just the sheep.
    YashaX

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • cielyciely Member UncommonPosts: 62
    feels like verizon, comcast, and timewarner's cables already have been doing something like this, i hope they dont screw us over :(
  • GorweGorwe Ald'RuhnMember RarePosts: 4,279
    Not enough unbiased data to really make up my mind.
    Asm0deusYashaXDMKanoMrMelGibsonRedemp
  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONMember UncommonPosts: 1,756
    Gorwe said:
    Not enough unbiased data to really make up my mind.
    Maybe you could explain to us how the practice of net "NEUTRALITY" is biased?


    YashaXMrMelGibson

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Abimor said:
    Im torn on the subject to be honest i voted im for it but it seems like a company should be able to do what they want with there services. What I mean by this is if i have to choose between spectrum or comcast as my service provider and one slows access down to people for not paying and one does not im going to vote with my wallet. The problem with that is some people only have one provider to choose from. So  I just don't know
    I'd agree with the first bit in principal if the ISPs weren't given a ton of tax payer money for their build outs and have near monopolies in areas. If there were a vibrant marketplace for different isps in areas it'd be a non issue as the ones not doing NN would simply either adapt or die off. Companies should not be able to do what they want with their service if their service has become a basic essential in the modern world, nor should they be allowed to practice predatory practices ever when people have little to no choice.

    The isps were given about 450 billion dollars from tax payers over the years for infrastructure build out and enjoy many many protections (many of the things they use to shield themselves from competition in some areas are actually things title II providers and they've used for years and yet don't want to be regulated as title II) 

    We have consumer protection stuff for a reason and it is largely  because companies can't be trusted. Not to mention antitrust laws and well as anti monopoly laws that we need to start to enforce in relation to the isps. Too many politicians in too many companies pockets sadly.
    Asm0deusOldKingLogYashaXMrMelGibson
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Horusra said:
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.  Net Neutrality removes that drive.  While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
    See your issue is you think in an "odd" fashion. Unbridled free market capitalism can't actually "exist" without regulatory bodies. With net neutrality it doesn't remove any drive. It doesn't remove innovation or anything (unless you are going to talk about figuring out new ways to drain people's money to offer the same service you are now) The ISPs have stated that net neutrality has not affected their investments or anything at all and they said this to shareholders ie people they are legally obligated to tell the truth to. 

    The drive is gone largely because ISPs in most of the US have no actual competition with one another and largely that is because they opt to not try and compete with one another short of some areas that are just to population dense for multiple companies to ignore and that is where they compete.

    There isn't an "offering better service than someone else to get your money" when that " someone else" doesn't exist. We'd basically need to actually force a situation that created proper market competition for what you are saying to actually even exist in any way. All net  neutrality does is make sure that verzion or comcast can't say slow down a website because that website isn't paying them even though verizon or comcast or any isp already has peering agreements with the ISP carrying that website, that video service, that service in general. 

    What the isps were doing was throttling services (particularly video) to try and get companies to pay for upgrades to their infrastructure hardware wise and to get direct peering agreements with companies like netflix etc and predatory practices must not be allowed in near monopolistic practices.

    For you the type that espouse "free market capitalism" as an answer I say look at  real world practices and realize what I said that it can't exist without regulation to be the truth. Unchecked/de-regulated/unbridled free market capitalism would simply lead to a singular entity buying up the smaller entities in any space and us having singular companies for any  service (or multiple services in some cases). There is a reason regulations exist and it is because free market capitalism proved that it can't work without it already. 
    Asm0deusYashaXAvarixMrMelGibson
  • VrikaVrika FinlandMember RarePosts: 4,249
    For.

    I don't want to see a situation where people are allowed to have their net traffic for free if they use Windows store or Origin, but must pay premium traffic fee if they purchase something from Steam, GOG or Ubisoft store.
    Asm0deusYashaXMrMelGibson
     
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    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.
    Almost no one has ever said it'd lead to better speeds or more providers although title II if enacted certain ways would certainly provide that. Net neutrality means this and simply this. An ISP has to treat all packets of a certain type the same way. They cannot favor video service coming from themselves or say google/youtube over say netflix simply because google handed them extra cash and netflix didn't. It makes the playing field for those offering web services fair because the fresh startup paying a tier 1 provider or a CDN etc for bandwidth has just as much of a chance to prosper as a large company might and can't get crushed because they are a startup and can't pay these extra fees these ISPs are trying to push. As web services get more robust and demanding the isps will have their incentives to increase their speeds and networks overall. 

    Currently right now they are overselling their networks and largely there is congestion because of it. They offer speeds "up to" (this is a predatory practice as they can realistically offer any speed so long as you can potentially hit that speed during off peak hours) They blame netflix for their woes even though their networks could handle it fine if they actually didn't oversell their lines (netflix uses way less bandwidth than they'd want you to believe realistically as it's not uncompressed video).

    Title II again if enacted certain ways could include price fixing and Local Loop Unbundling (a feature a large portion of the rest of the world does where an incumbent company can own the lines, but has to sell use of the lines at a reasonable rate and allow other companies to put up their own hardware and offer their own solution to internet using those lines (it has lead to stead investment and more vibrant competition everywhere it has been enacted). The FCC when they did Title II under Tom Wheeler actually did incredibly light touch regulations and basically enacted very little that Title II would allow the FCC to do. In fact one of the few things they even enacted was net neutrality and some privacy laws that stated that isps couldn't sell our data without our consent. 

    No one that actually understands net neutrality thinks it will increase competition among the isps as the isps are already far too entrenched as they are monopolies, duopolies and seldom (it happens, but not as much as it should) actual competition with one another.

    The only thing that will bring actual competition to the US landscape as far as ISPs go is municipal broadband at this point and the municipal government could wholesale the lines to allow competition to come into certain areas, but lets not forget that comcast and other companies will sue if that happens (and they have multiple times)

    As it stands the way that things were before title II and after won't really change in competition. The ISPs had little drive before and little drive after. Only  when there is a scare of actual competition do they get off their asses and actually do something. Notice how google even mentioning fiber is coming to an area seems to scare the isps into  suddenly rolling out gigabit speeds even though before that they were dragging their asses for as long as possible.

    I'd agree with your sentiment, if we actually had a competitive marketplace in the entire country where everyone had multiple choices (more than 2) and no wireless (phone based) internet is not a real alternative. 
    Asm0deusMrMelGibson
  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONMember UncommonPosts: 1,756
    Horusra said:
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.  Net Neutrality removes that drive.  While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
    See your issue is you think in an "odd" fashion. Unbridled free market capitalism can't actually "exist" without regulatory bodies. With net neutrality it doesn't remove any drive. It doesn't remove innovation or anything (unless you are going to talk about figuring out new ways to drain people's money to offer the same service you are now) The ISPs have stated that net neutrality has not affected their investments or anything at all and they said this to shareholders ie people they are legally obligated to tell the truth to. 

    The drive is gone largely because ISPs in most of the US have no actual competition with one another and largely that is because they opt to not try and compete with one another short of some areas that are just to population dense for multiple companies to ignore and that is where they compete.

    There isn't an "offering better service than someone else to get your money" when that " someone else" doesn't exist. We'd basically need to actually force a situation that created proper market competition for what you are saying to actually even exist in any way. All net  neutrality does is make sure that verzion or comcast can't say slow down a website because that website isn't paying them even though verizon or comcast or any isp already has peering agreements with the ISP carrying that website, that video service, that service in general. 

    What the isps were doing was throttling services (particularly video) to try and get companies to pay for upgrades to their infrastructure hardware wise and to get direct peering agreements with companies like netflix etc and predatory practices must not be allowed in near monopolistic practices.

    For you the type that espouse "free market capitalism" as an answer I say look at  real world practices and realize what I said that it can't exist without regulation to be the truth. Unchecked/de-regulated/unbridled free market capitalism would simply lead to a singular entity buying up the smaller entities in any space and us having singular companies for any  service (or multiple services in some cases). There is a reason regulations exist and it is because free market capitalism proved that it can't work without it already. 
    Bingo!  This guy gets it.

    And very well stated I must add.   

    Along with the Free Market Capitalism is good mantra, comes the All Government is Bad misconception.   By blindly believing in these two principles, and listening to lies being spewed by the FFC itself its no wonder people are divided.

    The government isn't regulating the internet.  It is making sure that the companies that provide the service to you, don't have the opportunity to regulate it for their own benefit and to the detriment of yours.

    Anyway it seems a given that net neutrality is about to be quashed.  How long before you begin to see the effects and what will they be, is now the question.
    YashaXAvarixMadFrenchieMrMelGibson

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    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 batshit crazy. 
    YashaXMrMelGibson
  • linadragonlinadragon Emmaus, PAMember UncommonPosts: 488
    Gorwe said:
    Not enough unbiased data to really make up my mind.
    Maybe you could explain to us how the practice of net "NEUTRALITY" is biased?


    Folks like him think that because we might say republicans are vile on an issue that we are biased about it. It has nothing to do with political bias when  we actually understand the core concepts of it. We say republicans are vile or in the corporations pockets not because of political bias, but because of how things tend to go. This is a "golden parachute" type situation for pai. He plays ball with the telecoms/isps now and he gets a nice cushy job where he rakes in cash after he leaves office (an act that should be illegal in my mind because it is just perverse that he is basically bought and paid for, but i digress).

    If he understood the core concept the only logical choice would be to be for it unless you are a higher up at an ISP or a shareholder that thinks they are going to make bank off it. 

    So to break this down for Gorwe I will explain the core concept in an unbiased fashion. With net neutrality in place an ISP like Comcast cannot take extra money for a "fast lane" concept in which they provide people paying them with their full network speed while slowing down people that do not pay them extra money. They can't have google pay them and get fast speeds for youtube while relegating a video startup to excruciatingly slow speeds. As both are video services that are the same type of packet they have to treat those packets the same and cannot favor one over the other. With net neutrality out of the picture they could have fast lanes and it creates an uneven playing field where people with money are able to stay ahead while the startup may be unable to pay this on top of their other fees (particularly  when paying a tier 1 provider directly or a CDN that already have peering deals with the ISPs as is)

    The isps are wanting to get extra money from the companies their customers want access to for their customers to access them at full speeds and comcast did just this with netflix to force them into a direct peering agreement. Verizon has publicly stated that the only thing stopping them from creating fast lanes / slow lanes is Title II/ Net Neutrality regulations and the isps have stated that net neutrality is not affecting their investments/profits to their shareholders whom they are legally obligated to tell the truth to. What Ajit Pai is doing is attempt to cow tow to the ISPs in order for them to have their way so he can land a big cushy job. Everything that is his "reason" for repealing net neutrality has been dismantled over and over and even in some cases proven wrong (such as him stating that it is hurting investment which is contrary to what the isps are telling shareholders so either they are illegally lying to their shareholders or ajit pai is lying).

    This is basically corporate cronyism in action with the repeal. Those of us for it that actually understand it understand its importance. If you were to attempt to make a business online would you want to have to worry about the big guys paying the ISP to keep you down from the get go? As it stands now a company online has to compete on how good their product is compared to others.  We that are for net neutrality want to keep that intact. 
    MrMelGibsonKyleranlahnmirKillSwitch69
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,075
    edited November 27
    Guess in the USA small 3rd party resellers are not allowed to use bigger ISP lines? 

    We had this problem in Canada and folks got tired of it and some changes were made and now ISP are forced to share their lines, say for example if wanted to switch from Bell internet to Teksavvy or distributel or other reseller I can actually get a better price than from say bell, or cogeco or videotron (the big three) with same speeds etc as it's all using their lines (copper of fibre last mile included) and funny part is you don't even have to talk to your current ISP (big) you set it up with the reseller and THEY contact and make it happen so there's no shenanigans.

    Same thing with the whole locked cell phone BS starting Dec this year they wont be allowed to sell you locked cell phones even if your on a "2 year plan that cheaper" and they will have to provide unlock codes for existing phones free of charge...no more 50$ charges or poop like that.
    Post edited by Asm0deus on
    YashaXMrMelGibson

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • VrikaVrika FinlandMember RarePosts: 4,249
    Horusra said:
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.
    That belief isn't always true.

    For example cheques: I live in Finland, with much heavier regulation on electronic money transfer than USA. I'm now 30 years old. I've only seen one cheque during my entire life. It was about 16 years ago, and at the time I was surprised that they were still in use. Back then I though cheques were something that only existed in old comics and TV shows that were made before electronic money transfer.

    USA has much less regulation that Finland. It hasn't resulted innovative behavior. It has resulted in existing services being able to defend their places that much better, and much slower spread of new innovations.
    YashaXMrMelGibsonKyleran
     
Sign In or Register to comment.