Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
FCC - Net Neutrality
Jetrpg
Member UncommonPosts: 2,347
FCC is gonna try implementing net neutrality rules in the upcomign week or two.
This is after NN has failed to pass legislature and has been defeated by the people's represenitives.
Anyway NN is a mixed bag. The base concept is good, no special treatment. However, who decieds this? Not to mention it will allow the FCC into the internet and access. And it will do there what it always does make rules, censor, be a boss, etc. But it could help prevent corperate abuse.
It pretty intresting, im not siding. But i guess many of you are avid internet user and these actions do impact future internet access.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ab0de46-f437-11df-89a6-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz16444HIp4
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Comments
You have to understand the goal is to establish fairness on the internet.
At the same time who decides what is fair?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
People who know better than you on how you should live and what you should read/see/watch ... Politicians.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
This. I Hope you still Like your "Fairness" Once things like Porn are cut out by Government orders.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
You got two choices.
1. Corporations and big money decide what you see on the internet. If you pay a large fee, then people can come to your website and it will be blazing fast. If you don't pay the fee, then your website goes to the bottom of the pile, and maybe it will load in a few days.
Fox News or MSNBC will load up right away, they have the money to pay the fees. Joe's blog? click on the link and go eat breakfast, come back and see if it's loaded, unless Joe can pay the fee.
2. Net Neutrality, which means Joe and Fox News, MSNBC are on the same footing. There pages load up just as fast, even though Joe is just a guy that decided to put up a web page.
Yes, government decides if Joe and Fox, MSNBC, and the ISPs that connect them are playing by the rules, so there is a downside.
Take your pick.
1 or 2.
I choose Net Neutrality. I think Joe should be equal to MSNBC and Fox on the internet. Some people want to hand the net to the corporations.
I don't think that's a good idea. If you only want to go to corporate websites, you'll be fine, but I dont' just want to go to corporate websites.
If yuo hand the web to the corporations, that's the end of innovation.
You can't start up a new version of Youtube in your basement. The big players are cemented in place, and you can't compete unless you come up with millions up front.
Think about it.
The big players can pay the fees to have blazing fast connections to their sites. How are you going to compete, if your site loads up like a snail, and you can't pay the fees up front?
You can't. No more putting up a website, and suddenly making a breakthrough. You'll need investors to pay the connections fees, or no one will see your site, because it won't ever load.
The big corps will be safe from any upstarts that think they can do it better, but don't have large capital.
goverment shouldnt have no say in the internet at all
gamertag - Swaffle House
I think the government should regulate the internet, so that you and I have just as much access as Fox News, or MSNBC.
Normally, I'd be against government regulation.
But in this case, government regulation means more freedom of speech, and no regulation means less freedom of speech.
Right now I can put up a website, and be as popular as Fox News or MSNBC if I put up good enough content.
With no net neutrality, those days are gone.
If I want people to come to my website, and for it to load quickly, I'll have to pay a very large fee to my ISP. I'll have to compte with Fox News in fees for my website to load as quickly as theirs.
Fox nad MSNBC are multi million dollar corporations. I can't possibly compete with them paying fees to make my website load as fast as theirs.
So you have to choose between handing the keys to the internet to Fox News and MSNBC or the Government.
In this case, I choose the GOvernment over Fox News and MSNBC.
Porn is already regulated by the Government. Try to put up a kiddie porn site and see what happens to you. I'm really not worried about the government taking away your porn, and they already tax it.
Net Neutrality doesn't censor porn.
It requires that your ISP doesn't make the porn site run blazing fast because they were paid a fee by the porn company, and your website run so slow it will take from now to next year to load up.
Maybe you don't care becaiues you don't own a website, or never intend to. I do own a website, and I want my website to load as fast as the porn site, without paying incredible fees to my ISP for that.
Your connection speed won't depend on your internet plan, like whether you got DSL or Cable.
It will dependon the websites ability to pay not to be throttled.
So WoW, for example, can pay fees so that a connection to their servr is fast.
Joe's MMO that he made will have to pay the same fees as WoW, if he wants you to connect to his MMO just as fast.
Who do you think can compete with WoW in paying connection fees?
Right now it's just rent a server, and pay for bandwidth, everyone pays the same.
The ISPs want to throttle bandwidth, and charge an extra fee if you want a fast connection to your website.
Now what they want to do is, WoW says, we can pay you 5 grand a month, so that WoW website loads faster than any other MMO website.
The ISP says, ok, sure. Your bandwidth is at 100%, and anyone that doesn't pay 5 grand a month is at 50%, half as fast, or whatever deal they want to make.
Doesn't matter that you paid for a certain bandwidth, or that you havea cable internet connection. It matters what fees were paid to the ISP for the connection speed, and it's based on who pays the most, gets the fastest connection.
I'll take net neutrality.
looking at the problem currently, what have corps done that needs fixing?
Is there a problem currently?
What are the unintended effects of Net neutrality policy?
Is there a point in expanding network and system speeds if you must provide that service to everyone at the same time?
No bandwidth caps? Think about it would equal access to content in sense mean equal bandwidth caps? For joes mmo he pays a few hundred a month wow pays hundreds of thousands a month. But bow they should have the same speed/bandwidth?
If such a rule was in place 20 years ago would today's interest speeds even exists? (Do those paying, rich people encourage development across the board?)
Also there are a few groups happy about net neutrality that are businesses. Yahoo, Google, YouTube, netflix, etc. Why?
Well because they would have to pay for access and servers, but not high prices to get faster service/ more bandwidth to stream HD content., etc. This shift the cost to everyone purchasing even basic access (IE YOU).
Lets look at some of the language.
“broadband service provider” is defined as a “a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.” in the 2006 attempt to regulate/legislate
This definition includes hospitals, MikkiDs, etc. And thus FCC would have regulation over their provision of access.
The arguments about poor joe in his basement is a good point.
What about poor joe in his basement starting a new ISP? He must provide equal access to all of his consumers, he cannot take big check to help him get rolling and undercutting the monster ISP out there, because there is no reason for a big check.
Such events will occur as if these law pass those still large companies, will lobby and make sure other companies cannot threatening their profit margin.
To accomplish these goals NN, the gov. would have to increase monitoring of the internet, costing more and increasing the chances of making questionable practices on it involve police action.
The real net neutrality alright exists !!!!!
The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) in 2005 us courts found this applies and that providers may not pursue unfair business practices. This and anti trust and unfair competition laws already have this covered (IE if corp A stomps out access to corp B products, or joes a courts gonna make them stop and then pay.).
Furthermore, its never happened in the US. And only twice in the western-world (both in Canada).
Now if i could get someone to argue agianst it with examples/ reason id also respond.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
The flaw with your argument is that you want them to step in and regulate only one part of it. What makes you think they wont slowly up it to crazy levels? You and others are always worried about "Crazy" Rightwing Christians Imposing their beliefs on Us, You thing that that couldent happen? There are Lots of people on here still talking about "Forceing" Creationism on kids in schools, But The government will never step on our internet with the additional power they are grabing... RIGHT.
Let them pay the extra money to go faster, then Do wat the Government is good at and Break up Alot of these Regional Monoplies, and instead of giveing the Grants to these Massive companys, Give them to Smaller start ups.
But No. Something like that would actualy work. We cant do that.
Edit: And Kiddy porn is a bad example. That "As far as I know" is Illegal in all 50 states, and in Most countrys.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
So it doesn't work like your description AT ALL. Right now WoW pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a month for BANDWIDTH.
I pay 6.95 a month for my webesite, because I don't use as much bandwidth as WoW, and I pay for the bandwidth I need, the MBPS, which is very low.
What they ISPS want to change, is that WoW will still pay hundreds of thousands fo dollars for their BANDWIDTH, and I will still pay 6.95 a month for my bandwidth.
But ON TOP OF THAT there will be a priority fee. My site will load slower than the WoW site, if I don't pay the priority fee, even though I don't need more bandwidth, or use as much bandwidth as WoW.
It will load slower, not because I couldn't afford the bandwidth, but because the highest bidder gets the top priority.
No one is saying I should be able to purchase teh SAME AMOUNT of Bandwidth as WoW for 6.95 a month.
We're saying the Bandwidth I get, should work liek the Bandwidth WoW gets, even though I get a lot less.
That's net neutrality.
Here's an example, with, and without net neutrality.
With net neutrality.
I buy MBPS, bandwidth, and start a website. The AMOUNT of bandwidth I purchase can handle say, 5K hits a day on my website, if I have lots of pictures and stuff like that. It costs me 6.95 a month.
WoW expects a thousand times more traffic than me on their website. So they purchase a thousand times more BANDWIDTH. They can handle 5 MILLION hits a day. It costs them 10K a moth for all this BANDWIDTH.
One person comes to my website, and looks at a pictures. It loads in 5 seconds.
One person comes to the WoW website and looks at a picture. It loads in 5 seconds.
But if a MILLION people come to my website, it will crash, because I don't have the same BANDWIDTH as WoW. If I want the same bandwidth as WoW, I will have to pay 10K a month, like they do.
That is the way the Net works NOW, that is what Net Neutrality KEEPS in place.
Ok, without net neutrality, what teh ISPS want to do going forward, but HAVE NOT DONE YET.
Everything above applies. Same thing about WoW can handle a MILLION hits, I can handle only 5K because I bought less BANDWIDTH.
BUT, on top of that, now when one person goes to my site and looks at a picture, it takes 30 seconds to load. When they go to WoW it takes 5 seconds to load a picture.
Why? We both have the BANDWIDTH to handle one person, what's the difference?
The difference is WoW paid the ISP to be faster than me. That's it.
Now, what if I want to criticize WoW, and do that with a screen shot? Who's going to wait 30 seconds for it to load?
Nobody.
So, the "Neutral" part doesn't mean I get as much bandwidth as WoW for only 6.95. It means my one visitor can load a picture on my website, as fast as one visitor can load a picture on a WoW website. I'ts "neutral" in that everyone can serve a picture to a visitor the same, if they purchase bandwidth.
But, if WoW purchases MORE bandwidth, they can handle MORE visitors than me.
But if I get lots of visitors, I can advertise, and get more bandwidth.
But how would I ever get more visitors in the first place, if it takes 30 seconds to load one picture because I couldnt' outbid WoW for the priority?
I will take my chances with the government in this ONE PARTICULAR issue, instead of the Corporations.
There is a reason GOOGLE supports NEUTRALITY. Because they help people find web pages.
You won't need that help, if only HUGE corporate websites are fast, and everyting else is painfully slow.
Just load up a page with compaines as large as FOX News, or AT&T, or larger, and be done with it, because the rest won't be worth visiting.
that might be what they are wanting to do with this stuff.. but i dont trust the goverment in issues like this.. it might start off with the bandwidth fairness thing, but whats to stop them from going farther and regulate what we can and cant look at
gamertag - Swaffle House
Wait.. Your trying to support your argument agenst Huge companys WITH a huge company??? Wtf dude...
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
I acctually already stated why google supports this. Basiclly Net neutrality equals equal access for content, including google. ATM google has to pay A TON OF MONEY for better access than its competitors. After this they will have the same access and will be paying the same amount for it, however, will still be using a ton of resources and thus the cost of access will be shifted from them to ISPs and the general population.
Now that was with all the Net neutrality legislation, with what the FCC is trying to do who knows?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine