View Full Version : What is your opinion on "Net Neutrality"?
variablebinary
11-21-10, 18:19
The FCC is once again considering net neutrality regulations
In a nutshell: Net neutrality means a company like cable ISP's comcast, and Time Warner can not punish you for using services like Hulu and Netflix.
They would have to treat you the same as someone downloading NBC universal content, which is a division of comcast.
Meaning, if you pay for Comcast cable internet, but not cable TV, you can not be discriminated against by Comcast corporate
If comcast is allowed to discriminate against consumers, it could kill off Hulu, Sony network and Netflix, thus forcing people back into the arms of comcast.
What say you?
Full story here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ab0de46-f437-11df-89a6-00144feab49a.html#axzz15xuTCoZc
FCC moves to ensure ‘net neutrality’
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York
Published: November 20 2010 00:49 | Last updated: November 20 2010 00:49
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to announce plans next week for regulations that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or favouring content online.
The so-called “net neutrality” rules could be passed by the commission as early as December 15. The move would fulfil a campaign promise by President Barack Obama and infuriate the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill, which has said it would oppose the plan, but would have little power to stop it.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 18:32
While I enjoy have unrestricted internet its not the gov's job to tell a service provider what they have to allow.
If you use this precedence on other business activities would you be kosher with that?
Look what its done to health care costs. Instead of getting only the services I want I have to pay hundreds extra for services I dont want because the gov stepped in, and regulated what is allowed to be sold.
I don't want the gov to have the power to go around to various industries mandating what services they have to provide because once you start down that path its almost impossible to reverse. It can, and will get out of hand very quick if nots already.
variablebinary
11-21-10, 18:36
While I enjoy have unrestricted internet its not the gov's job to tell a service provider what they have to allow.
If you use this precedence on other business activities would you be kosher with that?
Look what its done to health care costs. Instead of getting only the services I want I have to pay hundreds extra for services I dont want because the gov stepped in, and regulated what is allowed to be sold.
I don't want the gov to have the power to go around to various industries mandating what services they have to provide because once you start down that path its almost impossible to reverse. It can, and will get out of hand very quick if nots already.
Hmm...
Why would you be expected to pay the same but get inferior service just because you use on demand services and not cable TV.
In the case of cable companies, they have a monopoly, so it isn't like you can choose another cable service either.
As much as I hate government being involved in anything, if Net Neutrality isn't put in place I feel we will see an end to the open communication we currently have on the Internet.
Communication is not a free market. They are Monopolies, and they act like monopolies. Companies like Ebay and Paypal already ban the sale of firearms items. What is Time Warner or Comcast suddenly decided that they didn't want their customers to access Firearms related sites. Or Political sites for candidates or parties they don't support.
You would have no options but to see only what they want to show you.
Put the geeks back in charge like it was in the 80s.
variablebinary
11-21-10, 19:22
As much as I hate government being involved in anything, if Net Neutrality is put in place I feel we will see an end to the open communication we currently have on the Internet.
Communication is not a free market. They are Monopolies, and they act like monopolies. Companies like Ebay and Paypal already ban the sale of firearms items. What is Time Warner or Comcast suddenly decided that they didn't want their customers to access Firearms related sites. Or Political sites for candidates or parties they don't support.
You would have no options but to see only what they want to show you.
Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.
What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly
Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.
What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly
Yep. This exact thing happened a couple weeks ago when some of the networks were having a pissing match with some of the providers. It only effected a few sports games but who says it will end there.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:24
Hmm...
Why would you be expected to pay the same but get inferior service just because you use on demand services and not cable TV.
In the case of cable companies, they have a monopoly, so it isn't like you can choose another cable service either.
I can list off at least 4 companies I can get net and cable through in my area, and there are a few more too if you want to go OTA.
I have a hard time believing they would all jump to restricted services at once, and a company offering unrestricted access would not suddenly get a shit ton of new customers.
Either way its not within the feds realm of powers to regulate what a company can offer as a product.
I can list off at least 4 companies I can get net and cable through in my area, and there are a few more too if you want to go OTA.
I have a hard time believing they would all jump to restricted services at once, and a company offering unrestricted access would not suddenly get a shit ton of new customers.
Either way its not within the feds realm of powers to regulate what a company can offer as a product.
You are lucky then. In my area you only have two options. And the more expensive, less usable option buys bandwidth from the main provider. So they still control it in the end.
Also in my original post I accidentally typed is instead of isn't and changed what I was trying to say. I support net Neutrality and feel that Conservative organizations need to get their head out of their collective ass and see the broader implications.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:28
Considering that Comcast now owns NBC, including MSNBC, without net neutrality, they could easily restrict the bandwidth of people who frequent Drudge or foxnews.
What if you stream fox news, and Comcast says that is against their usage policy. "You have to buy cable TV to watch fox news". What are you supposed to do? Get screwed? That is all you can do when dealing with a monopoly
The only areas with a single land line choices are rural areas.
There is still OTA and sat
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:30
You are lucky then. In my area you only have two options. And the more expensive, less usable option buys bandwidth from the main provider. So they still control it in the end.
Also in my original post I accidentally typed is instead of isn't and changed what I was trying to say. I support net Neutrality and feel that Conservative organizations need to get their head out of their collective ass and see the broader implications.
So then you don't have a problem with the feds regulating what health care options you have when it comes time to purchase those services?
If you allow them into any area of business where they can tell a company what services they have to offer and how they are to conduct business (besides a basic sense) then you can't complain when they mandate the insurance carriers provide a bunch of shit you dont want.
Im willing to sacrifice net neutrality for keeping the feds in their pig pen.
The only areas with a single land line choices are rural areas.
There is still OTA and sat
There is dialup as well. But none of those are really a viable option anymore.
So it has to be either the government restricting choice or the corporations restricting choice? Everything doesn't have to be an extreme. History has shown that with both to much and to little government intervention is bad.
I would love to see the market completely regulate itself. But that doesn't work Eventually one or two large players take control and you get screwed there.
So then you don't have a problem with the feds regulating what health care options you have when it comes time to purchase those services?
If you allow them into any area of business where they can tell a company what services they have to offer and how they are to conduct business (besides a basic sense) then you can't complain when they mandate the insurance carriers provide a bunch of shit you dont want.
Im willing to sacrifice net neutrality for keeping the feds in their pig pen.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:34
You are lucky then. In my area you only have two options. And the more expensive, less usable option buys bandwidth from the main provider. So they still control it in the end.
Also in my original post I accidentally typed is instead of isn't and changed what I was trying to say. I support net Neutrality and feel that Conservative organizations need to get their head out of their collective ass and see the broader implications.
The choices are expanding. Some areas are still limited. Here I can get quite a few land line choices, there are a couple OTA's, and at least one sat option.
In fact Im about to call up TWC see why I should continue doing business with them since my monthly bill went from 140 a month for all 3 to 190 a month. The great thing about having so many choices is they are much more willing to work out issues and respond to customer complaints. I used to work for a Dish sub contractor so I have a decent idea of how these companies view things.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:40
So it has to be either the government restricting choice or the corporations restricting choice? Everything doesn't have to be an extreme. History has shown that with both to much and to little government intervention is bad.
I would love to see the market completely regulate itself. But that doesn't work Eventually one or two large players take control and you get screwed there.
Choice is coming but with how large the US is, and how expensive it is to run cable out and put up towers the natural movement is to have a few big players.
Once more infrastructure is in place you'll have even more choices like I do. For some reason this area is like a test bed for lots of companies that eventually expand nationwide. Theres been a big boon in USB wireless adapters here. Even TWC is getting in on that game. I just got an offer in the mail for their wireless OTA service. We are getting all kinds of 4G stuff here that will be as fast as broadband in many instances. Wireless is the future, and as fast as fiber came in its going to go out except in industrial and commercial applications. Its simply far cheaper to go wireless so you arent running extremely pricey cable all over the place.
The market will sort itself out but right now the tech is advancing so fast its going to take time to catch up to the consumer pricing side. Just wait til laptops are going to come built in with integral 4g cards.
Like the Telco and cable TV systems sorted themselves out? I will pass thank you.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-21-10, 19:49
I took classes that included quantum mechanics and this Net Neutraility thing drives me nuts.
I understand we want unfettered free access to information and content, but if you don't allow people to control their own infrastructure, why would they invest in putting up more? It becomes a commons that no one has a real interest in keeping up, and we all know how publicly used areas become shit holes.
Once no one wants to put up the billions to update the networks, guess who steps in. The government. They will be more than happy to take our money and build the network. The only thing worse than having an oligarchry of businesses having some control over content flows is a monopolistic government controlling everything. Wasn't it just last week that some dems thought getting rid of MSNBC and FOX would be OK, since it is even. And of course, once the govenment takes it over, there will never be a way for private businesses to get back into the market.
Pick you poision carefully.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 19:50
Like the Telco and cable TV systems sorted themselves out? I will pass thank you.
Do you live in a rural or small town area?
15 minutes out of Louisville Kentucky. Here there are no options. In Louisville there are a couple options but only one is viable.
variablebinary
11-21-10, 19:58
I understand we want unfettered free access to information and content, but if you don't allow people to control their own infrastructure, why would they invest in putting up more? It becomes a commons that no one has a real interest in keeping up, and we all know how publicly used areas become shit holes.
If two people are paying the same, they should be treated the same, period, especially when dealing with monopolies
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-21-10, 20:09
If two people are paying the same, they should be treated the same, period, especially when dealing with monopolies
So if comcast builds the network and then offers to sell me 3D TV for a price, they wouldn't be able to discriminate between that signal and the jackass downloading gigbytes of porn down the street for a flat fee.
Just wait till internet service is like the post office, VA healthcare and the DMV. What a novel solution. :(
I agree that if you have a MB/$ structure set up with your provider, the content should be neutral.
This is a private property issue and how much right someone else has to your property.
Monopolies? Like you can't get service from satelitte, cable, phone and now wireless? Kids these days wil laugh if you talked about fighting over the last mile or so to the house. They are never home and are out there on their 4G phones.
I think the biggest problem is that we all see the big problem on both sides. The market doesn't regulate itself and Government touching anything is bad.
This leaves us no good solution. Idealistically there are some out there but we don't live in an idealistic society.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-21-10, 20:16
I think the biggest problem is that we all see the big problem on both sides. The market doesn't regulate itself and Government touching anything is bad.
This leaves us no good solution. Idealistically there are some out there but we don't live in an idealistic society.
The problem is that the government option is the end of the game. Once it goes that way, it never will revert until some new technology makes it irrelevant- and look how many phone taxes and fees are based on early 1900s reality. At least you can change companiesn or have the govt as a counterweight, changing governments is messier.
Belmont31R
11-21-10, 20:21
What section of the Constitution allows the gov to mandate a cable carrier supply a specific type of service?
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-21-10, 20:44
What section of the Constitution allows the gov to mandate a cable carrier supply a specific type of service?
Interstate commerce clause. It is the answer to everything.
Belmont31R
11-22-10, 01:44
Interstate commerce clause. It is the answer to everything.
Yeah maybe the new definition of what it means. The old one didn't give the gov the power to tell a company exactly what products the had to provide to stay in business.
Just like the new definition of the 2nd has been twisted by some to say it applies to the national guard.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-22-10, 03:15
Yeah maybe the new definition of what it means. The old one didn't give the gov the power to tell a company exactly what products the had to provide to stay in business.
Just like the new definition of the 2nd has been twisted by some to say it applies to the national guard.
Ain't sayin' its right, brother.
It is kind of like wikipedia reality. It has been repeated so many times, people think it is true. I don't know when 'regulate' became the most powerful word on the planet.
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 05:02
The government is going to step into the internet and make everything fair. We will see the same rousing success in this endeavor that we have seen in the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. We will have the effectiveness of the Education Department with the simplicity of the tax code. I can't wait. Don't you just love it when the government steps in to solve a problem that doesn't exist! After all, private enterprise has done such a poor job with the internet! The government doesn't have enough problems to work on right now. With the economy humming along, the TSA fixed, Al Qeda destroyed and the health system fixed government is in need of something to do.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-22-10, 09:22
We will see the same rousing success in this endeavor that we have seen in the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. We will have the effectiveness of the Education Department with the simplicity of the tax code.
Brilliant.
I don't need my internet 'frisked', 'means tested' or subject to a 'death panel' by the govenment.
to me the downside is the other stuff that also makes it so you cant have a opinion without balance if they so choose ?
the side of control ? funny the boom its had was not under control and when they step in it will be gone and people who are lazy and want to milk the system will do so and say you have a unfair advantage and then the gov can say HMMMM yeah we should get rid of this unfairness
dookie1481
11-22-10, 10:59
I can list off at least 4 companies I can get net and cable through in my area, and there are a few more too if you want to go OTA.
I have a hard time believing they would all jump to restricted services at once, and a company offering unrestricted access would not suddenly get a shit ton of new customers.
Either way its not within the feds realm of powers to regulate what a company can offer as a product.
New telecom providers can't exactly start up out of nowhere...there are pretty significant barriers to entry.
I think the biggest problem is that we all see the big problem on both sides. The market doesn't regulate itself and Government touching anything is bad.
This leaves us no good solution. Idealistically there are some out there but we don't live in an idealistic society.
The market has not been allowed to regulate itself.
If your service contract you signed when you signed up for service is a $/MB type, then you can sue them if they break that by constraining your service.
If however your contract is written differently, then you agreed with it up front.
These providers are already regulated up the ying-yang and the market has no chance to self regulate in this issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.