Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's state this very simply from the people who can't be bothered with educating themselves.
Net Neutrality is NOT about the government regulating the internet. I repeat, Net Neutrality IS NOT about the government regulating the internet. If you still believe it is, please go bang your head firmly against a wall until this concept seeps in.
Net Neutrality IS about the limiting powerful corporations' ability to regulate the internet. Net Neutrality IS about making sure that Comcast or Time Warner or Verizon or any of the other internet providers can't control what you do and see on the internet.
This is a good thing.
The road to he'll is paved with good deeds. When the federal government takes the smallest control over private industry with good intentions, it's a stepping stone towards more government regulations. These are politicians. Their constant focus is 're-election. The internet is a place of free and open political debate by both private citizens and reporters. Freelance reporters (bloggers) don't have editors nor corporate boards to get permission to run politically damaging stories about politicians. Some major impact stories were shot down by traditional news media before they were released by non-traditional news sources. Opening the door to government regulation is merely step towards cracking down on bloggers who oppose the political party in power. Instead of sending IRS agents to audit them and having the FBI investigate them, they could merely enact internet regulations to either silence the blogger or put a restriction stating that the blogger must allow for counterpoint of equal time or length. No rebuttal given, story is dead. This isn't just a "I hate Obama & Democrats" thing. This is about not trusting politicians and the federal government on things beyond the limits set upon them in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The road to he'll is paved with good deeds. When the federal government takes the smallest control over private industry with good intentions, it's a stepping stone towards more government regulations. These are politicians. Their constant focus is 're-election. The internet is a place of free and open political debate by both private citizens and reporters. Freelance reporters (bloggers) don't have editors nor corporate boards to get permission to run politically damaging stories about politicians. Some major impact stories were shot down by traditional news media before they were released by non-traditional news sources. Opening the door to government regulation is merely step towards cracking down on bloggers who oppose the political party in power. Instead of sending IRS agents to audit them and having the FBI investigate them, they could merely enact internet regulations to either silence the blogger or put a restriction stating that the blogger must allow for counterpoint of equal time or length. No rebuttal given, story is dead. This isn't just a "I hate Obama & Democrats" thing. This is about not trusting politicians and the federal government on things beyond the limits set upon them in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So you're okay with corporations restricting your internet? You see no problem with Comcast (or whoever your ISP is) telling you what you can and can't access? Ooooookay.
Sorry, but any argument that invokes the terms "stepping stone" or "slippery slope" get an automatic eyeroll from me, because they're VERY RARELY rooted in reality.
Not knee jerk. Relying on experience. If Obama is for it, you can bet that it's a horrible idea. Just look at his track record.
For the record, getting government involved is NEVER a good idea. If they get their hands on it, it will be a disaster. Past history shows this time and again. And seriously, is anyone "suffering" because of the way it's being run by the free market now?
Is there any point even talking to you about this? Because you obviously have no desire to really read up on the facts and understand what net neutrality is even though it is clearly being pointed out several times in this thread. You still believe net neutrality is the OPPOSITE of what it actually is. ISPs are trying to coerce other companies into paying them extra money to not have their bandwidth throttled. Comcast has already done it with Netflix. If you look at the charts, Netflix's speed on Comcast went way down early in 2014 when they were negotiating with Comcast. When they made a deal to pay up, their speed shot up. What Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT&T all want is the ability to really slow down their competitors, or really any website they feel like, unless they pay extra fees. How exactly is that fair? And how exactly is it a bad idea to prevent this from happening? That Oatmeal post says it perfectly. If Comcast decides to create a search engine, without net neutrality, they could block you from going to Google if you are a Comcast customer. Or they could require you to go through their own search engine in order to get to Google. Verizon actually sued the federal government to have the ability to do just this!
Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix. These are just a few of the companies supporting net neutrality.
The road to he'll is paved with good deeds. When the federal government takes the smallest control over private industry with good intentions, it's a stepping stone towards more government regulations. These are politicians. Their constant focus is 're-election. The internet is a place of free and open political debate by both private citizens and reporters. Freelance reporters (bloggers) don't have editors nor corporate boards to get permission to run politically damaging stories about politicians. Some major impact stories were shot down by traditional news media before they were released by non-traditional news sources. Opening the door to government regulation is merely step towards cracking down on bloggers who oppose the political party in power. Instead of sending IRS agents to audit them and having the FBI investigate them, they could merely enact internet regulations to either silence the blogger or put a restriction stating that the blogger must allow for counterpoint of equal time or length. No rebuttal given, story is dead. This isn't just a "I hate Obama & Democrats" thing. This is about not trusting politicians and the federal government on things beyond the limits set upon them in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So again, you'd rather ISPs be able to tell you what you can and can't view on the internet? The government isn't going to do that. ISPs DO have the ability to do that now. If Comcast wants, it can prevent you from going to any site that talks bad about it. How is that a good thing?
That Oatmeal piece explained it well, in a simple manner that even your average high-school kid should easily understand if they're not too closed-minded.
In principle, net neutrality is a good thing for all of us (unless you work for a big bad ISP such as Comcast). It has nothing to do with government regulation of the Internet. It is not a Dem or GOP issue...certain politicians are trying to spin it into one to further their own self-interests. Govt. over-regulation of the Net is a bad thing for all of us. See China's treatment of the Internet over there as an extreme example...their government blatantly BLOCKS access to certain sites that are either not sympathetic to their cause or just too "open"...such as Google. Now, there's almost no chance US government will ever go that far since we're not communist, but it's still understandable to be wary of giving them too much power.
The way the Internet worked up until certain services such as Netflix got throttled by some the major ISPs (notably the ones that are also cable companies) unless they ponied up more money - which Netflix eventually caved in and did - is what we'd like to continue and improve. Every packet of binary 0's and 1's was treated the SAME on the back-end, whether it was data from City-Data's servers or Twitter, voice from Skype, video from Netflix or Vudu. Net neutrality is mandatory for that to happen, and I wish there was a way for it to happen without the government getting involved...but there may not be such a way. It looks like a little bit of government regulation will be necessary.
The telecom/cable companies that are also ISPs (which excludes ISPs such as Google Fiber) are all opposed to net neutrality for a reason...more and more consumers are cutting the cord and moving strictly to online streaming, which threatens their antiquated cable TV business model. They also like having control and enjoy their monopolies and duopolies they have in many places in the US. By having zero net neutrality, significant control over infrastructure, and state/local laws that are very favorable to them (via lobbying)...there's nothing stopping them from raising prices even more, restricting access to certain sites, putting certain competing content providers (e.g. Netflix) in higher price tiers or throttling them, and so on in cities where they have little or no competition. And laws in some of those cities and states make it very difficult for a competitor to come in. And since many businesses and some consumers require the internet...those entities may have little choice but to take it up the ass. Companies like Comcast are already having record profits per fiscal quarter and they are only interested in fattening their wallets even more. They are greedy, plain and simple.
We are already seeing signs of what a lack of net neutrality can do. The recent paid peering agreements Netflix made with Comcast and AT&T. These bandwidth caps some ISPs have (which exist for the sole purpose of getting more money out of consumers that go over).
It does make me a little nervous that the current FCC commissioner is a former lobbyist for cable and wireless companies. Obama made a mistake there. There's a reason why AT&T and Comcast probably broke open the champagne when that appointment was made.
I don't trust the telecom ISPs, and I don't trust the government. We may be headed towards a "pick your poison", a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" or a "lesser of two evils" situation. We should hope for gigabit services such as Google Fiber to continue to make inroads into more towns and cities, and for more local municipalities to roll out their own gigabit internet as a utility (see LUSFiber in Lafayette, Louisiana as an example...btw their prices ain't bad either). In the latter case, some states restrict or outright ban cities from having their own public internet, which is ridiculous and probably a result of lobbying from cable companies. Those bans need to be repealed.
Speaking of Google Fiber, it is currently being rolled out in Austin (where I live) and I am very happy about that, and will switch once it's available in my neighborhood. It's worth noting that within a matter of MONTHS of Google making their announcement here, AT&T suddenly deployed their GigaPower fiber internet at prices and speeds similar to Google's, and Time Warner Cable increased their speeds 5X to 10X. In other words, they were previously sitting pretty on their cushy chairs, and now they feel threatened and are actually competing.
What's amusing to me is that THIS IS NOT AN OBAMA ISSUE. This was an issue long before he weighed in. But now because he came out in support of net neutrality, people who otherwise didn't have an opinion now have to scramble to find the talking points on why this is an evil plot.
Really? As far as I'm concerned, I've always been against "Net Neutrality" legislation--and so has anyone else who doesn't hail from the left.
Net Neutrality, S.A.F.E. Act.....don't you just love these innocuous-sounding euphemisms for more government interference?
Really? As far as I'm concerned, I've always been against "Net Neutrality" legislation--and so has anyone else who doesn't hail from the left.
Net Neutrality, S.A.F.E. Act.....don't you just love these innocuous-sounding euphemisms for more government interference?
No thanks, I'll pass.
While I'm okay with the free market deciding things, from everything I've heard about this, there is a caveat. The content you view or post on the internet could be CONTROLLED by your ISP provider if net neutrality were not in place. It is a very good idea. It does not equal more government control; it is simply a vote for keeping things the way they are now. Voting against net neutrality would mean that your ISP providers could potentially charge you more money to view the content you now enjoy for free. Imagine having to pay an extra $1 for every YouTube video you view. Imagine having to apply for a special license to post videos and blogs! I don't want to live in a world like that, and, if it doesn't pass, I kind of hope someone is savvy enough to invent another internet, because the one we have now could change dramatically. In my opinion, being controlled by monopolies and allowing them to restrict access to our only true mode of free expression would be a crime. Down with censorship!
So you're okay with corporations restricting your internet? You see no problem with Comcast (or whoever your ISP is) telling you what you can and can't access? Ooooookay.
Sorry, but any argument that invokes the terms "stepping stone" or "slippery slope" get an automatic eyeroll from me, because they're VERY RARELY rooted in reality.
Really? Never saw this. I have access to at least four different high speed internet providers so if I don't like something one company is saying, I'll drop them and go to someone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello!? Social Media over the 'NET ends?
Really? As far as I'm concerned, I've always been against "Net Neutrality" legislation--and so has anyone else who doesn't hail from the left.
