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.
"The Federal Communications Commission is set to approve on Tuesday Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposed rules governing net neutrality—a concept aimed at preventing Internet providers from interfering with web traffic. The rules are expected to bar providers from discriminating against legal Internet traffic and require more transparency. They also would let broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services. "
I'm seriously asking this question. What's behind the US government trying to make this move in an area that seems to be none of their business? What consumers have been complaining to the FCC? I don't want to know whether you think they have the right to do it. I basically want to know your opinion on why they are really doing it. What's the underlying motivation behind this? Is it the stated reason by the FCC man the Drudge Report calls Julius Seizure...
"'We must take action to protect consumers against price hikes and closed access to the Internet—and our proposed framework is designed to do just that: to guard against these risks while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers,' FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a blog post this month."
"The proposed rules are expected to provide some new protections for consumers, such as a guarantee that they can access legal websites, and require providers to give more data on Internet speeds and service."
Who (what consumer) hasn't been able to access legal websites?
...or is it something else? What closed access to the Internet? Who is making money off of this thing? Please don't send me to a spin website on either side of the issue, I want to know what you think. If there are any conspiracy theories out there, I want to hear those, too. Or, is this just a siding with certain lobby groups/rich campaign donors issue?
Am I right to think if the law "lets broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services," then those costs will be passed down to us, the consumers of those games/videos? Is the government making any money off of this so is it, in effect, a backdoor tax?
This is complicated subject and there is important points on both sides of the issue. As long as they stick with enforcing the basics of net neutrality you'll have what exsits right now. All major ISP's adhere to this principal, formalizing these rules is just a preemptive measure to insure they don't start going down that road.
As more communications, media, video and everything else starts moving online the cable companies will be looking a for bigger piece of the pie and rightly so because they after all providing the infrastructure to support this ever amount of expanding usage.
What net neutrality will insure is that they don't leverage that bandwidth for their own competing services or allow other companies to buy it up driving the little guys out of business. Let's say for example you have a local band and want to start streaming video from your own server, all you have to do is buy the server plan and you're competing with the big guys. Your only limitations are what it costs for your own server. Without net neutrality the possibility exists the ISP could throttle the delivery of this content to your customers.
There's really only one good solution for this, the ISP's offer tiered but neutral plans. The consumer pays for what they use, just like the water bill. The issue the Democrats will have with this is low income people may not be able to afford the higher bandwidth packages and they'll try and twist net neutrality into providing equal service to every customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
I basically want to know your opinion on why they are really doing it. What's the underlying motivation behind this? Is it the stated reason by the FCC man the Drudge Report calls Julius Seizure...
This goes back to when Comcast started throttling P2P traffic. Their position was only a small percentage of customers were eating up all the bandwidth so they started throttling that type of traffic, the FCC told them they couldn't do it so they instituted a bandwidth cap for everyone.
Quote:
Am I right to think if the law "lets broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services,"
I'm not sure where that came from but Net Neutrality is the exact opposite.
------------edit---------
Just read the WSJ article not what net neutrality is. If you're allowing companies to purchase faster delivery services get ready to see the same thing you have with cable TV.
Im just pissed cause they shut down onsmash.com and rapgodfathers.com - 2 music blogs that got new songs out early to the kids, ****ing racist piece of **** USA government
I'm seriously asking this question. What's behind the US government trying to make this move in an area that seems to be none of their business?
Wow! It never fails!
The right wing propaganda machine has their lemmings taking the side of big business to help destroy people's access to a free and fair internet.
The OP is once again spouting the same propaganda fed to her by telecom lobbyists...
She's been programmed to tell us it's "the government interfering".....LOL
This country is so screwed. The actually have millions of these right wingers helping to wipe away the only brakes on 100% corporate greed.
I'm sure the WSJ would love for the telecoms to defeat this bill so they can rake in Billions and Billions in profits off people who want to use the internet.
Here you go right wingers and tea baggers....just so you know what side you are on.
wiki
Opposition comes from conservative groups, including think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform. Opponents of net neutrality also include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries.[5] Five of the biggest telecom corporations in the country—Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218 million to Representatives and gave $23.7 million in campaign contributions from 2006–2008.[44]
Net Neutrality is a rather complex issue, the basis of it tends to be based off how much control can ISP's (which are mostly major corporations) have on what they offer and provide services to, whether they should have complete control and be able to do what they want, or should the government step in with some type of rules and regulations.
For example without net neutrality your ISP (especially if its a wealthy corporation) could decide to block or severely limit the speeds if you try to access a competitor or a website that criticizes them or block start ups from even forming or getting off the ground. For example if your a Verizon customer (I have Verizon Fios and generally happy about their service, but using it as an example) you might have trouble accessing sites affiliated with competitors Time Warner or Cablevision and vice versa, as well as some of the smaller start up ISP's or perhaps you can't access a site like verizonsucks.com
Well Padcrasher if this proposal quoted in the article is correct:
Quote:
They also would let broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services.
...would be the end of net neutrality. This will give large media corporations and other heavy hitters with a lot of resources the ability to squeeze out the little guy.
Let me give what I think is a pretty good analogy. What we have now is this nice big highway(the internet) with a whole bunch of stores(sites). Right now every store has it's own exit ramp. The amount of lanes for their exit ramp only depends on how many the store wants to build, it can only handle the traffic it's able to pay for. Some stores have 8 lane ramps, some only have one. If the store needs more lanes it can always build more.
If the ISP is allowed to offer faster services to companies that want to pay for it what will happen is they will be putting up a whole bunch of stop signs and red lights to get off the damn highway ....except to the major stores who will be able to pay. The consumer will head to Wally World to avoid the hassle of all those lights and stop signs.
perhaps you can't access a site like verizonsucks.com
The bigger issue would be your speed being throttled to sites like this one or one of the many hobby sites and others that make very little money.
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.
