Goodbye, net neutrality; hello, net discrimination (party, supporters, propaganda, official)
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.
I know exactly what it means. "We don't think it's fair that the companies that build the servers that power the internet should have more access than a bunch of dirty hippies who reflexively hate capitalism". It's pretty easy. So which bunch of dirty hippes are you going to appoint to control access? At what levels? What would the penalties be?
You 'Gruberized' the poll!
The current government who wants to 'keep the net neutral' are the dirty hippies all grown up.
anyone who says no works for Verizon, Comcast, etc. Either that, or they don't understand what net neutrality means.
uhm
Building a broadband infrastructure capable of meeting consumer demands costs money. In the absence of a way for broadband providers to charge some sort of fees or tolls to certain companies, the alternative is that the costs are passed on to everyone. Is it fair that someone who doesn’t even subscribe to or use Netflix should pay more for broadband in order to support it?
If a broadband provider like Comcast can’t negotiate a deal with a service like Netflix and collect additional fees to fund the necessary network infrastructure, it has to bear the cost of upgrading the network itself. That cost would then be passed on to all Comcast customers regardless of whether they actually subscribe to Netflix or not.
The push for net neutrality doesn’t seem to make much sense. We’re not talking about throttling rival services, or reducing broadband speeds for customers—just enabling the broadband provider to share the burden for network upgrades with the service that benefits and profits from those upgrades.
I mean let's face it what we have here is the government saying YOUR monopoly is not good, but our monopoly is good.....look at the history of the government concerning monopolies ....the Rockefeller monopolies...made him break up his companies.....all because of greed.....or MA-Bell (bell Telephone...all the baby bells are nearly remerged back into other monopolies ...or when the government goes after Microsoft because they have a monopoly OS, but supports the monopoly of apples IOS......But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all?
We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends 320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government.
they government needs to decide, do they allow monopolies or not....not the selective decision making the government is currently doing
Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.
in the end its the individual customer who will lose out here, because their cable/internet provider bill will become so high they cant afford it....so much for the 'internet is free'
Building a broadband infrastructure capable of meeting consumer demands costs money. In the absence of a way for broadband providers to charge some sort of fees or tolls to certain companies, the alternative is that the costs are passed on to everyone. '
The other alternative is tiered service on the consumer end. If you the consumer want a fire hose, pay for a fire hose. If you can only afford a garden hose that that's what you get. The important thing is whether the consumer is paying for fire hose or garden hose they get equal access to whatever site or service they are using. This will prevent the ISP and large media corporations from leveraging bandwidth for an unfair advantage. This is the only viable way net neutrality can survive.
Quote:
Is it fair that someone who doesn’t even subscribe to or use Netflix should pay more for broadband in order to support it?
Is it fair if I'm paying some ridiculous amount for a fast server/connection and the ISP sitting between me and the consumer is throttling that traffic and prioritizing traffic for others?
Net neutrality seems like a simple concept: the company that links your computer/tablet/smartphone to the internet should not be able to discriminate among users and providers in the level of connectivity service provided. That is, we should all be able to send and receive the same number of bits of data per second.
This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products.
President Obama was quoted in his statement as saying that “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” Yet, oddly enough, President Obama is happy to pick winners and losers in the marketplace for energy services and ideas where he is working hard to make offshore drilling, coal, and shale oil losers while attempting to turn solar, wind, and other renewables into winners. He has similarly interfered in the auto market, both by spending billions to avoid Chrysler and GM from becoming losers and by forcing auto manufacturers to meet gas mileage standards which eliminate many possible car choices from the marketplace.
The last thing we should want is liberals or a government agency picking winners and losers on the Internet. And enforcing net neutrality is picking winners and losers even if it looks like it is just “leveling the playing field.” He may think it is not, but it completely blocks certain business models and stops any possible innovation that might emerge if given the option of seeking differential access to bandwidth.
The key point that President Obama has missed along with all the rabid supporters of net neutrality is that ISPs and the companies that control the Internet backbone infrastructure that knits everything together do not have the power to pick winners and losers either. Consumers decide what products and services are successful because we adopt them. If an ISP blocks Netflix because of the bandwidth it requires, consumers who want Netflix will take their business elsewhere. If enough people do so, the ISP will have to change policies or go out of business.
As the former chief economist for the FCC, Thomas Hazlett, pointed out this week in Time, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter , LinkedIn (and many, many more success stories of innovation) all emerged without the benefit of net neutrality. In the time when the government might have been ensuring a level playing field for the Internet pipe into our homes, smartphones and mobile devices completely changed how most people connect to and use the Internet.
The problem with government regulation of the Internet is that by the time the government studies how it works and what is needed, technology has moved on.
Who believes that the government can write a regulation that will still fit the bill in three years when none of us know what the dominant formats, companies, and technology will be that far in advance?
More choices are good for consumers. We win from having multiple flavors of ice cream in the store. We benefit from the large variety of cars available for purchase. The fact that most people cannot afford some of those models does not mean they should be removed from sale. Similarly, the fact that some businesses or consumers may choose to pay for better access to the Internet is not a bad thing. Some people pay more to fly first class, but they do not interfere with my travel in coach.
As long as the government enforces the antitrust laws and ensures that consumers can choose among methods and providers for how they connect to the Internet, consumers can pick winners and losers by voting with their time, their eyeballs, and their dollars. No government needed, thank you very much.
This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products.
It's worked pretty well for the last fifteen or 20 years, yes? Net neutrality is not going to stifle innovation or stifle choices, quite the opposite as it provides an even playing amongst content providers who are only limited by the server/connection speed they are paying for on their end. We don't need the ISP or large content providers dictating what those sites or services are that get rpiority.
Quote:
President Obama was quoted in his statement as saying....
The big issue with what Obama has said is he wants to regulate them under Title II of the communications act. If you want to focus on something that is what to focus on because that will trigger an avalanche of regulations and fees.
The big issue with Obama has said is he wants to regulate them under Title II of the communications act. If you want to focus on something that is what to focus on because that will trigger an avalanche of regulations and fees.
that's the whole point...the 'idea' by the liberals will cost the PEOPLE...it will just screw the customer
its the same with every liberal idea...great idea, poor plan
examples of liberal ideas that are poor plans:
AMT...lets tax the rich....now it hits the middleclass
welfare...lets help the poor....yet it keeps them in poverty
rewriting the HUD mortgage rules....allow the poor to be homeowners.....meanwhile made the housing boom/bust
or ideas that haven't (thank goodness) passed yet...the carbon tax....make your utility bill unaffordable
that's the whole point...the 'idea' by the liberals will cost the PEOPLE...it will just screw the customer
That's not a reason to dismiss net neutrality, you dismiss the regulations and fees. We already have net neutrality, we don't need a bunch of new regulations and fees too formalize it.
anyone who says no works for Verizon, Comcast, etc. Either that, or they don't understand what net neutrality means.
Most of the folks in this thread supporting "neutrality", including the OP who grossly misstates what Obama is demanding from the FCC, don't know what net neutrality means.
Until the FCC stops giving near monopoly status to the giant telecomms based on the "last mile of copper/fiber" swindle going back 80 years, the telecomms will exploit that near monopoly regardless of which side in the misunderstood version of the debate wins. It's that protection of the last mile plus the FCC's stranglehold on unused spectrum that allows the telecomms to operate as they do. Declaring them a utility like electricity or water will STRENGTHEN THAT MONOPOLY and entrench the bureaucracy and factioning already causing this problem.
Here's real neutrality - the FCC not only getting out of the way of new wireless providers, but getting their back in court whenever a giant telecomm sues using their "last mile" privilege from the 1930s. Then, communities (and this is already happening) can become their own local wireless providers and provide competition that forces the giant telecomms' hands towards cheaper prices, better quality and TRUE NEUTRALITY.
Telling the FCC to "just call them a utility, double the regulation" as if this fixes anything is as ludicrous as the FCC maintaining its current status quo of not letting competition join the game by not opening the flood gates based on damn near century hold protection rackets. Allowing more competition and squashing giant telecomm lawsuits trying to prevent competition...that's where you'll get your neutrality.
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.
