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.
Guys, let's work on inventing another internet. I don't think the other side is listening to us at all. I worry about where this is all going to go. Seriously, we need someone to invent another internet or we need to start working on a bias-free internet provider.
I don't want to hear this anymore. You rich people must want to silence the voice of the common working man and woman, make it more difficult for the lonely college student to have a life, and stifle innovation and creativity. I'm not even interested in the terms anymore, don't even call it "net neutrality," just call it "keeping things the same." Vote to keep things the way they are. I can't figure out why you would want to allow the internet providers bully us into paying higher prices for inferior services or having to submit to censorship that the internet world has never faced. I don't even understand how this is an issue, and I almost feel like calling every representative I have and demanding that they make the things I fear concerning internet control an impossibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501
Right now:
I could start a YouTube channel if I wanted without having to worry about paying extra
I can tweet or blog about what is going on in the world without paying extra
I can use Google Scholar to do light research on topics of interest without paying extra
I can watch Netflix for only a few dollars per month; I do not have to buy an expensive cable package to get my favorite shows / documentaries.
I can send and receive content, even videos, via email.
I can look up lesson plans and interactive whiteboard activities for free.
I can subscribe to services, like Skype, that allow me to make phone calls via the internet.
I could call someone in China via Skype and pay nothing!
I can post pictures and videos on Facebook.
In short, I can find and do almost anything I want on the internet right now!
Why do you want that to change? There's a good chance that if ISP's are allowed to treat different content differently that they will use it to their advantage, such as blocking websites that haven't paid for entry, introducing pay-per-play systems, and generally taking control of things that they have no right to control. Right now, they just provide the service and have no power over the content. Why do you want that to change? Why do you want them to have power over the content, too? Why do you want to silence the voices of those who don't have enough money to enter the game?
The internet is our window to the non-biased world. Everyone has a voice here. It's a means of communicating with people I would otherwise not get to see. It's a means of having my voice heard. Why would anyone want to take that away?
Oh really? Who is talking about censorship? The same administration that talks about *international oversight* of the internet? (We should all shudder at that)
The more I look at this, the aspect of government imposed flat-rate fee structures is only *one* thing in play here, and a whole host of other issues remain undiscussed, and perhaps deliberately hidden.
But, even confining the discussion merely to the question of a flat rate for all, what makes you "net neutrality" advocates think that any rate mandates won't be controlled or end up being controlled largely by the oligopoly of corporations in such a way as to stifle competition? Do you think consumer telephone service isn't controlled by corporate giants? Do you think *that* was ever unregulated? Nonsense to both. That was and is highly regulated and, as usual, those regulations more often than not only added to the barriers to entry of other competitors.
By the way, I keep reading the assertion that "Net Neutrality will just keep what we have now". That is not correct. What we have now is a system whose prices *can change* to reflect new uses of the internet and the costs and benefits of those new uses. What is being proposed by the Obama Administration and other "net neutrality" advocates is a flat rate system that cannot change without getting the approval of the political process.
If the infrastructure was settled, like the "Ma Bell" Telephone System was from the 1910s to the 1980s, that might not be such a bad thing. But it is anything but settled at this point. DSL? Broadband? T1? Satellite?
Moreover, these NN advocates are likely deluding themselves about what they are really accomplishing, even if the proposed regulatory regime were not dominated by those they are hoping to regulate. The companies providing the bandwidth have to cover their costs, one way or another. It's not as though enforced net neutrality would mean that AT&T, Comcast, or anyone else would start taking losses on this. They would do what they do now: Charge everyone an equal rate for all services, even when the most expensive services are used only by some. So, right now, big companies (and they ARE big companies) like NetFlix and Amazon (and soon HBO and a number of other content producers who want to get into the streaming business) get to pay the same rate as small companies that don't need to( and can't afford to) provide high-bandwidth network services (for their forum sites, blogs, small online stores, etc.). How is *that* fair? Think about it.
And what of spurring innovation? How will NN do that? Much innovation happens when people see a niche for themselves. But, there are fewer niches in a flat landscape. Lately, much of the increase in internet use has been in high-bandwidth areas like streaming. Part of that will be because there is less advantage in innovating new products and services at the low-bandwith end. If providers choose to start charging in a way that reflects the true costs of the bandwidth, niches will open up for people who can come up with desirable services that don't use as much bandwidth.
And, competition from imposed net neutrality? How does that work again? Smaller players aren't going to be encouraged to jump into a market because it has become more highly regulated. AT&T and Comcast will be able to hire armies of lawyers and compliance experts and added NN regulations will be just one more minefield the companies pay those professionals to navigate. How many smaller companies will want to invest millions in such deadweight overhead just to enter this market, from which their potential profits are restricted by goovernment edict?
BTW, once again I have to emphasize that any notion that Obama hasn't taken any money from these corporations and only Ted Cruz has, as implied by the Oatmeal cartoonist, is naive if not laughable:
Anyway, I don't care whether or not Obama is making some sort of push for net neutrality. If he is, he is doing it because it is a popular issue for his poorly informed constituency. Government-enforced net neutrality is a bad idea for many reasons, but the most basic is that it gives politicians and bureaucrats more influence over something the market is better-suited to handle.
Last edited by NickB1967; 11-13-2014 at 10:22 PM..
Before getting snarky, kindly see below for the definition of an oligopoly.
Oligopoly: the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors. - Oligopoly | Define Oligopoly at Dictionary.com
Ironically, we don't even have that when it comes to ISPs in the US as the cable companies don't compete against each other...
Fair enough, I was a wee bit snarky. However, a somewhat competitive oligopoly is preferable, both in price and innovation, to a full fledged monopoly, even a regulated monpoly utility, especially when the technology is anything but settled at this point.
Oh really? Who is talking about censorship? The same administration that talks about *international oversight* of the internet? (We should all shudder at that)
The more I look at this, the aspect of government imposed flat-rate fee structures is only *one* thing in play here, and a whole host of other issues remain undiscussed, and perhaps deliberately hidden.
But, even confining the discussion merely to the question of a flat rate for all, what makes you "net neutrality" advocates think that any rate mandates won't be controlled or end up being controlled largely by the oligopoly of corporations in such a way as to stifle competition? Do you think consumer telephone service isn't controlled by corporate giants? Do you think *that* was ever unregulated? Nonsense to both. That was and is highly regulated and, as usual, those regulations more often than not only added to the barriers to entry of other competitors.
By the way, I keep reading the assertion that "Net Neutrality will just keep what we have now". That is not correct. What we have now is a system whose prices *can change* to reflect new uses of the internet and the costs and benefits of those new uses. What is being proposed by the Obama Administration and other "net neutrality" advocates is a flat rate system that cannot change without getting the approval of the political process.
If the infrastructure was settled, like the "Ma Bell" Telephone System was from the 1910s to the 1980s, that might not be such a bad thing. But it is anything but settled at this point. DSL? Broadband? T1? Satellite?
Moreover, these NN advocates are likely deluding themselves about what they are really accomplishing, even if the proposed regulatory regime were not dominated by those they are hoping to regulate. The companies providing the bandwidth have to cover their costs, one way or another. It's not as though enforced net neutrality would mean that AT&T, Comcast, or anyone else would start taking losses on this. They would do what they do now: Charge everyone an equal rate for all services, even when the most expensive services are used only by some. So, right now, big companies (and they ARE big companies) like NetFlix and Amazon (and soon HBO and a number of other content producers who want to get into the streaming business) get to pay the same rate as small companies that don't need to( and can't afford to) provide high-bandwidth network services (for their forum sites, blogs, small online stores, etc.). How is *that* fair? Think about it.
And what of spurring innovation? How will NN do that? Much innovation happens when people see a niche for themselves. But, there are fewer niches in a flat landscape. Lately, much of the increase in internet use has been in high-bandwidth areas like streaming. Part of that will be because there is less advantage in innovating new products and services at the low-bandwith end. If providers choose to start charging in a way that reflects the true costs of the bandwidth, niches will open up for people who can come up with desirable services that don't use as much bandwidth.
And, competition from imposed net neutrality? How does that work again? Smaller players aren't going to be encouraged to jump into a market because it has become more highly regulated. AT&T and Comcast will be able to hire armies of lawyers and compliance experts and added NN regulations will be just one more minefield the companies pay those professionals to navigate. How many smaller companies will want to invest millions in such deadweight overhead just to enter this market, from which their potential profits are restricted by goovernment edict?
BTW, once again I have to emphasize that any notion that Obama hasn't taken any money from these corporations and only Ted Cruz has, as implied by the Oatmeal cartoonist, is naive if not laughable:
Anyway, I don't care whether or not Obama is making some sort of push for net neutrality. If he is, he is doing it because it is a popular issue for his poorly informed constituency. Government-enforced net neutrality is a bad idea for many reasons, but the most basic is that it gives politicians and bureaucrats more influence over something the market is better-suited to handle.
The net neutrality advocates, from what I've heard and read, are in favor of UNREGULATED internet services. Maybe it could go bad both ways. I'm just arguing to keep what we have now! That's it. Let's forget the terminology and focus on the issue. I and many others do not want the services and freedoms we enjoy taken away. I don't even understand why this is an issue. Does anyone seriously think that we want to give up the online freedom we currently have? I do think the government has too much power, but the fact that we are both arguing for different sides of this issue but essentially want the same thing is really scary; it means no one understands the issue. I don't really want to continue to see an America run like that. What ever happened to "by the people?" I think it's time someone organized a protest against these big companies and argued that the government do it's original job: protect the rights and freedoms chosen by the people! This is a much bigger issue than just the internet. Everything I've heard, though, points to the idea that net neutrality (which is the only part of this I'm in favor of) is essentially the system we have now; internet service providers cannot arbitrarily pick and choose what content is delivered and what is blocked. I don't want that to change. Imagine how many small businesses and other grass-roots programs would not get proper exposure if the big companies decided to block the ones who didn't pay big money for access! That's a future I don't want to see. If there's some hidden agenda, though, I don't want to support it. I'm only concerned about my personal rights and freedoms. It kind of feels like no side is for the people, and this is a generation that is not politically savvy at all.
Also, from what I've heard, it's price inflation. They can provide these services to everyone at reasonable rates, like they do now. They just want to find a way to make more money. Discriminating against which services seem like they should be more expensive and which services should not is one way to do it. I give up, though. It's no use arguing with people who probably don't depend on the internet for job-finding, research, entertainment, and interpersonal communication. This is just some way for the big companies to stick it to the little man, and, yes, this could possibly happen both ways. The internet is regulated enough already; we don't need to give the ISPs the right to divide the internet into accessible and inaccessible domains on a whim. These monopolies will find a way, it appears, to keep the little man from prospering.
Net neutrality will be the first step toward government control of the internet. They've just framed it in a clever way to make you think you're sticking it to the big guys.
Thankfully, this is an open forum. I think it would be beneficial for all of us to have a better understanding of the issues at hand. Post a link to a copy of the proposal, and let's go through it line-by-line. Really, both options may be unsavory. That's where our collective voice comes in. Please stop allowing the bigger corporations and government corruption to steal our freedom.
Fair enough, I was a wee bit snarky. However, a somewhat competitive oligopoly is preferable, both in price and innovation, to a full fledged monopoly, even a regulated monpoly utility, especially when the technology is anything but settled at this point.
I'd agree with you the oligopoly is the lesser of two evils; until the participants of the oligopoly want to start dictating terms that fundamentally change the nature of the product sold. That's what is happening here more than any government plot to control/regulate an international network.
Net neutrality will be the first step toward government control of the internet. They've just framed it in a clever way to make you think you're sticking it to the big guys.
Soon we will have certain allowed internet channels that are approved by the government. Since .gov will be responsible they will be held to a different standard where all information will be filtered for correctness and legality. Not to mention total access to all pertinent citizen info of course "related to terrorism"
Soon we will have certain allowed internet channels that are approved by the government. Since .gov will be responsible they will be held to a different standard where all information will be filtered for correctness and legality. Not to mention total access to all pertinent citizen info of course "related to terrorism"
When did we elevate "a scenario I just pulled out of my rear" to the status of "argument"?
President Obama came out strongly Monday for the concept of net neutrality, saying that "an open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life."
In a written statement, Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to "create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality," and to ensure that phone and cable companies will not be able "to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."
Laughable....how, oh how, will you get all those independents on board with all those rural connections? who is going to pay for the hundreds of billions necessary to fix first/last mile problems with access? The government? Hardly....try the consumer.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it....there is an easier way, fix the transport charges equally with unfettered access. Most of those small Telcos couldn't pay for a mile of fiber let alone hundreds....if those markets were that valuable, believe me, the industry would have built it by now just like they always have...have to have a market to support the cost....can't just build it...plenty have tried with FCC money and the majority have failed because they had no market to support it. It's that simple.
No one can or should, including the government, install infrastructure to towns that have 10 people...what's the point? There's a REASON they don't have it today....NO market...capiche? This is similar to healthcare...you are going to screw millions to serve the thousands....nice.....
Again, there are ways to address it with equalizing tariffs and getting rid of OTHER tariffs that stand in the way. As it relates to building to billy bob's lumber mill, well, billy bob has to have some skin in the game....too?
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.
