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.
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.
That is 100% not what Net Neutrality is, and anyone trying to tell you that is either uninformed or deliberately lying to you.
but this netneutrality garbage is just that garbage...its about the government having more power
Power to ensure ISPs provide equal access to any and all internet content. Without it, the power transfers to the Comcasts of the world to decide which content to offer at higher/lower costs or even at all.
Quote:
net neutrality ..about more government fees
Net neutrality is the infrastructure currently in place. It's not the implementation of net neutrality that's being debated, it's the removal of the Open Internet Policy. The federal government doesn't charge a fee for open internet (net neutrality)... and it legally cannot. The Internet Tax Freedom Act expressly prohibits any federal taxation of the Internet for any reason.
Quote:
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.
This sentence is so vague it can hardly even qualify as an argument. Perhaps the author intended so. I can only assume the "business models" being referred to are the tiered services.
Quote:
the 'net neutrality ' bill means higher cost to the consumers
There is no bill and thus no higher cost to the consumers.
Quote:
its just another way to kill the middleclass by the fascist liberals
The "fascist liberals" have no intention of killing the middle class.
Quote:
you really think the FCC controlling the net is a good thing
So far, so good. It has given me and you unfettered access to the web. What will the monopolies do once in control?
Our internet has been under de-facto net neutrality under the FCC since it began, all the Obama administration did was formalize it.
Getting rid of it will hurt:
-323 million people in the United States
-Hundreds of thousands of small-midsize website (including the one we're on right now)
Getting rid of it will help:
-Four companies (Comcast, Verizon, ATT, Time Warner Cable)
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.
Forcing people to pay more to get their websites off the ground is certainly not going to help innovation. I have a small website and if Comcast and Time Warner make it harder for customers to see my website I don't have the money to pay for better service.
What seems like ages ago, to have internet access, you paid by the time you were on-line.
What government law made that change.
Government laws are created to protect the wealth, making it harder for the little guy to compete and the wealthy no problems paying off the greased palms.
You enjoy government regulating the internet? Government regulations, never add substantial cost? Cost the big guy can afford.
What seems like ages ago, to have internet access, you paid by the time you were on-line.
What government law made that change.
Government laws are created to protect the wealth, making it harder for the little guy to compete and the wealthy no problems paying off the greased palms.
And you're still wrong, sorry. What's happening here is that a law that made it easier for the little guy to compete and protected the consumer is being done away with - because the GOP donor class wishes it so.
No it means we will play more. If enough ISP companies charge a Netflix enough for faster internet sstreaming for customers, the price will get passed down to us end users. The same with what websites we as a consumer want to visit in general.
Understand I support NN but you are wrong. the bread butter of the ISP's in the past was to offer "unlimited" service which worked well because very few people could actually consume a lot of bandwidth. We now have high bandwidth service like Netflix, YouTube or whatever that a lot of people are using, the "unlimited" service model is broken.
Under NN as these services continue to expand the ISP's will be forced to start charging customers for what they use, there is no longer a large pool of people under utilizing the service to subsidize the use of those services.
Understand there is nothing that precludes an ISP from charging you whatever the hell they want for whatever level of service they want. The only stipulation to that is whatever service they are providing will equally apply to all the sites and services you use.
Understand there is nothing that precludes an ISP from charging you whatever the hell they want for whatever level of service they want. The only stipulation to that is whatever service they are providing will equally apply to all the sites and services you use.
Ayup. Essentially NN says that an IP packet should be treated equally, whether it carries an amusing cat photo from your aunt or a chunk of a streaming movie. (After all, it costs exactly the same to carry said packet through the network.) However, ComCast et al. got sad that streaming services purchased bandwidth, made money and didn't give the carrier a cut. By doing away with NN, they can apply the "Nice web service, shame if something happened to its reachability" model and make more money on transporting a streaming service bit.
Ayup. Essentially NN says that an IP packet should be treated equally, whether it carries an amusing cat photo from your aunt or a chunk of a streaming movie. (After all, it costs exactly the same to carry said packet through the network.) However, ComCast et al. got sad that streaming services purchased bandwidth, made money and didn't give the carrier a cut. By doing away with NN, they can apply the "Nice web service, shame if something happened to its reachability" model and make more money on transporting a streaming service bit.
It's an open-faced, unabashed cash grab.
Is that why CNN and others are now going to charge for content, now that NN is in place?
What seems like ages ago, to have internet access, you paid by the time you were on-line.
NN does preclude an ISP from offering you different tiers of service at whatever cost they want. This would include pay per byte, time, speed or any other scheme they can come up with.
The only thing NN does is insure that each of those bytes you use are given equal access to the sites and service you use.
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.
