Why net neutrality is important (2)

[CogSpin]

McCain is AGAINST net neutrality. And Obama is strongly in favour of keeping net neutrality. So vote Obama. It doesn't matter what happens in Iraq or Russia or China if we don't have a free, open press on the internet. The mainstream media has too many corporate ties to accurately tell us what's going on in the world. The mainstream media cannot be trusted. Thus, for me, net neutrality is the second most important election issue, behind only the economy.

Net neutrality is being compromised because of people using high-bandwidth on videos, large files etc. The SOLUTION is to upgrade the infrastructure to something like fibre optic or satellite, and that would be very cheap, and would make our monthly internet bills cheaper, too. However, this would mean LESS PROFIT for the ISPs, and thus, they are voting to get rid of net neutrality and turn the internet into a TV-style model.

Thus, every candidate should have REPLACING THE CURRENT INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE as one of the top priorities on their Presidential to-do list.

The people need to be taxed to pay for this, because clearly, in the free market, ISPs are not going to want to pay for something that will result in them making less money.

[I reposted this here because of the poor reception is general idiot forum]

[tehconcept]

I care.

[Gunter45]

At 8/15/08 11:01 AM, Mr-Money wrote: they are voting to get rid of net neutrality and turn the internet into a TV-style model.

Nobody is voting on this.

[Al6200]

There'd still be a Democratic congress, so even if McCain won he wouldn't be able to pass any legislation.

[hrb5711]

Yes! Because after the economy screw housing, healthcare, unemployment, inflation, oil speculation, energy crisis, the wars, foriegn policies, and education......SAVE THE INTERNET and save you $10 a month on you internet bill.........dumb.

[Jackrabbit-slims]

At 8/15/08 01:55 PM, hrb5711 wrote: and save you $10 a month on you internet bill.........dumb.

That's not quite how it works, but i think the OP has the burden of not explaining it well enough.

I first heard of this from that Ask A Ninja show, then a bunch of other YouTubers started to throw the issue around. It seems big for people in that community, but i dont see it in the media anywhere else. Maybe this lack of information is what the ISPs are depending on to sneak this new model in

[adrshepard]

At 8/15/08 11:01 AM, Mr-Money wrote: McCain is AGAINST net neutrality. And Obama is strongly in favour of keeping net neutrality. So vote Obama...Thus, for me, net neutrality is the second most important election issue, behind only the economy.

I guess your reasoning is at the very least consistent as you seem to have been excluded from finding out that elected officials can't really do jack shit about the economy.

Net neutrality is being compromised because of people using high-bandwidth on videos, large files etc. The SOLUTION is to upgrade the infrastructure to something like fibre optic or satellite, and that would be very cheap, and would make our monthly internet bills cheaper, too. However, this would mean LESS PROFIT for the ISPs, and thus, they are voting to get rid of net neutrality and turn the internet into a TV-style model.

What the hell are you talking about? What does youtube have anything to do with neutrality? Is there some sort of maximum internet capacity for the entire world that I'm not aware of? It's one thing with radio or television since there are only so many frequencies and there are things like broadcast interference. But what you're saying makes no sense, and I've noticed that the television commericials for "net neutrality" do the same, playing off class tensions while not actually explaining anything.

I don't even understand the wikipedia page about it.

[Jackrabbit-slims]

At 8/15/08 05:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't even understand the wikipedia page about it.

I know. It is very obvious you don't understand. Also, the economy relies heavily on the confidence of consumers so the president does play a role in controlling the money supply (federal bank - he himself does not *control* it but he has influence) as well as vetoing/approving bills to cut/increase taxes.

But back to the things you don't understand, try YouTubing 'net neutrality' and try to find a simplified explanation which will fit your tastes. Seriously don't reject someone's views because you can't comprehend them.

[hrb5711]

At 8/15/08 02:08 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: That's not quite how it works, but i think the OP has the burden of not explaining it well enough.

It doesn't show me why this should be such a huge issue. I'm all for upgrading and getting cheaper/better internet services. With all these other major issues, this just seems like one that shouldn't be at the top of the list.

If I understand it right the thing that Comcast just got busted for is what this is about. If it is than what is the big deal, the FCC put them in check and punished them for it? Even from the little I have read congress is already acting on it. It seems pretty under control to me. So how does this issue trump the energy crisis, or any other major issue?

[adrshepard]

At 8/15/08 05:39 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: But back to the things you don't understand, try YouTubing 'net neutrality' and try to find a simplified explanation which will fit your tastes. Seriously don't reject someone's views because you can't comprehend them.

Good advice, now I understand. Unfortunately, I still have no idea what Mr. Money was talking about regarding network cables and fiber-optics. The whole issue sounds like a legal one to me.

Plus, I can't seem to find any serious instances of abuses that can't be dismissed as abuse by employees rather than organized conspiracies. I've seen internal company protest groups blocked (allegedly), something about Verizon redirecting people to its website when they mistype a web address (as if the ERROR 404 people are being discriminated against), another about how a company prioritized bandwidth usage according to function but was accused of some big conspiracy instead.

It would seem this issue is being heralded by the obsessively paranoid, since I don't see any suffering going on due to the absence of legislation.

[CogSpin]

What I am saying is this:

The current internet infrastructure is being pushed to its limits right now because more people are using the internet for longer and with bigger files, videos etc

Therefore, this is costing internet providers a lot of money, and so they are proposing getting rid of "net neutrality" (giving equal bandwidth to every website). Instead, they will allow website owners to pay money to have their websites on the internet and also charge consumers to access certain websites, so it becomes a bit like TV where you can pay for certain channels.

It basically destroys FREE SPEECH on the internet, because your average Joe can't afford to pay the internet providers money to host their website. It turns the internet into a corporate haven, where you only get the opinions of the mainstream media, which of course are heavily maneuvered by their corporate ties.

So........ what it means is that when loads of bad shit is going on in the world (e.g. 9/11, or the current Russia-Georgia situation), you're not going to get INDEPENDENT views (independent of corporate ties, e.g. oil companies). All you're going to get is corporate bullshit, WHICH YOU CANNOT TRUST, because it is lured to money.

So yeah, what makes the internet great is people putting out real news independent of anyone. This would be erased unless we UPGRADE THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE... and therefore... the internet will NOT BE PUSHED TO ITS LIMITS and the internet providers will have no good reason to change the internet from what it is right now.

[JackPhantasm]

Yay another reason to vote for obama.

That's like 7890432 reasons so far.

Most of which are things I was made aware of through controversies, concerning his stances on life and everything. Which are all very well and good.

[ThePretenders]

As long as it slows down all the Neo-Nazi websites, it's all good.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/15/08 11:01 AM, Mr-Money wrote: McCain is AGAINST net neutrality. And Obama is strongly in favour of keeping net neutrality. So vote Obama.

so Obama could be Satan incarnate but the important thing is that he supports net neutrality. some people have to review their priorities.

[n64kid]

I don't think you understand net neutrality.

At 8/16/08 11:17 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

The current internet infrastructure is being pushed to its limits right now because more people are using the internet for longer and with bigger files, videos etc

True, which costs the ISPs shitloads due to bandwidth restraints. Should you strain your ISP a few extra dollars just because you want to watch the Pokerap on youtube? Do you realize how much money they spend on infrastructure and bandwidth service companies. Look at Limelight, the content delivery provider of youtube. All your streaming of youtube goes through limelight, and without companies raising their prices to charge certain sites, they would go bankrupt. They, like airliners, have to charge someone to stay up and running. Saying yes to net neutrality as it is now is saying no to US Airways chargins 2 bucks for a coke, or Jetblue for charging 7 bucks for a blanket and pillow. The industry needs the extra revenue, and Obama's plan will bankrupt too many companies. Would you rather sites pay extra for higher bandwidth, or not be able to view those sites at all due to overload?

Therefore, this is costing internet providers a lot of money, and so they are proposing getting rid of "net neutrality" (giving equal bandwidth to every website). Instead, they will allow website owners to pay money to have their websites on the internet and also charge consumers to access certain websites, so it becomes a bit like TV where you can pay for certain channels.

In America, Verizon is the only ISP that charges consumers, and the rest of the telecomms/cable companies have no interest in doing so to keep competitive pricings. Pick up a copy of the WSJ once in a while, will you?

It basically destroys FREE SPEECH on the internet, because your average Joe can't afford to pay the internet providers money to host their website. It turns the internet into a corporate haven, where you only get the opinions of the mainstream media, which of course are heavily maneuvered by their corporate ties.

If the average Joe gets 500,000 unique views daily, then the average Joe can affor the premium. People representing sidestream media would not be subject to fees because they don't see heavy traffic. The only people who pay ARE the ones with corporate ties that see the heavy traffic and use up a ton of bandwidth. Big sites pay, little ones don't.

So........ what it means is that when loads of bad shit is going on in the world (e.g. 9/11, or the current Russia-Georgia situation), you're not going to get INDEPENDENT views (independent of corporate ties, e.g. oil companies.

Except you will.

All you're going to get is corporate bullshit, WHICH YOU CANNOT TRUST, because it is lured to money.

Except you won't.

So yeah, what makes the internet great is people putting out real news independent of anyone. This would be erased unless we UPGRADE THE INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE... and therefore... the internet will NOT BE PUSHED TO ITS LIMITS and the internet providers will have no good reason to change the internet from what it is right now.

Learn who is targeted before you speak about the cons, ok?

[Coherent]

At 8/19/08 04:06 PM, n64kid wrote: I don't think you understand net neutrality.

I don't think you do.

If companies honestly need more money to support their bandwidth, then they can charge their customers more. The arguments they make against net nuetrality are just masquerades to hide what they really want: internet regulations. Without net nuetrality companies will be able to tier bandwidth speeds and "exclude" certain websites from their "internet package". In other words, censorship of certain websites that they deem unsuitable for their customers to be using.

Personally, I frequent several websites that many people would like to see removed (4chan.org comes to mind), and I'd rather see them remain accessible and fast.

[JackPhantasm]

THe internet could all just be on one fiberoptic wire and it would be like super fast and cheap i thought.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

So, let me get this straight; if we don't do anything, the media will disappear.

Hmmm.... Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times... out of all the major news sources, one or two of them has to be pretty good. But you're saying that for some random reason, the laws of existence will simply change and media sources will just randomly stop sprouting up unless we have the government take charge and help foster environments where new media's can grow? Are you joking me?

If we want free media, LEAVE SHIT ALONE. If we want a distorted mess, have the government get involved in the situation.

[Sajberhippien]

At 8/20/08 09:18 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: If we want free media, LEAVE SHIT ALONE. If we want a distorted mess, have the government get involved in the situation.

You don't have free media when a few people own all communication channels. The government gets replaced by non-democratic companies. I can't see how that would be good.

[n64kid]

At 8/19/08 09:20 PM, Coherent wrote:

I don't think you do.

If companies honestly need more money to support their bandwidth, then they can charge their customers more. The arguments they make against net nuetrality are just masquerades to hide what they really want: internet regulations. Without net nuetrality companies will be able to tier bandwidth speeds and "exclude" certain websites from their "internet package". In other words, censorship of certain websites that they deem unsuitable for their customers to be using.

Controlling and blocking certain sites is just some conspiracy scare tactic. Charging for what you use is what the problem is. People think if you have time warner that they will block comcast and competitor sites, but that won't happen in the near future, and would be stopped by some antitrust act if a problem arose.

If you think they should just raise the rates for everyone, consider this.
You remember the NFL network-cable dispute, right? NFL network wanted to charge 1 dollar a month for every cable subscriber because they wouldn't agree to being put in a sports tier. Should everyone be forced to pay 12 dollars a month for a network that they might not want, or should the people who want it pay the extra fee? I supported my cable company's decision in telling Fox and the NFL network to piss off because I didn't want to pay extra for a channel that I wouldn't watch. So because it's a similar circumstance, I would support paying a premium for high traffic sites, assuming revenue is needed for the company, and contrary to what people have said, the "little guys" will still be around for free.

It's probably different in Britain, but that's what it's looking like if it happens in America.

So wait for an upgrade in the systems or collectively stop watching videos of three year olds singing peanut butter jelly time if it's not needed and save your ISP bandwidth costs.

Personally, I frequent several websites that many people would like to see removed (4chan.org comes to mind), and I'd rather see them remain accessible and fast.

Sites being completely blocked isn't an issue in America, and you're already charged by how fast your connection is.

[Coherent]

At 8/20/08 06:04 PM, n64kid wrote: Controlling and blocking certain sites is just some conspiracy scare tactic. Charging for what you use is what the problem is. People think if you have time warner that they will block comcast and competitor sites, but that won't happen in the near future, and would be stopped by some antitrust act if a problem arose.

What great logic. That's like saying we should allow loopholes in the voting system so they can exclude blacks from voting, because it's not like anyone's going to use them, and if something bad happens we can always fix it later. Controlling and blocking certain sites is not a conspiracy theory. Comcast has been caught doing thing that are clear violations of net neutrality in the past, like forcing disconnects on torrenting programs. To think that they wouldn't censor websites for piracy or other reasons that aren't an ISPs business is sheer ignorance.

If you think they should just raise the rates for everyone, consider this.
You remember the NFL network-cable dispute, right? NFL network wanted to charge 1 dollar a month for every cable subscriber because they wouldn't agree to being put in a sports tier. Should everyone be forced to pay 12 dollars a month for a network that they might not want, or should the people who want it pay the extra fee? I supported my cable company's decision in telling Fox and the NFL network to piss off because I didn't want to pay extra for a channel that I wouldn't watch. So because it's a similar circumstance, I would support paying a premium for high traffic sites, assuming revenue is needed for the company, and contrary to what people have said, the "little guys" will still be around for free.

Cool story bro, but you're still assuming that the new system would be used benevolently, which is an idiotic assumption considering that the companies being given the power only work to profit. They have a motive to censor websites or at the very least tier unfavorable websites to load very slowly in order to benefit associated companies. For example, how many Hollywood producers would like to see ThePirateBay.org be taken down (A: most if not all of them).

Furthermore, your little plan totally screws over the little guy who wants to run a website but can't afford to pay the cable companies to make his website load faster.

The system that we have works. The system that you propose is exploitable.

So wait for an upgrade in the systems or collectively stop watching videos of three year olds singing peanut butter jelly time if it's not needed and save your ISP bandwidth costs.

Comcast and the other companies are full of it anyways. The vast majority of these "bandwidth" problems are due to them overselling their product. In other words, they sell service to more people than they can really support.

Sites being completely blocked isn't an issue in America

And what evidence do you have to support this? I agree that it's currently not a problem, however without net neutrality is definitely is a very real issue.

and you're already charged by how fast your connection is.

Maybe you missed the part where removing net neutrality would allow ISPs to tier the speeds of different websites.

[n64kid]

At 8/20/08 07:24 PM, Coherent wrote:

What great logic. That's like saying we should allow loopholes in the voting system so they can exclude blacks from voting, because it's not like anyone's going to use them, and if something bad happens we can always fix it later.

Yeah, bad logic. Never trust a corporation because they're all bad. We need government intervention at every possible turn or else people might be charged too much for the internet.

Controlling and blocking certain sites is not a conspiracy theory. Comcast has been caught doing thing that are clear violations of net neutrality in the past, like forcing disconnects on torrenting programs. To think that they wouldn't censor websites for piracy or other reasons that aren't an ISPs business is sheer ignorance.

Caught and exposed.

Cool story bro, but you're still assuming that the new system would be used benevolently, which is an idiotic assumption considering that the companies being given the power only work to profit. They have a motive to censor websites or at the very least tier unfavorable websites to load very slowly in order to benefit associated companies. For example, how many Hollywood producers would like to see ThePirateBay.org be taken down (A: most if not all of them).

So two companies do it, and one doesn't. Everyone will switch to that one company and the other two will change their ways.

Furthermore, your little plan totally screws over the little guy who wants to run a website but can't afford to pay the cable companies to make his website load faster.

The little guy with little bandwidth requirements wouldn't have to pay up unless the little guy isn't really little.

The system that we have works. The system that you propose is exploitable.

The system we have "allow loopholes", you just said that. The system I propose it allowing companies to do what they want to recover lost profits from overuse of bandwidth, like they currently can but haven't been because you CAN trust companies.

Comcast and the other companies are full of it anyways. The vast majority of these "bandwidth" problems are due to them overselling their product. In other words, they sell service to more people than they can really support.

To make more money to upgrade their systems to be better than the competition. Welcome to capitalism 101.

And what evidence do you have to support this? I agree that it's currently not a problem, however without net neutrality is definitely is a very real issue.

There haven't been laws yet it hasn't happened except in some cases with Verizon Fios, which already has really low customer satisfaction and poor retention.

Maybe you missed the part where removing net neutrality would allow ISPs to tier the speeds of different websites.

Theres no law saying net neutrality must happen. What you're trying to do is ban corporations from seeing favorable profits, much like banning airliners from charging for pillow and blankets and soft drinks. The revenue must come from somewhere, otherwise companies will go broke which would lead to less competition of ISPs and real monopolies and no neutrality.

[Coherent]

At 8/20/08 07:45 PM, n64kid wrote: Yeah, bad logic. Never trust a corporation because they're all bad. We need government intervention at every possible turn or else people might be charged too much for the internet.

Don't trust a corporation to be benevolent, that's for fools. Trust a corporation to follow a profit. You don't need government intervention at every corner, but you do need to set limits.

Caught and exposed.

Eternally proving that cable companies do have the will to work against what is best for their customers if it is beneficial for themselves to do so, even if it means breaking the law in process.

So two companies do it, and one doesn't. Everyone will switch to that one company and the other two will change their ways.

Only it doesn't work that way. Most (if not all) people only have access to one cable provider and one DSL provider at most, in some rare cases a local company may provide a fiber wire connection, but that's it, most people don't have the choice between multiple service providers. I mean sure, you can choose between your local cable provider and your local DSL provider, but if you choose DSL you're going to have a much much slower connection. Not much of a choice if you ask me.

Also, it's not unheard of for all the dominating companies to agree to work together in rising prices, why couldn't they work together to agree to stamp out certain websites. Obviously they could, and this is totally possible.

The little guy with little bandwidth requirements wouldn't have to pay up unless the little guy isn't really little.

See, that's another assumption. You're assuming that the companies will tier speed based on bandwidth as opposed to lowering the connection speed of any website unwilling to pay up.

The system we have "allow loopholes", you just said that.

What? Point out where I said our current system has loopholes. Our current system has way exploits than one without net neutrality.

The system I propose it allowing companies to do what they want to recover lost profits from overuse of bandwidth, like they currently can but haven't been because you CAN trust companies.

Haha, you really are an idiot aren't you? Ever heard of Enron? How about Monsanto? Those companies were/are totally trustworthy aren't they?

To make more money to upgrade their systems to be better than the competition. Welcome to capitalism 101.

That's totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that most of these "bandwidth problems" are bullshit.

There haven't been laws yet it hasn't happened except in some cases with Verizon Fios, which already has really low customer satisfaction and poor retention.

Uh hello? Comcast getting caught terminating peer to peer connections in torrents? Sure there isn't a case of actually blocking a website, but as far as filtering content goes, it definitely has happened.

Theres no law saying net neutrality must happen. What you're trying to do is ban corporations from seeing favorable profits

More like banning corporations from working against freedom of media and information.

much like banning airliners from charging for pillow and blankets and soft drinks.

Haha. what the fuck? What is with you and these ridiculous, over the top analogies?

The revenue must come from somewhere, otherwise companies will go broke which would lead to less competition of ISPs and real monopolies and no neutrality.

Companies wont go broke, they'll raise their prices, or lower the wages of their workers. They'll probably do the latter even if they aren't going broke. The cable companies aren't at risk of going bankrupt anytime soon.

[Coherent]

Oh, and from now on, I'll be watching "peanut butter jelly time" TWO times a day, just to spite you.

[RiftMaster]

The whole thing reeks of the classic mafia strong-arming setup:

"You wanna have your shop here? you gotta pay us protection money"

Basically the big corporations would decide what gets online. Small sites that don't pay a cut to the big bullies wouldn't be allowed to exist.

To paraphrase: BUTT RAPE

[Conspiracy3]

I agree. Personally without saying this next sentence I would not be doing my name justice.

I have seen numerous news reports attacking credibility of websites, and I have even looked at my nephew's school curriculum and saw them blatantly saying ".com sites are not credible sources a .gov site is much more reliable." Personally this makes me think that the government only wants us to see the information they themselves create. If we only know what they want us to know, they can control us very easily.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/20/08 05:45 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

You don't have free media when a few people own all communication channels. The government gets replaced by non-democratic companies. I can't see how that would be good.

There are THOUSANDS of News Papers, Channels, etc. out there.

[TonyTostieno]

Because government is always totally and completely benevolent.

[tritiumnitrate]

Someone want to explain what net neutrality is because I'm fucking confused and wikipedia is not helping.