Net Neutrality
 

Kind of a big F'ing deal, what do you guys think?

[URL="https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now"]What You Need to Know Now[/URL]

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Doesn't register on my personal give-a-shit meter.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Seems more like a debating with the enemy thread...

Net Neutrality is a continuation of the big evil corporations will ruin everything theme.
Capitalism is based on the idea of private companies engaging in business as a way to make profit (capital). No one is destroying the internet by applying capital markets to the internet. What should go away is local restrictions(governmental interference) that has created monopolies in internet markets. Then if Verizon or Comcast wants to charge outrageous fees for streaming media let other companies enter the fray.

It's no different then the breakup of ATT, or the rise of Tmobile as Verizon and ATT got more outrageously priced.

Fact is some internet data IS more important then others, and a hospital wanting real time access to critical data shouldn't see their data relegated behind some warpather watching the latest SNL skit.

Net Neutrality is like saying every car, even police and ambulances have the right to be in any lane and no one has priority over the other. It's not true but it sounds fair.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Funny, I thought this was an issue most, if not all could get behind. I thought we all liked our internet the way it is, free from potential censorship, free from potential price gouging relating to content, free from giving ISP's control over what we see and how much we'll have to pay to see it. Guess not.

I'm glad your concerned about public safety CR with your highway example, but ultimately this comes down to $$. Just like anything else. Paid prioritization. It will be more like if you want to drive in the left lane, you'll have to pay more. You'll definitely pay for your speed and freedom. If you want to drive in the middle lane, you'll have to pay too, not was much as the left lane, but still, you'll pay. If you don't want to pay anything extra, fine, stay in the right lane. But you can't go above 45 mph, and you'll be bombarded with billboards, stop signs, and traffic lights. You also won't have access to the same exits that the other two lanes have.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Just curious, is it wrong for Verizon to have price tiers for the speed of the service to households? Should everyone get 150upload and download speeds regardless of what service you pay for?
Or should ups charge the same rate for an overnight package as a ground delivery?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

If I find that the sites I want to use are too slow on my ISP, I'll look to switch ISPs. Here I have a choice between Verizon, Comcast, and DirecTV/AT&T.

I don't anticipate it will get so slow that I'll experience a problem, but I have recourse in the event it does.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong Matty but I'm just more concerned about other issues than this. Issues of life and livelihood rank higher on my give a shit meter.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1183203]Funny, I thought this was an issue most, if not all could get behind. I thought we all liked our internet the way it is, free from potential censorship, free from potential price gouging relating to content, free from giving ISP's control over what we see and how much we'll have to pay to see it. Guess not.

I'm glad your concerned about public safety CR with your highway example, but ultimately this comes down to $$. Just like anything else. Paid prioritization. It will be more like if you want to drive in the left lane, you'll have to pay more. You'll definitely pay for your speed and freedom. If you want to drive in the middle lane, you'll have to pay too, not was much as the left lane, but still, you'll pay. If you don't want to pay anything extra, fine, stay in the right lane. But you can't go above 45 mph, and you'll be bombarded with billboards, stop signs, and traffic lights. You also won't have access to the same exits that the other two lanes have.[/QUOTE]Isn't that basically what an hov lane is. Should we say that all cars should have equal access to hov lanes for the sake of fairness?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

CR, what do you think you’ll stand to gain if net neutrality goes away? Will this be a win for consumers in any way?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

If you're a Verizon/Comcast/ATT stockholder, do away with these profit-killing internet regulations! If you're 90% of anyone else, and you understood your prices are only going to up as a result of this, you'd probably be mad. Then there's the 5% like Schneed/Cred where money is no object and they are perfectly fine paying whatever the free market asks them to pay, so they are completely comfortable with NN being repealed.

Also, the problem with Cred's post is the idea that the hospital's data has to lag behind the Warpath's. I'm pretty sure most hospitals already pay their companies whatever the premium is to have high speed data, which means in theory that they should be getting the upload/download rate that is agreed on in the contract.

Really the worst part of all this is all the government money big media has already gotten to deliver high speed internet that they failed on. But nah, you don't see Cred crying about gov't accountability there. If you give a grant to a company and tell them to deliver results you need to follow up on it. Now they're trying to take away the concept that they must treat all internet traffic the same. Well, the only reason I'm looking forward to it is so we can see Cred bitching when his provider tries to charge him an extra $5.99 a month for the "right wing" package that includes Fox News access at the same speeds as whatever liberal media outlet his provider owns.

Don't forget this website, Matty is gonna have to start soliciting bi-weekly donations because his provider is gonna try to charge him more money to keep this place running. But hey, free market capitalism works baby!

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Schneed10;1183209]If I find that the sites I want to use are too slow on my ISP, I'll look to switch ISPs. [B]Here I have a choice between Verizon, Comcast, and DirecTV/AT&T[/B].

I don't anticipate it will get so slow that I'll experience a problem, but I have recourse in the event it does.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong Matty but I'm just more concerned about other issues than this. Issues of life and livelihood rank higher on my give a shit meter.[/quote]

One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183210]Isn't that basically what an hov lane is. Should we say that all cars should have equal access to hov lanes for the sake of fairness?[/quote]

Nice. Rather than invest in alternative methods of transportation, it's "build roads that only affluent people can afford to drive on." You never see blue collar workers driving on toll roads, and there's a reason for that.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1183215]Nice. Rather than invest in alternative methods of transportation, it's "build roads that only affluent people can afford to drive on." You never see blue collar workers driving on toll roads, and there's a reason for that.[/QUOTE]Maybe not but if it wasn't for the hov lanes in the dc baltimore area the installers in my company would spend a ton more hours on the road and more gas too. It's not a perfect example but it's workable. In terms of alternatives no one is stopping companies from investing in new technologies. You only need to look at cell phone competition and how it drives better rates and better tech too.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183214]One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.[/quote]

For them I understand why they’d care. Still, getting the circle while trying to watch Netflix strikes me as first world problems.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1183214]One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.[/QUOTE]Then break up the monopolies and loosen the regulations around entering the market. I would be all for those options.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183223]Then break up the monopolies and loosen the regulations around entering the market. I would be all for those options.[/quote]

You sure you want the government spending a big chunk of money to defeat a monopoly? Remember, the monopoly has monopoly money. In this land where money is power, that's a big war to fight. Besides, our current FCC Commisioner seems more in favor of the "rub and tug monopoly" strategy, where he scratches their backs now and they scratch his later.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

I'm not sure I really understand it enough to discuss it. My cable bill is too high right now and that is going to be addressed next month,I have Comcast and have it all including a land line with them. I do my bills,banking and surf on the internet,I don't need what a Hospital needs ,I just need my internet to work.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

I’m for net neutrality 100%. I think it could leak into a free speech issue..so I’m hoping this won’t move into a states rights, but a federal policy.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Would sites like the warpath get slowed down while sites like ES (which is tied to redskins org) get the fast lane?

Will my firms website get slowed down or have google SEO position dropped bc we are not one of the firms that spend millions on internet advertising/organic search engines etc?

If netflix has to pay extra, wont they just pass the cost onto us?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Matty I do sympathize with you as the owner of a web-based operation.

I will say, if I experience slow speeds trying to access the warpath, then that would definitely register on my give a shit meter!

Good thing for you specifically is that this site isn't pumping out videos and large amounts of data - it's just spitting out webpages with text. Luckily I don't think it would hurt you much one way or another.

For those who've got a business that streams music or video content, big concern for sure.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

I'm gonna take a stab at today's vote, the 3 Repubs are going to vote yes to repeal and the 2 Dems are going to vote no.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Still not sure how a former Verizon lawyer/exec can be chosen to lead the FCC .. thanks Trump.

Thats like a guy who doesnt believe in carbon emissions being selected to lead the branch that regulates carbon emissions.

Or a lady who doesnt believe in supporting public schools chosen to lead public schools.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=MTK;1183211]CR, what do you think you’ll stand to gain if net neutrality goes away? Will this be a win for consumers in any way?[/quote]

As with most capitalistic intentions, IF there is competition for the high end, and also to provide the best low end levels of internet traffic, I would hope we see more innovative packaging, and more providers striving to offer better services at lower prices. Now all this also requires that we don't feed monopolies. That's the biggest risk.

I will say, much like Ma Bell had her place in laying groundwork, or as NASA had it's place in space exploration, Net Neutrality had a place at the early onset of commercial internet. There was big investment required with a very possible Bust of the market. That needs a government lift. But at this point the internet is a flourishing environment, and there are several potentials for startups to advance both the tech and packaging related to it.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183214]One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.[/quote]

I agree 100 percent here. That's where I support government intervention, and if others have a potential to make money they will lobby against the monopoly, but if they have no potential to differentiate themselves, they simply won't try.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=over the mountain;1183253]Still not sure how a former Verizon lawyer/exec can be chosen to lead the FCC .. thanks Trump.

Thats like a guy who doesnt believe in carbon emissions being selected to lead the branch that regulates carbon emissions.

Or a lady who doesnt believe in supporting public schools chosen to lead public schools.[/quote]

I agree on the last two, but IIRC Pai wasn't a Trump decision. So really, thanks Obama?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183258]I agree 100 percent here. That's where I support government intervention, and if others have a potential to make money they will lobby against the monopoly, but if they have no potential to differentiate themselves, they simply won't try.[/quote]

I just don't see this administration or FCC insisting that the Comcast/Verizon monopolies be broken up. I think it would require something so egregious on the companies' part that the gov't would have no choice but to break them up.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183260]I just don't see this administration or FCC insisting that the Comcast/Verizon monopolies be broken up. I think it would require something so egregious on the companies' part that the gov't would have no choice but to break them up.[/quote]

Isn't it more about local governments allowing consumers access? Seems like there are places that allow more ISP competition and some that allow less.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183262]Isn't it more about local governments allowing consumers access? Seems like there are places that allow more ISP competition and some that allow less.[/quote]

I know there are some places where local government is trying to offer people another alternative, but big ISP's are also trying to shut that down through lobbyists. I get what you're saying and it sounds nice, but everything I read seems like big ISP money doesn't go towards offering a better product or improving infrastructure, it's mostly spent on lobbying big and small gov't to make laws and eliminate competition.

For example, approx. 100 or so Congressmen sent the FCC a letter of support for the repeal a little while ago, and the majority of them all have varying levels of donations from big ISP to their campaigns.

[URL]https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xwknx/republican-members-of-congress-fcc-letter[/URL]

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183259]I agree on the last two, but IIRC Pai wasn't a Trump decision. So really, thanks Obama?[/quote]

[url]https://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/ajit-pai-fcc-chairman-233905[/url]

trump appointment.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Here is a good opinion article from Tom's Hardware, I don't think it's a political inspired piece, that goes thru net neutrality from a "hey it's not the best thing since ice cream point of view"

[URL="https://www.tomsguide.com/us/why-us-internet-is-slow-and-expensive,news-26251.html"]Net Neutrality Won't Save the Internet. Competition Will[/URL]

[quote]Judging by what you might have read online, you'd think the world was about to end with the imminent rollback of existing net neutrality rules, due for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Dec. 14.

The reversal would give "major corporations — like Verizon and Comcast — the power to block mobile apps, slow websites and even control which news outlets we can access," according to the ACLU.

"Comcast, Verizon and AT&T ... want to gut FCC rules and then pass bad legislation that allows extra fees, throttling & censorship," said the digital-activist group Fight for the Future.

The rule change "paves the way for an internet that works more like cable television, where wealthy insiders decide which speakers can reach a broad audience," warned the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Oh please. I oppose the FCC's proposal to reserve its 2015 decision reclassifying broadband as a utility, but the major internet service providers (ISPs) are not likely to change the way they do business as a result. They make tons of money under the existing rules, and they also made plenty of money before the rules were changed.

"[B]If the internet was not a terrible dystopia in 2014, there's not a ton of reasons to think that companies are going to do any of these awful things that they didn't seem to have any reason to do before," said Julian Sanchez, an analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute, on Wisconsin Public Radio last month.[/B]
...[/quote](emphasis mine) The rest of the article is really good.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=over the mountain;1183267][URL]https://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/ajit-pai-fcc-chairman-233905[/URL]

trump appointment.[/quote]

Well I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183269]Here is a good opinion article from Tom's Hardware, I don't think it's a political inspired piece, that goes thru net neutrality from a "hey it's not the best thing since ice cream point of view"

[URL="https://www.tomsguide.com/us/why-us-internet-is-slow-and-expensive,news-26251.html"]Net Neutrality Won't Save the Internet. Competition Will[/URL]

(emphasis mine) The rest of the article is really good.[/quote]

The problem I have with the whole "they haven't done this before so what means they will now" debate is that companies every day try new concepts to increase profit margins. Americans are going to eat up regardless of whether or not they like it, because the internet is as much a part of people's lives as eating lunch now.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183272]The problem I have with the whole "they haven't done this before so what means they will now" debate is that companies every day try new concepts to increase profit margins. Americans are going to eat up regardless of whether or not they like it, because the internet is as much a part of people's lives as eating lunch now.[/quote]

We didn't have net neutrality regulations until 2014, yet the internet grew pretty healthily all the while:

from the same article:
[quote]But in 2002, the FCC decided that broadband was a luxury, not a necessity, and classified it as an optional "information service" rather than as a "communication service" and a public utility. As a result, except in special cases, broadband providers were not obligated to open up their lines to competitors. The providers were only obligated to play by vague net-neutrality-ish rules.

The FCC did belatedly reclassify broadband as a communication service in 2015, but only because Verizon persuaded a judge to nullify the existing weak net-neutrality rules. (That reclassification is what the FCC now plans to reverse.) But the FCC still didn't force broadband providers to open up their lines; it mandated only that they not block any internet content.

Surprisingly, with a few exceptions, net-neutrality advocates have said little about the advantages of opening up broadband to free-market competition. It's the simplest and easiest way to make broadband cheaper and faster for consumers. The ISPs are probably happy that few U.S. customers have considered this issue and instead are worried about net neutrality.[/quote]

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Ok i'm lost as fuck, what in the world does all this mean??

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Whatever it was, it's dead now.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Giantone;1183275]Whatever it was, it's dead now.[/quote]

RIP Net Neutrality 2014-2017

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183276]Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

[B][I]If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.[/I][/B][/quote]

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Right. I looked into this after reading this thread and I'm 100% against reversing this.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=metalskins;1183312]Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.[/quote]

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183314]So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, [B]then we will see better products[/B].[/quote]

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.