All Things Net Neutrality

[Daseal]

I agree with the general statement in this thread. Net neutrality must be preserved and the free and open internet is critical to our economy and way of life. Currently ISPs are paid by consumers (you) to provide a service. They’ve started throttling traffic unless companies pay a ransom to the ISP as well to improve their connections. So the ISP’s are essentially double dipping to get money from both sides, the consumers and the companies.

I’m in support of the nuclear option, which is labeling ISPs as Title II common carriers. Declaring them Title II characters preserves net neutrality by ensuring they provide an equal level of service to all internet services. The FCC can ensure these companies aren’t giving priority to providers willing to pay. The internet is currently an incubator for innovation, when the internet becomes the haves and the have nots, we will lose that competition and innovation.

Ironically, I’ve seen arguments from the telecoms that labeling them as common carriers would stifle innovation. Please raise your hand if your ISP has been innovating lately. The only place I’ve seen ISPs push to increase their capabilities are areas that have provided actual competition via Google Fiber or a local ISP. Otherwise, they know you have no other options and there’s no incentive for them to provide upgrades. Their primary goal is to accumulate territory and protect it from other providers.

I live in a fairly populated area and have a grand total of one broadband provider. That is an issue. There is no competition and the internet, as I see it, is a necessity. The internet is no longer optional. It’s necessary. I would be happy to see a system reminiscent of the telephone companies of yester year. Have service providers outfit a home with the necessary infrastructure based on territory. From there, the consumer can use that infrastructure to purchase whichever ISP service they desire. The ISP then leases the connection from the owner based on a pre-arranged standard fee per user. This reduces redundant infrastructure and gives consumers real competition.

I’m greatly concerned with censorship of the internet. Censorship is a slippery slope, and banning anything makes me nervous. Please keep in mind, I still support legal repercussions of the actions/contents on the internet, but do not support the banning of anything on the internet. There are some terrible and disgusting items on the internet, but believe banning them undermines the ideals of a free and open internet.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I agree with the general statement in this thread. Net neutrality must be preserved and the free and open internet is critical to our economy and way of life. Currently ISPs are paid by consumers (you) to provide a service. They’ve started throttling traffic unless companies pay a ransom to the ISP as well to improve their connections. So the ISP’s are essentially double dipping to get money from both sides, the consumers and the companies.

I’m in support of the nuclear option, which is labeling ISPs as Title II common carriers. Declaring them Title II characters preserves net neutrality by ensuring they provide an equal level of service to all internet services. The FCC can ensure these companies aren’t giving priority to providers willing to pay. The internet is currently an incubator for innovation, when the internet becomes the haves and the have nots, we will lose that competition and innovation.

Ironically, I’ve seen arguments from the telecoms that labeling them as common carriers would stifle innovation. Please raise your hand if your ISP has been innovating lately. The only place I’ve seen ISPs push to increase their capabilities are areas that have provided actual competition via Google Fiber or a local ISP. Otherwise, they know you have no other options and there’s no incentive for them to provide upgrades. Their primary goal is to accumulate territory and protect it from other providers.

I live in a fairly populated area and have a grand total of one broadband provider. That is an issue. There is no competition and the internet, as I see it, is a necessity. The internet is no longer optional. It’s necessary. I would be happy to see a system reminiscent of the telephone companies of yester year. Have service providers outfit a home with the necessary infrastructure based on territory. From there, the consumer can use that infrastructure to purchase whichever ISP service they desire. The ISP then leases the connection from the owner based on a pre-arranged standard fee per user. This reduces redundant infrastructure and gives consumers real competition.

I’m greatly concerned with censorship of the internet. Censorship is a slippery slope, and banning anything makes me nervous. Please keep in mind, I still support legal repercussions of the actions/contents on the internet, but do not support the banning of anything on the internet. There are some terrible and disgusting items on the internet, but believe banning them undermines the ideals of a free and open internet.

Strong taek dude. I'm pretty much in agreement with most of your statement. It's a shame that companies aren't smart enough to realize that their greed will contribute to the downfall of a major component of today's society. I can only hope that our gov't is smart enough to recognize that a free and equal internet is essential in today's society, but that might be asking too much if they're all in Comcast/Verizon's back pockets.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by mooby

Strong taek dude. I'm pretty much in agreement with most of your statement. It's a shame that companies aren't smart enough to realize that their greed will contribute to the downfall of a major component of today's society. I can only hope that our gov't is smart enough to recognize that a free and equal internet is essential in today's society, but that might be asking too much if they're all in Comcast/Verizon's back pockets.

What shocked me is how LITTLE it took to buy the politicians. I believe Ars Technica did a write up of the congressmen who signed the letter to the FCC asking for no regulation. The donations were pretty damn low all things considered (some as low as 10K.)

I want to clarify. I understand net neutrality doesn't directly lead to censorship, but it does lay the groundwork. It's going to start with companies (Comcast) making Hulu the primary option and pushing netflix out. That will slowly devolve into the outright blocking of sites deemed dangerous or offensive. Some will be legitimate (think child porn), but that opens the gate for special interest groups to push their ideals. If we start blocking we're not too far from being China and allowing the filtering of information critical of the gov, etc.