ot: net neutrality

[eddief]

If this is controversial please feel free to delete this thread.

Is it controversial or could this be a topic we agree on?

Trying to call attention in a calm way. I prefer neutral.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by eddief

If this is controversial please feel free to delete this thread.

Is it controversial or could this be a topic we agree on?

Trying to call attention in a calm way. I prefer neutral.

Can you nutshell the issue? If we lose the neutrality, what will change?

[eddief]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.29e59d1df9bd

[dave thompson]

IMO one can’t be too calm about this subject. If what is being proposed goes through, I believe that will be not too far removed from what we see and hear to be totally controlled by a very few entities. Big Brother if you will.

I normally don’t pay too much attention to events like this but this particular thing scares the bejezus out of me.

[weisan]

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-...-need-know-now

When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. In May, the FCC voted to let Pai’s internet-killing plan move forward. By the end of the summer, the agency was flooded with more than 20 million comments. The vast majority of people commenting urged the FCC to preserve the existing Net Neutrality rules.

[eddief]

the Alabama election and the tax bill. will anyone notice?

[Big Dan]

big money trumps freedom.

[Tickdoc]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

big money trumps freedom.

And there’s money in freedom.

[shovelhd]

There's a big difference between allowing classes of traffic at different speeds, and censoring or blocking content. Internet traffic has been prioritized since the beginning. It's no threat to anyone. There's plenty of competition in the long haul space so there's no imminent threat of a monopoly.

However, if there is collusion amongst companies to block content, for whatever reason, that's not good. That said, social media platforms are doing this today, and I don't see 20 million people writing their congressperson about that.

The other thing to consider is that the Internet is worldwide. We can make all the laws we want, but the rest of the world can ignore them.

[PQJ]

Nothing good can come from this initiative of President Moron’s administration. Nothing. Sorry to inject agita into this thread, but this kind of crap (combined with all the other crap we are being subjected to) has me highly agitated. Off to cook a turkey.

[OtayBW]

I've already e-mailed my legislators about this, FWIW....
Encourage you all to do so as well.

[mistermo]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

The other thing to consider is that the Internet is worldwide. We can make all the laws we want, but the rest of the world can ignore them.

In a major metropolitan city, I have a choice of exactly two ISPs. It seems that without neutrality, they have an awful lot of power to determine and control the content I see.

[Rada]

It's ridiculous to believe that ISP's have been throwing millions lobbying against net neutrality are going to play nice.

http://bgr.com/2017/07/12/net-neutra...ction-july-12/

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

There's a big difference between allowing classes of traffic at different speeds, and censoring or blocking content. Internet traffic has been prioritized since the beginning. It's no threat to anyone. There's plenty of competition in the long haul space so there's no imminent threat of a monopoly.

However, if there is collusion amongst companies to block content, for whatever reason, that's not good. That said, social media platforms are doing this today, and I don't see 20 million people writing their congressperson about that.

The other thing to consider is that the Internet is worldwide. We can make all the laws we want, but the rest of the world can ignore them.

Not to get political, or overly personal, but of everyone I've ever seen post on this site, you'd be the one I would have put money on to say "this is fine".

[shovelhd]

I didn't say it was fine. Restricting content in any way shape or form goes against every fiber of my being. I think the speed issue is way overblown, being driven by political forces.