ot: net neutrality

[Rada]

Originally Posted by 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.

Those political forces are bing driven by the half billion dollars ISP's have spent. I do agree about your comment about social media. All the crap that FB is doing should be investigated by DOJ.

[Black Dog]

Robber Barrons and Feudal Lords. It seems that our very brief experiment with a free society is starting to wrap up.

[mistermo]

Originally Posted by 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.

No one wants restricted content. On that, we agree. Surely you see that controlling the speed at which we access that content will determine which content we'll see and determine the winners/losers. In effect, this becomes content control.

[William]

Very interesting and important topic IMO. Its hard I know, but keep political arguments out of it and no personal attacks. I don't want to have to virtually backhand anyone on Thanksgiving day.

And yes, contact your local reps and be very vocal about it.



William

[cmg]

to simplfy to one sentence.

"it would become a closed-down network where cable and phone companies call the shots and decide which websites, content or applications succeed."

the internet gets sold to highest bidder and opposing voices are restricted due slow down load speeds and what ever blocking mechanism the new owners can come up with. as a result youtube maybe forced to charge for viewing. my comment.

[akelman]

Originally Posted by William

And yes, contact your local reps and be very vocal about it.

But make sure there's no political content! (I'm just giving you a hard time, because it seems impossible that an inherently political issue can be kept apolitical. Regardless, I totally agree that people should contact their senators and members of congress. Call early and often, I say.)

[Mzilliox]

im more concerned about water streams than information streams. but we are screwing both up it seems? greed will be the end of us, or the new beginning.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by 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.

The way my computer scientist son explained it to me is that they want to control both speed and content. So many of these companies either fund production of their own shows or indirectly have a financial stake in others. They want to give preferential treatment to their own programming.

While the net is worldwide China is very accomplished at preventing traffic there they don’t deem appropriate , which is a lot. I doubt Paceline would be allowed.

The internet has always been free and open and should stay that way. The ISPs are already financially healthy, they don’t need more help and I’m fine with them making money.

I also agree the social media platforms like FB need to be evaluated more closely.

Anyway, call your congressman and senator if you feel strongly about the issue.

[akelman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I honestly can't tell if you don't understand the relationship between "the speed issue" and "restricting content in any way shape or form," or if you're just reflexively opposed to any policy that might check corporate power in any way. If it's the former, controlling the speed at which different kinds of content is delivered is a way of restricting what sort of content users are likely to see. If it's the latter, that's entirely fair. I'm not at all interested in trying to change your views on corporate power.

[1centaur]

I think it is worth considering what Republicans are trying to do here. I don't think it's about being bribed by Comcast to give them the right to throttle the little guy or kill political speech. They actually have a principled reason for doing what they are doing. Both sides in this argument have valid concerns and points.

Net neutrality means data hogs, like Netflix, are subsidized by the little guys, because the ISPs can't charge Netflix more for taking up 40% of bandwidth on a given night and demanding fast speeds to do so. Net neutrality is tied up with government controlling the network management and profitability of private businesses. It's about seizing private property (calling ISPs common carriers so they can be regulated like phone companies, for example). ISPs spent billions to develop networks and naturally do not want their investment seized by politicians who have, unsurprisingly, political motivations.

Stopping states from having local privacy restrictions is interstate commerce 101. We can't have roadblocks at the state level or the system will be gummed up.

These topics are worthy of debate: now that the Internet has become crucial to modern life, SHOULD the private rights of the ISPs be hijacked by government? If the answer is yes, then how much should tax payers contribute to building out the Internet from here? We can't expect private companies to build what they would have if the fruits of their labor are extracted from them by law.

Also, will ISPs choose to throttle little people or will they just charge more to data hogs? How one frames the argument depends on perspective.

Also, will ISPs use their freedom to restrain free speech other than coincidentally by allowing Netflix to pay more for bandwidth? Seems incredibly dumb to do so, given how easy it will be to check and publicize and therefore politicize. They say they won't; those of a political bent say they might, but do they believe it or do they say it because they just like the idea of same speeds for everyone and who cares who's paying too much?

I'm not for price setting by government for private businesses. That tends to distort outcomes in not good ways. But, realistically, if freedom to manage their networks leads to ISPs doing something heinous to free speech I will be happy to see a political response.

Many countries do not have net neutrality, including Canada.

[AJosiahK]

a loss of net neutrality means alot of things for us regular americans, and more money for the big wigs. Its an insane idea if you ask me, created by the marketing monsters and corps who just want to increase profits.

call me a skeptic, its a very slippery slope these proponents are pushing for

[cmg]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I think it is worth considering what Republicans are trying to do here. I don't think it's about being bribed by Comcast to give them the right to throttle the little guy or kill political speech. They actually have a principled reason for doing what they are doing. Both sides in this argument have valid concerns and points.

Net neutrality means data hogs, like Netflix, are subsidized by the little guys, because the ISPs can't charge Netflix more for taking up 40% of bandwidth on a given night and demanding fast speeds to do so. Net neutrality is tied up with government controlling the network management and profitability of private businesses. It's about seizing private property (calling ISPs common carriers so they can be regulated like phone companies, for example). ISPs spent billions to develop networks and naturally do not want their investment seized by politicians who have, unsurprisingly, political motivations.

Stopping states from having local privacy restrictions is interstate commerce 101. We can't have roadblocks at the state level or the system will be gummed up.

These topics are worthy of debate: now that the Internet has become crucial to modern life, SHOULD the private rights of the ISPs be hijacked by government? If the answer is yes, then how much should tax payers contribute to building out the Internet from here? We can't expect private companies to build what they would have if the fruits of their labor are extracted from them by law.

Also, will ISPs choose to throttle little people or will they just charge more to data hogs? How one frames the argument depends on perspective.

Also, will ISPs use their freedom to restrain free speech other than coincidentally by allowing Netflix to pay more for bandwidth? Seems incredibly dumb to do so, given how easy it will be to check and publicize and therefore politicize. They say they won't; those of a political bent say they might, but do they believe it or do they say it because they just like the idea of same speeds for everyone and who cares who's paying too much?

I'm not for price setting by government for private businesses. That tends to distort outcomes in not good ways. But, realistically, if freedom to manage their networks leads to ISPs doing something heinous to free speech I will be happy to see a political response.

Many countries do not have net neutrality, including Canada.

Can't see it as a good thing. once net neutrality is eliminated it will be difficult if not impossible to rein the big wigs back in.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by 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.

I feel that treating these providers as common carriers (as the phone companies were, and as net neutrality rules intended) helps prevent any abuses. I'm also very suspicious of even the possibility of these providers being able to restrict content (especially as we have vertically integrated media conglomerates with obvious political leanings) as they like. I further feel that it simply allows the larger companies to press their advantages over smaller startups - as an article put it, it won't stifle Netflix, but it might stifle the next Netflix.

The only people who benefit are the carriers, and the consumer stands to potentially lose a lot. It's bad legislation.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I think it is worth considering what Republicans are trying to do here. I don't think it's about being bribed by Comcast to give them the right to throttle the little guy or kill political speech. They actually have a principled reason for doing what they are doing. Both sides in this argument have valid concerns and points.

Net neutrality means data hogs, like Netflix, are subsidized by the little guys, because the ISPs can't charge Netflix more for taking up 40% of bandwidth on a given night and demanding fast speeds to do so. Net neutrality is tied up with government controlling the network management and profitability of private businesses. It's about seizing private property (calling ISPs common carriers so they can be regulated like phone companies, for example). ISPs spent billions to develop networks and naturally do not want their investment seized by politicians who have, unsurprisingly, political motivations.

Stopping states from having local privacy restrictions is interstate commerce 101. We can't have roadblocks at the state level or the system will be gummed up.

These topics are worthy of debate: now that the Internet has become crucial to modern life, SHOULD the private rights of the ISPs be hijacked by government? If the answer is yes, then how much should tax payers contribute to building out the Internet from here? We can't expect private companies to build what they would have if the fruits of their labor are extracted from them by law.

Also, will ISPs choose to throttle little people or will they just charge more to data hogs? How one frames the argument depends on perspective.

Also, will ISPs use their freedom to restrain free speech other than coincidentally by allowing Netflix to pay more for bandwidth? Seems incredibly dumb to do so, given how easy it will be to check and publicize and therefore politicize. They say they won't; those of a political bent say they might, but do they believe it or do they say it because they just like the idea of same speeds for everyone and who cares who's paying too much?

I'm not for price setting by government for private businesses. That tends to distort outcomes in not good ways. But, realistically, if freedom to manage their networks leads to ISPs doing something heinous to free speech I will be happy to see a political response.

Many countries do not have net neutrality, including Canada.

I'm actually more than OK with the government building out the rest of the internet infrastructure, and with the higher taxes it would mean. It would, among other things, bring high-speed data to rural areas that the large companies won't serve (and won't allow the local governments to serve, either).

[BumbleBeeDave]

In the end, this would benefit very large corporations who already make pantloads of money. Do you think companies that HAVE the tools to control content will not use those tools to enlarge their profits in any way they can? This is not about partisan politics. It's about the rabid pursuit of short term profit at all costs that is killing so many other things in American society today. In just about any social problem we have today, you can trace it back to somebody who is making a LOT of money off of the situation and wants to KEEP making a LOT of money off of it--or find a way to make even MORE money off of it.

This would NOT benefit you or me or any other average citizen who is part of the 99%. The only way it would do so is for you to buy stock in Comcast, Verizon, etc. the moment it becomes clear that these new regulations will indeed take effect.

BBD

Originally Posted by gasman

The way my computer scientist son explained it to me is that they want to control both speed and content. So many of these companies either fund production of their own shows or indirectly have a financial stake in others. They want to give preferential treatment to their own programming.

While the net is worldwide China is very accomplished at preventing traffic there they don’t deem appropriate , which is a lot. I doubt Paceline would be allowed.

The internet has always been free and open and should stay that way. The ISPs are already financially healthy, they don’t need more help and I’m fine with them making money.

I also agree the social media platforms like FB need to be evaluated more closely.

Anyway, call your congressman and senator if you feel strongly about the issue.