"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
For fees up to $74.99 month.
Click to expand...

LOL

15 years ago, you'd pay $2000 to get 1.5 mbits.

You're complaining about $75 for 50x faster than that? That's way less and way faster.
 
So much for freedom of speech or freedom of anything.

If I ran an ISP, I wouldn't invest another $.10 into infrastructure.
 
Denny Crane said:
So much for freedom of speech or freedom of anything.

If I ran an ISP, I wouldn't invest another $.10 into infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I must ask how you figure thats a knock against freedom of speech.
 
I haven't been Obama's biggest fan as of late, but I gotta say he got it right with this. Fuck Comcast and their ilk.
 
kingslayer said:
I haven't been Obama's biggest fan as of late, but I gotta say he got it right with this. Fuck Comcast and their ilk.
Click to expand...

Comcast isn't the bad guy in this. Netflix and Google are. They're getting really cheap bandwidth to the end user at Comcast's (and their ilk's) expense.

Comcast will treat all packets the same, which will actually be a much worse user experience. They'll also simply either charge the customer to pay for the infrastructure upgrades and ongoing costs or they'll just not invest in those things.

We lose.
 
Denny Crane said:
Comcast isn't the bad guy in this. Netflix and Google are. They're getting really cheap bandwidth to the end user at Comcast's (and their ilk's) expense.

Comcast will treat all packets the same, which will actually be a much worse user experience. They'll also simply either charge the customer to pay for the infrastructure upgrades and ongoing costs or they'll just not invest in those things.

We lose.
Click to expand...

That is complete bullshit.

I also found it scary that this was put up to a vote of 5 people. One of which was a former shill for Verizon.
 
kingslayer said:
That is complete bullshit.
Click to expand...

No, it's not bullshit. Faster internet connections require massive investments in equipment and cabling. The stuff doesn't just magically appear on the phone polls and in the manholes all over cities throughout the country. The cable TV and DSL providers aren't going to just do this for free so Netflix can stream all the bandwidth they want to people for $7/month.

Do you pay for an internet connection? Why shouldn't Netflix or Google?
 
And why treating all packets equally will hurt user experience.

They have long been treating packets unequally. Video packets get preferential treatment over file downloads, for example. The reason is QUALITY OF SERVICE, or QoS. If the video packets don't get this preferred treatment, then your video stream will suffer, degrade, or change from HD to something less.

You can read about it here:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Quality_of_Service_Networking

upload_2015-2-26_15-2-47.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

upload_2015-2-26_15-5-16.png

"packets are given priority over other packets in other queues."

/case
 
There's definitely a difference between micromanaging QoS and macromanaging internet traffic by putting Google behind a paywall. I would have thought you'd know better than to conflate the two.

I have to ask, are you autistic?
 
BlazerCaravan said:
There's definitely a difference between micromanaging QoS and macromanaging internet traffic by putting Google behind a paywall. I would have thought you'd know better than to conflate the two.
Click to expand...

They never have and never would put Google behind a paywall. That's ridiculous. In fact, I don't know of any site ever put behind a paywall by anyone.

This law solves nothing. It only accomplishes government encroachment on what has been a really good thing.
 
 
Obama has no clue or he's lying about keeping the internet "free."
 
Denny Crane said:
They never have and never would put Google behind a paywall. That's ridiculous. In fact, I don't know of any site ever put behind a paywall by anyone.

This law solves nothing. It only accomplishes government encroachment on what has been a really good thing.
Click to expand...

Good for whom?

The pivot here I think is instead of charging for speed (which gets throttled anyway after 200GB, and was never as good as advertised anyway) they'll have to charge for quantity and be more honest about the speed everyone is getting.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Good for whom?

The pivot here I think is instead of charging for speed (which gets throttled anyway after 200GB, and was never as good as advertised anyway) they'll have to charge for quantity and be more honest about the speed everyone is getting.
Click to expand...

It's been good for everyone. Look at the industry that's grown on the Internet over the years it wasn't regulated. Netflix and Google and Apple are three giants that wouldn't be close to as successful without being able to innovate as they see fit - without getting some bureaucrat's approval. It's been good for us since we're getting connections for $39/mo that are equivalent to 500x faster than ones that cost $30/mo in 2000. Or 17x faster than connections that cost $2,000/mo in 2000. That's Comcast's lowest speed today vs. dialup and dedicated T1 in 2000.

The ISPs will charge by the byte, like on wireless plans. After all, the people who stream UHD all day should pay more than those who rarely do.
 
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
Click to expand...


https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netne...ting-no-protectionist-state-telecom-law.shtml
 
Some of Wheeler's (Dingo's) speech...

The internet -- the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It's simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from 4 million americans has demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. [applause] so let's address an important issue head-on. This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the internet. Nonsense! This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. [applause] they both stand for the same concept: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go and what they can think. The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness.
 
speeds said:
Some of Wheeler's (Dingo's) speech...

The internet -- the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It's simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from 4 million americans has demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. [applause] so let's address an important issue head-on. This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the internet. Nonsense! This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. [applause] they both stand for the same concept: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go and what they can think. The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness.
Click to expand...

SCARY.

So, the internet is so important the government must take it over. Yet it's not really taking it over.

Don't you see the contradiction?
 
http://mashable.com/2014/05/16/5-arguments-against-net-neutrality/

As journalist Glenn Greenwald reported, the NSA already tampers with U.S.-made routers for spying purposes.

If net neutrality went into effect, then the government would have to monitor the telecoms' and cable companies' broadband connections. Writing in Forbes, entrepreneur Joshua Steimie warned, "Don’t be surprised if that means the government needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign fashion?"

(Read the whole thing)
 
Some of the reasons are why I am for net neutrality:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast's service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag.
..

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an "exclusive" deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

Taken from here: http://www.thewire.com/technology/2010/05/pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality-in-two-lists/24598/


Nobody is perfect, but at least the robbery will stop. The corporations only look to increase their bottom line at the expense of the consumer. Competition at that level doesn't produce lower prices, or better service as they are all in on it.
 
Only one of those has an element of truth to it. None of those other things have ever happened.

Comcast at one point did block peer-to-peer traffic. There was no law needed to get them to unblock it, consumer protest was enough.

So what really is this law supposed to solve? Nothing. Usually government makes rules after some catastrophe that don't prevent a future one of the same kind (horse has left the corral). This is no catastrophe, and there isn't one to prevent by law.

Here is a list of ports Comcast blocks:
http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/list-of-blocked-ports/

If they are forced to treat all packets equally, they'll unblock these. Then any network shares you have open on your PC will show up to all your neighbors. Almost all these ports that are blocked prevent something really bad from happening, and I'm quite sure you want them blocked. And frankly, if you have a need for those ports open, you really should buy commercial (not consumer) grade service.

If you're going to give the ISPs the discretion to block ports (as they should, they need to control malicious use of their networks), then there is no "neutrality" about it.
 
You guys trusting these corporations to control the net is baffling to me. At lease we can vote Obama out. You can't vote out the CEO of ComCRAP....
 
dviss1 said:
You guys trusting these corporations to control the net is baffling to me. At lease we can vote Obama out. You can't vote out the CEO of ComCRAP....
Click to expand...

Those corporations have "controlled" the internet all along and without any issues the rule is supposed to prevent.

Surely government isn't corrupt, right? Now we'll have the Googles and Netflixes competing with the Comcasts to buy politicians and policy decisions.

Finally, if you think Comcast is a monopoly and don't trust monopolies, the government is the biggest monopoly of them all. Out of the frying pan and into the forest fire.
 
Denny Crane said:
Those corporations have "controlled" the internet all along and without any issues the rule is supposed to prevent.

Surely government isn't corrupt, right? Now we'll have the Googles and Netflixes competing with the Comcasts to buy politicians and policy decisions.

Finally, if you think Comcast is a monopoly and don't trust monopolies, the government is the biggest monopoly of them all. Out of the frying pan and into the forest fire.
Click to expand...

Really??? No issues??? There's a reason why internet service in France, Spain, Finland etc. is MUCH cheaper and MUCH faster/better. My brother teaches in Finland and he gets internet service in the middle of the forest. He has a bundle (internet/"cable"/mobile) and pays the equivalent of $50 dollars for all three. I am FORCED to have ComCRAP and pay way more for less product. They suck and their CEO is overpaid. I'd rather have the people we can vote out make the rules for it than the Dictatorship that is the American Corporation.
 
dviss1 said:
Really??? No issues??? There's a reason why internet service in France, Spain, Finland etc. is MUCH cheaper and MUCH faster/better. My brother teaches in Finland and he gets internet service in the middle of the forest. He has a bundle (internet/"cable"/mobile) and pays the equivalent of $50 dollars for all three. I am FORCED to have ComCRAP and pay way more for less product. They suck and their CEO is overpaid. I'd rather have the people we can vote out make the rules for it than the Dictatorship that is the American Corporation.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

upload_2015-2-27_9-10-15.png

Only in Sweden (of the top 10) are speed getting faster at a rate better than here. And our speeds are faster than European nations.

They don't have the issue of pulling fiber optic cable criss cross an area the size of the United States.

Did you vote for any one of the 5 people on the FCC board, or any of the FCC's employees?

SMH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
OT Net Neutrality
2 3 4
Replies
105
Views
8K
MarAzul
MarAzul
santeesioux
Wired: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
MARIS61
MARIS61
SlyPokerDog
This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
Replies
0
Views
225
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
TradeNurkicNow
What the Internet could look like
Replies
19
Views
1K
TradeNurkicNow
TradeNurkicNow
Eastoff
The internet fights back against FCC ruling
Replies
16
Views
726
Denny Crane
Denny Crane

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top