Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Upchurch]

{snip}

If you value this site, support Net Neutrality. It's that simple.

Well said.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I think this image describes what the anti-net-neutrality crowd has in mind. It amazes me they can convince their rubes that this is a good idea.

 

[AaronMic22]

I think this image describes what the anti-net-neutrality crowd has in mind. It amazes me they can convince their rubes that this is a good idea.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=100&pictureid=3666[/qimg]

That's terrifying.

 

[Upchurch]

I think this image describes what the anti-net-neutrality crowd has in mind. It amazes me they can convince their rubes that this is a good idea.

There is no advantage to any user. At all. That this is even considered a reasonable point of debate blows my mind. Who goes to a company and says, "I want you to decrease the level of service you provide to me for no technical reason whatsoever AND I want you to charge me more to get back up to the kind of service I had previously."?

XBoxWarrior, where'd you get that graphic?

 

[WildCat]

This is net neutrality:

When I go to Google, this is the header that Google sends out from their servers:



Here's the James Randi site:



Under net neutrality, my ISP doesn't concern itself with these headers. Whichever packet comes in first goes out first.

If NN goes away, that packet from Google moves to the front of the line (as long as Google pays extra), while JREF has to wait at the end of the line. Or the JREF packet will be throttled.

If you value this site, support Net Neutrality. It's that simple.

But if you use Google's partner ISP then you get high-speed access to the GoogleSkeptic forum!

 

[WildCat]

I think this image describes what the anti-net-neutrality crowd has in mind. It amazes me they can convince their rubes that this is a good idea.

Why do you hate innovation XBoxWarrior?

 

[Taarkin]

Who goes to a company and says, "I want you to decrease the level of service you provide to me for no technical reason whatsoever AND I want you to charge me more to get back up to the kind of service I had previously."?

This thread doesn't need a health care derail

 

[XBoxWarrior]

XBoxWarrior, where'd you get that graphic?

It's all over teh internets...I think I first ran across it on Fark, politics.

There's a lot out there...

 

[Unabogie]

But if you use Google's partner ISP then you get high-speed access to the GoogleSkeptic forum!

Don't give them ideas.

 

[NoScotsman]

I worry about the future of net neutrality. The FCC has a history of adopting policies favorable to corporate interests. Two attempts to hold cable TV rate increases to the rate of inflation (Cable Act of 1984, The 1992 Cable Consumer Protection Act) were quickly overcome by the cable industry, who lobbied Congress and pressured the FCC to create loopholes that caused prices to spiral (approximately 2.5 times the rate of inflation).

People will have to stay vigilant on this issue... Net neutrality will continue only if people fight for it.

 

[WildCat]

In my experience most people who oppose net neutrality don't have the slightest idea what it actually is.

They hear "FCC" and instantly assume that content would be censored or just parrot the load of BS that McCain swallowed "net neutrality will stifle innovation".

 

[pipelineaudio]

No.

Yes

Yes.

Yes

Not really.

Yes

For a use case, imagine that one day Facebook takes 3 or 4 times as long to load than it used to. Meanwhile, MySpace is moving along at top speed. MySpace has essentially paid to restrict your access based on its criteria.

Yes

 

[Upchurch]

Having the service provider charge the same to everyone for the same amount of data

No.

Yes

No. What you describe is the service provider providing tiered service to the end user, which is what has happened forever with the differences in paying for dialup vs DSL vs T1 vs whatever. That is not the issue of price standardization or charging different amounts to different people for the same service.

The issue is the ISP throttling access speeds based on the type of data and/or content being communicated. The concern is the ISP determining the quality of your service based on what you look at.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I believe that all DDoS packets should be properly forwarded to their intended destination.

 

[leftysergeant]

Any natural monopoly needs to be regulated and price-gouging forbidden. There is no justification for a public utility, which is what the internet should be considered, to charge different rates based on what they can get. Different rates should only be charged based on different costs to the service provider.

The cable companies have to pay for some content that they offer. Fine. Charge more for that.

If they get the content free, then they should be limited to a service fee for their band width.

I am not charging the ISP to let people send me e-mail or view my poetry, and the ISP has no justification for making people pay more to see my poetry or e-mail me.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

its not about charging more for content, not at the core anyway, its about load on the ISPs infrastructure, some content is a greater load than others

the idea behind opposition to net neutrality is there are different applications of the internet, low-bandwidth uses like text email, or reading a forum, medium-bandwidth things like news sites and photo galleries, high bandwidth applications like streaming media, and high-bandwidth/low-latency applications like playing games

right now, the companies have to provide a high-bandwidth/low-latency connection to all their clients, even though most dont really need it, so the ISPs want to be able to tier it so they can offer a higher latency connection to people who dont need low latency

thats why its only becoming an issue now, when everyone and their mother are chatting on hi-def webcams, streaming 1080p movies from netflix, playing games on XBL and PSN, and so forth, for years ISPs got away with overselling their infrastructure, but now that kids who grew up with the internet are getting their own homes and internet connections, what was a heavy user years ago is only an average user now

basically its about ISPs wanting to take on more clients without actually expanding their network capacity, ironically net neutrality doesnt stifle innovation, it forces it, and thats why ISPs dont like it, innovation costs money, better to cut the pie into smaller pieces than get a bigger pie

all of this wouldnt even be a big deal IMO if the idea was to offer lower-priced packages to people who dont need heavy-load services, but thats not whats going to happen, after all why lower prices when you can raise them instead?


oh and lefty, your poetry and email (unless you email large video files and the like) are low-load services and probably wouldnt cost extra, lol

 

[SezMe]

The actual idea of NN seems very sensible to me, and if it could be done without the FCC or anyone else taking over, I am very much in favor

You're confusing regulation with confiscation. Nobody is proposing that the FCC take over the net.

 

[pipelineaudio]

tomaytow tomahto

 

[Upchurch]

tomaytow tomahto

tomayto orange

Not all regulation is automatically a bad thing. We can have both the First Amendment and protect people with libel laws.

You don't like the FCC? Fine, whatever. Who do you trust to enforce network neutrality?

 

[pipelineaudio]

It seems like it would be better if it were an organization that regulates commerce rather than content