• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

bobtaftfan said:
Network Neutrality = Government control of the Internet

The free market is a much better regulator of the Internet than the government.

And, I, too, have a faster speed than I did 5 years ago and am paying virtually the same price I was paying 5 years ago.

Is there ANYTHING liberals don't want the government to control? (Ah, yes, homosexual relations, pornography, and our border with Mexico!)
Click to expand...

Please. Dispense with "what liberals/progressive/communists want to do" garbage. It is unpleasant, and quite meaningless. I don;t do it to you, I do not expect it done to me.

Now, as a whole, nationwide, prices certainly are not remaining stable. They are rising at a phenomenal rate. Overall average of speeds are slightly on the rise. If your speed increases, I can tell you that the price you are paying most definitely is not cheaper. Unless an ISP happens to be running some sort of special for a month or three.

As for "network neutrality is about gubmin control LULZ!!!11!" Again, that is a bit on the obnoxious side, and I suggest you do a bit of reading.

And no, it isn't about "those darn libruls!" It's about the facts. Facts are neither "liberal" nor "conservative." Facts are just facts.
 
Mudcat said:
I don't even know what Network Neutrality is, so I'm neither for it nor against it.
Click to expand...

In the simplest terms: it's a regulation that requires ISPs to treat all similar traffic the same and prevents them from creating internet slow lanes.
 
The current state of regulation/Net Neutrality is kind of disturbing to me.

With deregulation, the situation appears to be going back to the very early days of the Internet. When it was still in its infancy, pre-Eternal September, there were a number of competing networks. The Internet existed primarily as an academic/government/institutional network; while consumer access was primarily through one of several private corporate networks, such as America Online, Prodigy, Compuserv, QuantumLink, etc. Communication between these networks was either non-existent, or was a premium service available at a premium price. This is what the corporations are trying to push it all back to.

Net Neutrality is fine in principle; but with the FCC in charge, there is the possibility of excessive and/or misguided regulation. The FCC does regulate content for many other services, such as television; and FCC membership is rife with cronyism and corporate behind-the-scenes controls. Broadcast bandwidth is heavily regulated, with preferential treatment given to corporations with big pockets. Cable is less regulated; but is something that only big corporations with big pockets has access to (public access cable only existed because of regulations requiring it, something that can be easily overturned).

There is also the possibility that FCC regulation could be used as a tool by those pushing an anti-porn, anti-dissent, or pro-corporate agenda. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that such actions have been taken with regard to what are seen as common carriers or publicly-accessible broadcasts. We've already seen attempts at such regulation (some successful, some not) with the CDA, COPA, CIPA, DMCA, and related legislation. Putting the Internet in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats would only make this sort of content restriction easier; and increase the potential for damage to freedom of expression online.

Not saying that will inevitably be the case; but history has demonstrated that its a clear and present danger anytime the government gets too involved. Something akin to Common Carrier status is needed; but only if content regulation can be effectively precluded.
 
Last edited:
Luchog, you say those things as if it were a bad thing to have restricted access to the Internet. I can't say that it is, to be quite frank.
 
Mudcat said:
Luchog, you say those things as if it were a bad thing to have restricted access to the Internet. I can't say that it is, to be quite frank.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no reason poor people need to have an easy access to free educational resources. Or homebound disabled people should have the ability to maintain strong social networks, or get quick and easy access to life-enhancing information and opportunities. Or people with various personal problems have easy access to support systems and resources.

Much better that only the socially elite have access. :rolleyes:

I can remember the days before Eternal September. While there is a certain elitist appeal in wanting to go back to those days, when only a certain type of people with a certain level of intelligence were online; things are a whole lot different now. There are resources available for many things and many people that would have been difficult and expensive back before the 'Net, if they existed at all. I certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity to gain the friends, education, and work experience that I have without it.

I think too many people are far too eager to point out all the bad things about the Internet and the ubiquity of it; and completely fail to see just how powerful and effective a tool it has been for improving quality of life overall.
 
Mudcat said:
Luchog, you say those things as if it were a bad thing to have restricted access to the Internet. I can't say that it is, to be quite frank.
Click to expand...

Imagine that your options for phone service were limited to one company. Maybe two, but the second one is obviously worse. Cable vs. DSL worse, or even dial-up badness.

Now imagine that every phone company, at the same time, decided that to make more money, they should charge more for the most common types of calls. When you call your own family members, they get charged for answering. The way around this is to pay another $15/month for a premium "Call your own family" plan.

Remember, your only other telecommunications company option is on the level of Morse code.
 
luchog said:
I think too many people are far too eager to point out all the bad things about the Internet and the ubiquity of it; and completely fail to see just how powerful and effective a tool it has been for improving quality of life overall.
Click to expand...

And I think far too many people want to ignore the bad things about the Internet.

Sure, the Internet provides wonderful resources for students, the elderly, the infirm, and the socially awkward. But it also puts local businesses at a severe disadvantage when they're already at a disadvantage to big businesses. Sure it provides access to more information in one place, but it's awash in conspiracy theories, creationism, and other woo that dominates the web. And on, and on, and on.

Which is why I don't think some restrictions on the Internet is not uncalled for.
 
Mudcat said:
And I think far too many people want to ignore the bad things about the Internet.

Sure, the Internet provides wonderful resources for students, the elderly, the infirm, and the socially awkward. But it also puts local businesses at a severe disadvantage when they're already at a disadvantage to big businesses. Sure it provides access to more information in one place, but it's awash in conspiracy theories, creationism, and other woo that dominates the web. And on, and on, and on.

Which is why I don't think some restrictions on the Internet is not uncalled for.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how banning a so-called "slow lane" (i.e, treating all data equally) is equitable to restricting access/limiting free speech that I hear some people saying.....

It's actually quite straightforward. "No slow lanes!" "No throttling!" and "No double-dipping!" Period. Treat data equally. If I am paying an agreed-upon price for an agreed-upon download speed, I do not expect my ISP to "double-dip" by charging Netflix to stream at the speed that I already paid for! It's actually quite ridiculous on the whole of it.
 
Francesca R said:
Sounds dreadful. First thing I'd want to do would be to advocate for policies to get more.
Click to expand...

Of course that's one possibility, but the ISPs don't want to do that. It would require massive infrastructure building, as well as ending all their little local monopolies.
 
ehcks said:
Of course that's one possibility, but the ISPs don't want to do that.
Click to expand...
Do they want network neutrality rules? I don't think Comcast, Verizon are lobbying hard for those. So when did it become relevant what ISPs want? If what they want is a reason not to write competition law then it's a reason not to write net neutrality rules as well. But it isn't.

It would require massive infrastructure building
Click to expand...
This is a red herring that was dealt with in another more recent thread (and others). Other places that have done local loop un-bundling have not required "massive infrastructure building" (duplication), or in fact, any.
 
Mudcat said:
Sure, the Internet provides wonderful resources for students, the elderly, the infirm, and the socially awkward. But it also puts local businesses at a severe disadvantage when they're already at a disadvantage to big businesses.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing this, but I don't see it; and I'm not strictly sure how it's a bad thing.

But that aside, the Internet has been a boon to small and cottage businesses, who can reach far more people online than they ever could when restricted to small local communities. Those that can't make the move are simply no longer relevant, because of the change in technology; they can adapt or fade away. It's like complaining about horseless carriages putting manufacturers of buggy whips out of business.

Sure it provides access to more information in one place, but it's awash in conspiracy theories, creationism, and other woo that dominates the web. And on, and on, and on.
Click to expand...
So, just like real life then?

Which is why I don't think some restrictions on the Internet is not uncalled for.
Click to expand...
Really? So, you're in favour of protectionism for industries and businesses that cannot compete or adapt; and censorship for things you disagree with? Or, what exactly? What restrictions do you think are "called for", and who is objective and wise enough to trust with making those decisions?
 
Francesca R said:
This is a red herring that was dealt with in another more recent thread (and others). Other places that have done local loop un-bundling have not required "massive infrastructure building" (duplication), or in fact, any.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In fact, there's a whole lot of infrastructure in some places just sitting there unused. Google "dark fiber".

That's not to say there are no places that could use improvements to the local infrastructure, particularly COs and some last-mile upgrades (my neighborhood is one of them); but that's still a far cry from "massive infrastructure building".
 
Uppie:
Now, consider that the Next New Thing in social media can hardly be used because it can't afford to compete with the deep pockets of those big boys. Innovations are artificially inhibited without network neutrality.

Imagine an incumbent who can pay to make a political challenger's website almost impossible to use.
Click to expand...
Barring market entry is a tactic used in 19th century America that gave rise to trust busting. A good example was how Standard Oil got broken up due to pressure to prevent restrictions on entering the oil market, which was pretty new back in his day.

I tend to favor Net Neutrality, but the devil is in the details.
If you check your cable and phone bills, you are already being taxed for a variety of things that aren't simply your cable or phone service.
Will NN add yet another tax to my bill to defray the costs of implementation?
 
Francesca R said:
Do they want network neutrality rules? I don't think Comcast, Verizon are lobbying hard for those. So when did it become relevant what ISPs want? If what they want is a reason not to write competition law then it's a reason not to write net neutrality rules as well. But it isn't.
Click to expand...

The ISPs are the ones who want to end net neutrality because it can increase their profits and control over the internet. This entire issue is caused by what ISPs want.
 
Last edited:
Comcast isn't just an ISP, they have very different motivations from The Mom&Poppe Shoppe.

Simple ISPs want net neutrality, they want to simply pay for backbone data rate access, and not worry about being blocked from content because of it's source..

Simple content providers want net neutrality, they want to simply pay for backbone data rate access, and not worry about being blocked by the end user's ISP contract.

Mutant crossbreeds of ISPs and content providers hate net neutrality. They want to lock their ISP subscribers into their provided content. For them, content is everything. If they're the only game in town, even better, now you have to either accept their content, or pay a premium for someone else's, even if they use the same amount of bandwidth.

Net neutrality wants to treat data rates like water: The supplier can charge you differently for using different amounts, but must treat everyone the same for using the same amount, and can't treat you differently due to end use. Drink it, pee in it, water the lawn with it: it all costs the same.

Ladewig said:
Digital Morse Code or analog Morse Code ?
Click to expand...

Mop bucket and wooden spoon with an ear funnel.
 
Last edited:
GodMark2 said:
Comcast isn't just an ISP, they have very different motivations from The Mom&Poppe Shoppe.

Simple ISPs want net neutrality, they want to simply pay for backbone data rate access, and not worry about being blocked from content because of it's source..
Click to expand...
Except that that's not what's going on; and Mom&Pop/Simple ISPs are almost non-existent these days.

Mutant crossbreeds of ISPs and content providers hate net neutrality. They want to lock their ISP subscribers into their provided content. For them, content is everything. If they're the only game in town, even better, now you have to either accept their content, or pay a premium for someone else's, even if they use the same amount of bandwidth.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem. In the US at least, most ISPs these days are "crossbreeds". The days of local ISPs are nearly over, they've effectively all been bought out by megacorps offering premium content on top of Internet service. There are only a few holdouts left, in markets where the margins are not high enough for the big corps to care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom