Net Neutrality = CENSORSHIP???

[Unabogie]

The wikipedia article conflates so many aspects under the heading "net neutrality" that it would actually probably be impossible for ANYONE to be for or against the whole thing. Some of them are even self contradictory.

To most of the public, net neutrality refers to censorship issues by ISP's

To the Freetards though it means that no matter how little you pay, you should have access to the same up and down speeds as companies who pay for tons of bandwidth

We should abandon the term net neurtrality as it has become an all encompassing envelope of everyone's pet project and instead concentrate on the specific issues one by one

We all pay for bandwidth. My hosting company charges me based on how much actual bandwidth I send out into the world. What we're talking about here is the end user and his experience viewing my site, and the ISP wanting to ask for another bite at the apple. And since companies like Comcast may also own my competition, they can just decide that no amount of money is worth allowing me to compete. It's a really simple concept and it's how it all works right now. The ISPs are the ones wanting to change things.

 

[PhreePhly]

Does anyone not understand what Net Neutrality is and why it is important?

The corollary question is: Does anyone not understand that Glenn Beck's position is utterly out of touch with reality?

My interpretation is that Beck is confusing Net Neutrality with a new form of the Fairness Doctrine. He's concerned that the home internet connection will just be another Public Utility and the "ebil gobment" will take control and force ISPs to require equal time to conservative v liberal views.

I also believe he's been convinced to sell this idea to he vast legions of idiotic listeners, so that they will send letter after letter to their reps to quash any Net Neutrality legistation. He does, after all, work for Murdoch.

I saw where someone described the direction we could go if ISPs get their way in another forum, and I wish I could remember where to give them credit, but here goes:

User(calling ISP): Hey, I'm trying to get to cnn.com, but the connection is super slow.

ISP: Why, no problem sir. For just $15/month we can add our news package to your account and you would be routed to news sites using our high speed pipe.

User: Oh, that's why I'm getting such a slow connection to the ESPN site.

ISP: Yes sir, I noticed that you do not have our sports package. For an additional $15/month, we can add our Sports Package and give you high speed access to those sites.

Net Neutrality would keep this from happening. It would also keep your ISP from routing all of your searches to Google, even if you used Bing, because the ISP had entered into an exclusive contract with Google.

PhreePhly

 

[Ziggurat]

Since you're referring to speeds of connections ... do people still use dsl?

I still use a 56k modem.

 

[Upchurch]

My interpretation is that Beck is confusing Net Neutrality with a new form of the Fairness Doctrine. He's concerned that the home internet connection will just be another Public Utility and the "ebil gobment" will take control and force ISPs to require equal time to conservative v liberal views.

That is certainly in line with what he is presenting. It makes him no less way off base.

If he is corrects himself in future shows, good on him. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

To the Freetards though it means that no matter how little you pay, you should have access to the same up and down speeds as companies who pay for tons of bandwidth

Really.
Who are these "freetards"? Please tell me about them.

 

[Upchurch]

The wikipedia article conflates so many aspects under the heading "net neutrality" that it would actually probably be impossible for ANYONE to be for or against the whole thing. Some of them are even self contradictory.

What are you referring to?

To most of the public, net neutrality refers to censorship issues by ISP's

Those people would be incorrect. Education vs misinformation is definitely a problem with this issue. Beck isn't helping.

To the Freetards though it means that no matter how little you pay, you should have access to the same up and down speeds as companies who pay for tons of bandwidth

They would also be incorrect.

We should abandon the term net neurtrality as it has become an all encompassing envelope of everyone's pet project and instead concentrate on the specific issues one by one

The trouble with that is that there aren't several issues at play here. I don't mind a re-branding of the issue if that's what it takes to separate the fact from the fiction.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I frequently disagree with posters on this forum when they have kneejerk reactions to conservatives, but definitely not this time.

Someone needs to roll up a newspaper and slap Glenn Beck like a naughty puppy.

Bad Glenn Beck, BAD. Stay away from my open internet!

 

[Unabogie]

I frequently disagree with posters on this forum when they have kneejerk reactions to conservatives, but definitely not this time.

Someone needs to roll up a newspaper and slap Glenn Beck like a naughty puppy.

Bad Glenn Beck, BAD. Stay away from my open internet!

Thank you! This just seems like such an easy issue for the right and left to agree on.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Beck knows the truth and is simply lying I think. Television is threatened by the internet and so is conservative values.

Beck and his ilk, first and foremost, worship the Almighty Dollar. And their over-the-top right-wing hysterics are the way they make their money... by catering to an ignorant & all-too-easily manipulated population who are willing to lap up (and pay for) any swill vomited forth from the likes of Beck et al.

It's all about money.

 

[Upchurch]

I frequently disagree with posters on this forum when they have kneejerk reactions to conservatives, but definitely not this time.

This isn't a conservative/liberal issue.

I can't even tell you what kind of issue this is, because I can't imagine a rational argument against Net Neutrality, short of higher corporate profit at the expense of ...pretty much everything else, in one way or another. Being against this benefits no one, except those trying to squeeze a few extra by layering an extra set of fees on information.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Really.
Who are these "freetards"? Please tell me about them.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=freetards

If you are going to be discussing issues like net neutrality, a good grasp of the players involved is important.

ISP you probably already know.

Bubbleheads you probably have an idea of

The freetards usually get conflated with the pirates and, while the do share some overlap, freetardism in itself isn't malicious, so its important to realize the difference

Spammers are the absolute monkey wrench in the concept of the bandwidth allocation portion of net neutrality. No matter how far the ISP's are willing to bend, the spammers will cost as much as they possibly can

NONE of this has anything to do with censorship, which is why I think the nebulous term "net neutrality" as a catch all for an entire cadre of sometimes mutually exclusive ideas is a bad grouping

 

[pipelineaudio]

They would also be incorrect.

Evidence?

The trouble with that is that there aren't several issues at play here. I don't mind a re-branding of the issue if that's what it takes to separate the fact from the fiction.

If YOU could rebrand the issue and somehow people would agree with YOU about it, then fine. On the other hand, it is the reality that many people disagree with you about what net neutrality is and many people include several different issues under the heading.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=freetards

So, it's a derogatory term for people who defend free software and open standards. No wonder I never heard it before.
How silly.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So, it's a derogatory term for people who defend free software and open standards. No wonder I never heard it before.
How silly.

Its not necessarily derogatory, a lot of freetards self identify as freetards. I guess in a completely narrow way you could describe them as including people who defend free software and open standards. I sure wouldnt define them as primarily that and I don't think they would either

If you hadn't heard it before then you haven't been following the NN issue very closely, or even remotely closely. This is more evidence about the need for education on the issue that others have mentioned on this thread

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If you hadn't heard it before then you haven't been following the NN issue very closely, or even remotely closely. This is more evidence about the need for education on the issue that others have mentioned on this thread

Not true. I've been on Free Press's mailing list, and on the list for savetheinternet.com as well. I've watched videos on the topic, including the opposition's campaign awhile back ("Do you want the government regulating the internet?!?")

On the other hand, a quick Google search for "net neutrality freetards" only yields 1740 hits...the third hit is this thread! You're the only person I've ever heard use the term "freetard", and I use forums and message boards quite often. To be honest, I thought it was something you'd made up, which is why I asked you about it. It seems like you have some kind of agenda, and getting this strange term currency seems to be part of it.

 

[Lallante]

Not true. I've been on Free Press's mailing list, and on the list for savetheinternet.com as well. I've watched videos on the topic, including the opposition's campaign awhile back ("Do you want the government regulating the internet?!?")

On the other hand, a quick Google search for "net neutrality freetards" only yields 1740 hits...the third hit is this thread! You're the only person I've ever heard use the term "freetard", and I use forums and message boards quite often. To be honest, I thought it was something you'd made up, which is why I asked you about it. It seems like you have some kind of agenda, and getting this strange term currency seems to be part of it.

To be fair, it's a standard internet-nerd line to be express amazement that anyone else could possibly be less nerdy than them.

 

[Upchurch]

Evidence?

Ignore my question and ask me to show that something is not in the bill? Nicely played.

Here is, I believe, the latest version of the latest bill. You tell me where it says you can have unlimited access to bandwidth despite only paying minimum fees for service.

If YOU could rebrand the issue and somehow people would agree with YOU about it, then fine. On the other hand, it is the reality that many people disagree with you about what net neutrality is and many people include several different issues under the heading.

Do you disagree with net neutrality? Do you believe ISPs should have the right to charge you a premium fee for access (bandwidth access, mind you, not fees the site may charge for using it) to certain sites?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ignore my question and ask me to show that something is not in the bill? Nicely played.

Can't you just leave him to his strawmen?

 

[Walter Ego]

This hogwash is also being trumped by Michelle Bachmann and other right wing talking heads who, along with Beck, believe that "free enterprise" created the internet. Sorry, kids, but that's wrong. No, it wasn't Al Gore either. It was the ebil gubmint that created the internet.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Here is, I believe, the latest version of the latest bill. You tell me where it says you can have unlimited access to bandwidth despite only paying minimum fees for service.

Section 4, a, 2 scares me a bit still but nowhere near as much as earlier. It depends how people will interpret this.

Do you disagree with net neutrality? Do you believe ISPs should have the right to charge you a premium fee for access (bandwidth access, mind you, not fees the site may charge for using it) to certain sites?

I don't disagree in principle with the stated goals of this bill. I do heavily disagree with many of the platforms people are claiming as net neutrality