Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

Been hearing a lot about this the last day or so.

My first question I guess to those knowledgeable about what this actually does is this.

Is it really necessary?

Why is this such a priority item at this time?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I oppose net neutrality on ethical grounds. To the extent that people own the hardware infrastructure, the fact they cannot declare how it will be used, such as saying what speeds are available, is offensive. Before someone goes saying that I am some crazy corporate lover

1- I am some crazy corporate lover. got no problem with that
2- I oppose a lot of BS copyright stuff like the DMCA.
Click to expand...

So you got no problems with corporations using a monopoly on infrastructure to gain an monopoly on everything that travels over that infrastructure?
 
Drysdale said:
Been hearing a lot about this the last day or so.

My first question I guess to those knowledgeable about what this actually does is this.

Is it really necessary?
Click to expand...

For those who want to keep the internet as it already is, yes. For those who want the corporations to interfere with your ability to use the internet, no.

Why is this such a priority item at this time?
Click to expand...

There's a slightly better chance of a NN bill passing right now than when the next congress comes into session?
 
Newtons Bit said:
So you got no problems with corporations using a monopoly on infrastructure to gain an monopoly on everything that travels over that infrastructure?
Click to expand...

Well, I have a very layered opinion and my economics opinion is always different than my ethical/personal opinion. I am also not entirely conceding that the premise of your post is true.

But short answer is no, I have no problem with that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Well, I have a very layered opinion and my economics opinion is always different than my ethical/personal opinion. I am also not entirely conceding that the premise of your post is true.

But short answer is no, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're honest ;)

Do you still maintain that position when the monopoly is a government granted one? Comcast has exclusive cable rights in many areas.
 
Upchurch said:
I've never heard of a crazy corporate lover who is also anti-free market. I guess the ideas aren't mutually exclusive, I've just never heard of that combination before.
Click to expand...

Maybe he owns a large number of shares of Comcast? ;)
 
Newtons Bit said:
Maybe he owns a large number of shares of Comcast? ;)
Click to expand...

Honestly, that's the only reason I could see being against network neutrality. (...in the US. Sorry, Francesca R) Or else someone has an irrational fear of the internet and wants to see it die a slow painful death.
 
You guys have it way way wrong.

It's the government that wants to censor the Internet. Because the Internet provides access to information the government doesn't want you to have. eg. wikileaks. If they could block citizens from accessing that they absolutely would do so.

It's the teleco's that want the Internet kept open, so that people use it as much as possible, so that they can sell more bandwidth.

In every country in the world, the teleco's fight tooth and nail against government attempts to impose censorship (because in all cases the way the government wants to do it is by requiring the teleco's to spend their own money to discriminate against their own customers. ie. increasing their costs and decreasing their revenues).

ie. It's not about morals, it's about vested interests. The teleco's want exactly the same things as you and I want. Granted, they want it for different reasons, but they're still our allies in this fight.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I'm not sure if your post was satire or parody or what, but starting it out like this and then posting comments rooted in a clear misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is has to be some sort of joke.
Click to expand...

In what way am I misunderstanding Net Neutrality?
 
TFian said:
In what way am I misunderstanding Net Neutrality?
Click to expand...

If your comments in post #89 were about Net Neutrality, and not some general statement about governments and censorship, you are misunderstanding Net Neutrality because it has nothing to do with government censorship.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
If your comments in post #89 were about Net Neutrality, and not some general statement about governments and censorship, you are misunderstanding Net Neutrality because it has nothing to do with government censorship.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with government censorship. Once they get in the business of regulating the Internet, it's all downhill towards Big Brother.

Tell me, name me one American ISP that's EVER blocked a website (that wasn't forced to by the government)
 
TFian said:
You guys have it way way wrong.

It's the government that wants to censor the Internet.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. If so, it is not with Network Neutrality legislation (the proposed 2009 bill is the first PDF link). If you are claiming that Network Neutrality legislation is about government censorship of the internet, you're going to have to back that up with something more than unsupported claims.

TFian said:
In every country in the world, the teleco's fight tooth and nail against government attempts to impose censorship (because in all cases the way the government wants to do it is by requiring the teleco's to spend their own money to discriminate against their own customers. ie. increasing their costs and decreasing their revenues).

ie. It's not about morals, it's about vested interests. The teleco's want exactly the same things as you and I want. Granted, they want it for different reasons, but they're still our allies in this fight.
Click to expand...
That is simply not bore out by the evidence (see my link below). The "invisible hand of the market" does what is in the best interest of the market, not what is in the best interest of the people. In many cases, the two interests line up. Sometimes, this case included, they do not.

TFian said:
Tell me, name me one American ISP that's EVER blocked a website (that wasn't forced to by the government)
Click to expand...
As you wish. Network Neutrality isn't about preventing the blocking of a website, although that may very well apply, as it is artificially making some packets more expensive than others.

You are simply misinformed about the topic.
 
I just don't get why conspiracy theorists believe the government has this desire to censor the internet. It's not in their own best interests.
 
Some Australian politicians are trying to censor the internet at the ISP level and there hasn't been much resistance from ISPs. This, however, is unrelated to net neutrality.

This will explain what net neutrality is: http://theopeninter.net/
 
Upchurch said:
Good. I'm glad we agree that this argument against network neutrality in the UK is not applicable to network neutrality in the US.
Click to expand...
Except that's not what we agree on is it? We agree that US telco regulation is unfair and allows anti-competitive dominance. So the answer is to change that, not try to correct for it with more flawed rules. However, you may have admitted that this is the primary reason why net neutrality is something you favour.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's true that network infrastructure developed differently in the US than in the UK. It is to be expected, even, given that each place had its own challenges. Unless you have a nuclear-powered Delorean that can take us back in time 14+ years, there is nothing that can change that. The fact is that we are here and now and must address the current state of affairs.
Click to expand...
Regulations (especially bad ones) cannot be changed? That's news to me. Kind of more of a reason not to write new ones for expedient purposes . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom