How do you feel about Net Neutrality?
Displaying poll results.24106 total votes.
How do you feel about Net Neutrality?
Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.
Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.
I’m in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
All those paid politicians arguing that you don't need Internet to live your life... how about we cut you and your administration off from Internet from Internet for a few months and we'll see how well you handle it?
Re:I’m in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
I don't usually agree with regulation, but in this case ISP's were basically given a monopoly by the government so they need to be kept in check.
Or, better yet, open up the last mile to competitors.
World of Ends (Score:1)
What the Internet is and how to stop mistaking it for something else [worldofends.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should be in favor of Net Neutrality, which is basically, preventing some company you don't even do business with coming in and saying 'pay us, or we'll cut you off from access to our customers." Net Neutrality is stopping people from telling you what contracts you must form.
And, from the other side: Dammit, I'm paying Comcast to provide me with network access, not to block (or throttle) my access to sites which don't c
Re: (Score:2)
Is it because regulating the AT&T monopoly worked-out so well, or for some other reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but in congress, AT&T regulates you...
Yes, the internet is supposed to be a dumb pipe, nothing more. All the 'regulation' should be done by the receiver. A public option would keep everybody honest. I guess that's a pretty good reason to keep it off the table, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
Part of the reason to reverse these regulations is to expand internet access into underserved communities.
Chairman Pai comes from one of those, and he's been very outspoken about expansion of internet service being one of his big goals.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you explain how net neutrality relates to whether they expand internet access or not?
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure you know the difference between Liberal and Conservative...
Re: I’m in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:1)
These thieves -- yes, thieves -- were given money by the Obama administration to build their network out and improve it. They pocketed taxpayer money instead.
The government should eminent domain that shit, reclassify as a utility, and open up the last mile for competition.
The only people who lose out in such a situation are the crooks.
Re: I'm in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pissed off for the same reason. My opinion is that any of the companies that took tax payer money or got preferential access to build out their network (even if they didn't actually do it), should be treated as a utility, even if we don't force all internet services to be.
The companies that actually built their system out themselves? I think that there should be incentives for them to choose to go the utility route (eg, protections against responsibility for the content being transferred by their customers), but I don't know that they should be forced into it.
What I don't like is any of the net neutrality legislation that I've seen so far. You have to allow all 'legal' traffic to go through? That means that an ISP could get in trouble for filtering spam if it complies with the CAN-SPAM act.
They need to get some of the small ISPs to weigh in for what's needed, not just these huge companies that want protectionist crap so they can continue to be an effective monopoly.
(Comcast kept telling us that it would be years before they would be bringing fiber to our town. We sign an ordinance allowing Verizon to sell service, and Comcast is out *the next week* to run fiber (so they can try to sign people up before Verizon has their work done). Of course, the Comcast assholes didn't bother to get permission to close & cut up streets in the process, they just showed up and started working)
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't like is any of the net neutrality legislation that I've seen so far. You have to allow all 'legal' traffic to go through? That means that an ISP could get in trouble for filtering spam if it complies with the CAN-SPAM act.
It's kinda like free speech. We can't make laws prohibiting the KKK from spitting their hate either. Now, that being said, your mail provider can still filter spam and that's usually where I see it done and prefer it done anyway. If my ISP does it, there's a good chance that something legitimate will get caught in their filter and refused and I'll never know that what my bill for my card is...
Re: (Score:3)
Chairman Pai more recently comes from big telecoms. The argument that the reversal of regulations would lead to expanded internet access it's built upon several assumptions that don't seem particularly grounded in reality. It's not like telecoms are barely scraping by because of net neutrality rules. Even if telecoms were to acquire an even greater surplus of profits by charging a bunch of money for their "fast lanes," it's unrealistic to believe they would use that cash to expand their access to places the
Re: (Score:1)
in wisconsin, internet is required to engage the government for many things.. including filing for unemployment compensation.
yet many rural areas still have nothing better than dialup for an 'affordable' internet option.. no wireless providers, no cellphone coverage.. only ridiculously overpriced satellite and the contracts and billing shenanigans and credit card required bullshit they offer with their shitty service is an option.
Re: I’m in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:1)
In New Braunfels the police will hang up on you after telling you to file reports online.
Fuckin pussies need 5 units to pull over a car with one occupant.
Re: (Score:2)
Wisconsin ain't Kansas flat but it's 'flat enough'. You're on /. Put your hands on a stubby little tower and fix your own problem. You should be able to find cell data service anywhere not mountainous. Yes, you'll have to build an antenna. Yes, it won't work through a storm. In Wisconsin, you'll want to heat it.
Re: I’m in favor of Net Neutrality (Score:2, Offtopic)
White people once felt themselves so superior to people of colour that the latter were taken as actual slaves, property to be owned and forced to work for the benefit of the owner, with the owner having total control over the slave.
Men once considered themselves so superior to women that they refused to allow women the right to vote, thus disenfranchising half the population of access to democracy.
As we
Re: (Score:3)
White people once felt themselves so superior to people of colour that the latter were taken as actual slaves, property to be owned and forced to work for the benefit of the owner, with the owner having total control over the slave.
Well, aren't you a racist piece of shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or order the table on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] by country and do the mental matching to the majority race in the countries at the top and bottom.
As we look back on these two past horrors, they are hopefully both abhorrent and unthinkable to us today.
Given estimates of transatlantic slavery are around the 300k mark and the UN reckons there are 27-29 million slaves worldwide at present I think it's pretty fucking clear that you'd be rather better trying to deal with
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting there were never white people who met that description?
No, I'm pointing out that focussing on white people only is racist.
Or are you just making unfounded accusations
No, I'm using a racist post as a foundation to accuse its author of racism. And being a piece of shit.
spouting profanity and link spamming
Fuck you, it's called evidence. Forgive me for providing actual fucking references.
because your feelings as a "white person" got hurt because somebody brought up American slavery?
Because I'm bored, fed up and fucked off with idiotic cunts that can't fucking move on. And because focussing on white people is racist.
The world population 400 years ago was also, incidentally, only about 1/10 of what it is today.
Fair point. So lets divide 27 million by 10 too and.. oh wait. Still an order of magnitude more people in slavery now than w
Re: (Score:1)
I am in favor of Network Neutrality too. Nice comment in the subject BTW.
Sarcasm aside, there has been a concerted effort to pollute the definition of Net Neutrality so I voted for 'Other'. I can easily see getting a groundswell of support for what really is Net Neutrality and then changing the definition of Net Neutrality so that the inertia of support for what Net Neutrality should be is perverted into support for what the major carriers want Net Neutrality to be.
We should consider re-architecting the sys
Reform and bring back the Fairness Doctrine (Score:1)
Let's bring back the Fairness Doctrine reformed to apply to modern media. Network and cable news providers should be compelled to provide a fair balance of political opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
how about we cut you and your administration off from Internet from Internet for a few months
This would have no effect. Most politicians are retirement age and barely know how to work a smartphone. That's a big reason why they don't get that Net Neutrality is such a big deal. They think of the Internet as something they could take or leave, other than getting their staff to do their Internet marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in favor of net neutrality within content type categories: all video should be treated equal, all audio should be treated equal, all text should be treated equal
Re: (Score:2)
Do you trust the government to produce clear, unambiguous and free from potential abuse legal codes defining exactly what is and isn't a similar 'content type category'? Remember what % of DC are fucking lawyers...and the question isn't easy...geeks will argue. Is super HD VR video the same as SD video? Are video chats the same as movies (technically: obviously not, just from allowable buffering issues). Is all game traffic the same? When can a game be called buggy and firewalled for excessive traffic? Wha
Re: (Score:2)
I am not proposing anything. I am describing what will happen, so stop wasting your time on politicizing ("trust the government" my ass. Who bloody does? This does not even count as rhetorics).
Again: I am telling you the future. Are you going to blame Orwell or Kafka for what is happening now?
in favor of Net Neutrality, just not from the FCC (Score:2)
The FCC is not the place for net neutrality. Net neutrality should be passed as a law through congress and should fall under the purview of the DCA or some such since most traffic shaping is in essence fraud (ISP sells you 60Mbps down/5Mbps up and then throttles your download rate to 5Mbps on whatever eats a lot of bandwidth for them (Netflix/Torrents/etc.) because it is cheaper for them than actually providing what they sold you. The common term for this is fraud or bait and switch: I sold you 10lb of po
Re: What ignoramous sad that? (Score:1)
You're totally right, but these old fogeys don't have to worry about finding jobs. They won't live to see the ramifications of their actions, so they don't care.
For this reason I believe we need term limits and an age ceiling of 65. That gives a person a good 30 President-eligible years to make a difference (or prevent it). Then they can get the hell out of the way and let society move on.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see maybe those really old guys -- like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- saying something stupid.
A week or so ago, someone (here?) said that Mitch McConnell looks like a Koopa Troopa... and now I can't unsee that. He's in the news all the time now, and in every photo he looks EXACTLY like a Koopa Troopa!
It's like several years ago, when I saw a picture of Jeff Bezos next to a picture of Elmer Fudd...
Okay, it's got nothing to do with this discussion, other than - are you content with letting a Koopa Troopa decide important matters like Net Neutrality and Health Care? I, for one, am not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think McConnell looks more like Yertle the Turtle.
Re: (Score:1)
Net Neutrality gives you that. No NN means your ISP decides what you can say and who you can say it to.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're going to breakup corporate power by concentrating all power in government? Hasn't this been tried? You need to 'expropriate' back the bandwidth too.
Against censorship (Score:1)
Net Neutrality is a great engineering principle.
But it's not good to enforce by rule of law, not by the same department that is in charge of censoring telecommunications services, not by the same department that brought us the Broadcast Flag, not by the same department that wants to ban open-source routers, and not by the same department that tries to claim an Information Service is a Telecommunication Service in order to undermine FTC privacy rules.
I fully support treating the manipulation of IP packets by
Re: (Score:3)
They don't; that was a disproven rumor.
Besides, the FTC wanted the job, but Congress and the Courts said the FTC wasn't allowed to control it because it fell into the "spectrum" side of things, so it was an FCC task. You may dislike it, but it's FCC or nothing. And I'd rather risk FCC censorship than Comcast's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. The fact that only the FCC has the legal authority to enforce net neutrality makes the GP's possibly sincere (if misinformed) argument indistinguishable from clever, malevolent, cloaked opposition to the very principles of net neutrality.
And recently I've realized that conservative politicians regularly use what I like to call "the Grinch tactic." They claim that they're not a meanie stealing your Christmas tree (substitute net neutrality or whatever other thing is so widely desired that attempts to r
Re: (Score:2)
First, not the same tactic at all. They didn't remove anything with a promise to put it back, the core of the Grinch tactic. They just changed it in place. Contrast to the net neutrality FCC vs FTC red herring (promise to remove the rules from the FCC and later put them under the FTC...where they are powerless) or the delayed-repeal-and-replace plan with Obamacare.
Second, a majority now wants to keep Obamacare, so it seems that it wasn't so bad.
Re: (Score:3)
not by the same department that tries to claim an Information Service is a Telecommunication Service in order to undermine FTC privacy rules
What is this? The reason why the FCC reclassified internet service as a telecommunications service is known, it's not a secret: the court blocked them from implementing network neutrality rules without that classification. It has nothing to do with the FTC, I have no idea where you got that from. I would like to know where you got that from. The people in government most interested in undermining privacy seem to be congress, with the recent vote to eliminate any shred of online privacy being pretty good evi
Re: (Score:3)
But the thing is, the FCC doesn't get to determine what's an information service and what's not, US Statute does.
An "Information Service" when it was first defined meant things like stock tickers, and "Telecommunications Service" meant things like POTS and cable. Information services have privacy laws covered by the FTC's Telecommunication Service decision, these went away under the FCC, and now we're wondering why we have a privacy problem with the Internet?
Incidentally, the FCC went after Playboy for inde
Re: (Score:2)
Typo: "Telecommunications Service" meant things like the *Public Switched Telephone Network and cable TV
Re: Against censorship (Score:1)
A whole bunch of blah blah. Best comparison is if the electric company one day decided that you don't matter, and instead cut your power in favor of higher paying a areas.
Internet needs to be treated as a public utility. It is necessary today. It's even more necessary when more and more peoples livelihoods depend on it.
Net neutrality is important (Score:5, Insightful)
Net neutrality should be in everyone's best interest.
If you're republican you should like that it is pro business. Entrepreneurs can set up shop an innovate.
If you're democrat you should like that it provides equal opportunity to everyone.
This isn't a political thing. Everyone should like Net Neutrality.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Wow, no. Cracking down on business activity is not pro-business.
Under net neutrality regulations an entrepreneur can't work out arrangements that help him get a leg up on the large established players. Notice how some of those large established players are some of the biggest promoters of the restrictions.
Network Neutrality is crony capitalist.
Besides that, it's just intuitively backwards to undo what was previously a bipartisan consensus that the internet has never and doesn't need this sort of regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL what makes you think some little upstart could afford to pay an ISP for an advantage over the establishment players? This is exactly that opposite of what's likely to happen and what HAS happened (see: zero-rating deals with Facebook, Youtube, and other big establishment players).
Network neutrality is basically the status-quo. It's all we had or knew back before ISPs got so greedy that they had the idea of extorting companies or people into basically paying for their Internet connections a second time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, network neutrality isn't the status quo. We've always had network operators working out arrangements with content providers to share costs in reasonable ways since that's what's best for everybody. Network neutrality is about tilting the playingfield in favor of those content providers so that they no longer have to bear as much of the cost for their business models.
Consider the other side of the coin: under network neutrality the little upstart has to first pay the infrastructure costs of the companies
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix's bits are not more expensive to carry than anyone else's. If ISPs think Netflix is getting more than they're paying for, they simply need to adjust the cost of carrying bits over their connections to suit. Not shake down any specific customers for more money. You make it sound like tiered Internet is a jury-rig fix to loopholes in ISP billing.
The potential for tiered connections may have existed in the past but it was never actually attempted or even contemplated in public. So an effective state of
Re: (Score:2)
A website which is 100% text based sends over less traffic than one that is 100% video based.
Who pays for their traffic?
Is it simply the consumer that pays for consumption of data?
Or is it the company that sources the traffic?
I like Network Neutrality in that ISPs cannot favor one company over another (especially if they are producing content themselves).
But, if that's the case then the consumer needs to pay 100% of the data transmissi
Re: (Score:2)
It should be some mix of the consumer and company, as in the past. Both pay for some allotment of bytes per month to be delivered to or from their premises, regardless of who those bytes are going to or came from. In your example the video site would simply have to pay for more bytes per month than the text site in order to deliver good service, and the consumer would also have to pay for more bytes per month to receive that content in a timely manner. That's all compatible with the principles of net neutra
Re:Net neutrality is important (Score:4, Informative)
I have no problem with Netflix having to pay their ISP for outgoing bits, and I have no problem paying mine for incoming bits. What I dislike is the notion that my ISP (who is not Netflix's ISP) can charge Netflix for bits they're delivering to me. When they're on my ISP's net, those are my bits; they are on the network because I paid netflix to put them there. If my ISP wants more money for carrying my bits they can come talk to me.
Re: (Score:2)
amen
Re: (Score:2)
The consumer needs to grow-the-fuck up, and the government should not enact or keep any policies based on the idea of preventing that.
If I download twice as much as you this month, (if all else is equal) then I ought to be paying more than you. Or if I don't, it should be because the amount of data in question is considered too small and cheap to be worth thinking about.
If we are try
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs charge consumers by how much they download - and they'll tier it, changing prices as technology improves.
Let's give a concrete example: (and not worry about the numbers used)
$40/mth for under 2 GB
$50/mth for under 10GB
$60/mth for under 20GB
Net neutrality says that ISPs ought only charge by the data used and not give breaks
Re: (Score:2)
Add in packet shaping, if you want some extra confusion.
Does network neutrality mean a Netflix stream that buffers a few seconds ahead get the same network priority as a VOIP skype call? Do both contend for bandwidth on an equal basis with a Steam game download, and does that get the same priority as a torrent?
Some people require packet agnosticism in their definition of net neutrality, while others allow packets to be treated according to their basic type to assure quality of service for latency sensitive
Re: (Score:2)
Packet agnosticism would be net neutrality - but that would be horrible for gamers. Would net neutrality require different packages for gamers (adding latency as well as bits?
Shouldn't ISPs give gamers priority over youtube and netflix? And shouldn't youtube and netflix get priority over slashdot?
A 200 ms delay would not be noticeable on slashdot, a minor annoyance on netflix (if the buffer reached 0) but would be a major issue with a gamer.
I really don't know where I stand on networ
Re: Net neutrality is important (Score:2)
Netflix already pays more, because they send more traffic. They pay for the bandwidth they use. But the ISP's want to be able to turn the thumbscrews even more, and they don't want to compete fairly with Netflix, who is paying their ISP the agreed rate already.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course tiered connections have been attempted, implemented, and important to the development of the internet. It's an area I worked in myself!
There are issues of scalability in infrastructure. If higher capacity equipment and more physical lines have to be installed and maintained, someone has to pay for it. If Netflix's business model leads to more costly equipment requirements, then yes, their bits may actually be more expensive to carry, especially given the time sensitive nature of video transmission
Re: (Score:2)
Of course tiered connections have been attempted, implemented, and important to the development of the internet. It's an area I worked in myself!
Well then it was certainly kept secret, never visible to end users or small businesses. What companies were involved in these deals? You could have a major story on your hands. Attempts were made to discriminate against certain protocols (Bittorrent, VoIP) which is certainly a problem related to net neutrality but isn't a tiered Internet, which discriminates for or against certain sources or destinations.
There are issues of scalability in infrastructure. If higher capacity equipment and more physical lines have to be installed and maintained, someone has to pay for it. If Netflix's business model leads to more costly equipment requirements, then yes, their bits may actually be more expensive to carry, especially given the time sensitive nature of video transmission.
Nonsense. If the equipment wasn't good enough for Netflix to work, then Netflix would just be slow and j
Re: (Score:2)
But Netflix can be charged for their bandwidth usage. Currently both Netflix and the consumer pay for _their_ access to bandwidth. If Netflix is using too much bandwidth, then they would be paying for it, and thus cover any necessary upgrades on the provider side. Net Neutrality doesn't change this. If this isn't true, then maybe these marketing based charging models are what is messed up.
If Vidflix1 uses 100GB/s, then charge them the flat rate plus a per GB/bucket rate. If Vidflix2 uses 10GB/s then ch
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, no. Cracking down on business activity is not pro-business.
Exactly- which is why we NEED net neutrality.
Under net neutrality regulations an entrepreneur can't work out arrangements that help him get a leg up
You mean rich established virtual-monopolies can't prevent entrepreneurs from stealing some of their market share.
Besides that, it's just intuitively backwards to undo what was previously a bipartisan consensus that the internet has never and doesn't need this sort of regulation.
Bipartisan? You mean, both Verizon and Level 3? That's funny.
a leg up (Score:2)
What do you mean? Can you give a hypothetical example of what this "leg up" could mean?
(I'm trying to imagine, by analogy, a business who wants to pay extra for the municipal water in the soda they sell, or a battery maker who wants to pay for special electricity to charge the batteries they sell, but I think analogies aren't working well here.)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote economist Ha Joon Chang: A level playing field only makes sense if the players are equal to each other.
The internet, like all things, should be somewhat regulated. Like in Europe we now have the General Data Protection Regulation which is supposed to safeguard our privacy and security because it details the consent companies need to collect from citizens about storing, processing and using their data. Furthermore, breach and data loss detection and reporting are enshrined, as is the right to erasur
Re: (Score:2)
I was all for net neutrality until the thought occurred to me that in a free for all both corporations like Amazon, Google and Facebook can do whatever they please
I don't follow your logic here. Net neutrality doesn't prevent Amazon, Google or Facebook from any behaviours that aren't directly related to any role they play as an ISP. A lack of net neutrality doesn't prevent them from any behaviours at all.
These services should indeed prevail over more trivial traffic if and when the situation calls for it.
You want email to be prioritised over VOIP calls?
You want your government website to get priority over my favourite porn site?
We strongly disagree on your priorities. Your government can pay for their own fucking network, don't go breaking mine.
Government of the x, by the y, for the z? (Score:2)
I'm hard-pressed to see how you got an "insightful" moderation there. You seem to be quite confused about today's so-called Republicans. They are NOT interested in business anymore, but only a few giant corporations. The best summary of the GOP's current philosophy is government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%.
Small glimmer of hope actually comes from #PresidentTweety, who has a different "philosophy" that has so far completely paralyzed the potential kleptocracy. Since Trump is so
too many meanings (Score:2)
Net Neutrality means too many different things.
I'm in favor of structural separation in order to eliminate cross-subsidy and product tying. Companies which own physical cable infrastructure in the public right of ways should be forbidden to sell network services like Internet access, television channels, etc. They should be allowed to rent strands or wires in the cable and possibly frequency channels on the cable, all on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) basis. This would facilitate real and continu
Re: (Score:2)
A little further on your ideas:
Common infrastructure is considered a government task: the government builds the roads, and everybody then can use those roads to transport goods or people or themselves along it. Everyone pays a preset amount, often based on vehicle type, with big vehicles normally paying more. Then many trucking companies can use that road to compete with one another on equal footing in transporting goods.
Shouldn't that be extended to network cables? The government builds the cables, puts th
Re: (Score:2)
>>Common infrastructure is considered a government task: the government builds the roads, and everybody then can use those roads [..] Shouldn't that be extended to network cables?
There are two key differences here that should not be overlooked.
1. In very many places the physical plant infrastructure, the network cables, were installed by private parties using private party dollars on private party poles. Being specific, At&t is burying many kilometers of fiber near where I live. They are paying
Re: (Score:2)
1. In very many places the physical plant infrastructure, the network cables, were installed by private parties using private party dollars
The first roads were done the same way. It is only later that the government took over (usually doing a much better job, like having actually paved roads, motorways, etc).
I'd be righteously pissed if you told me that I had to mount a competitors kit on my building that I paid for.
Why should I enjoy a property right on my property that At&t doesn't get?
Neither gets it, as that local telco wouldn't have had to build their cables, either. Or the government buys them out, just like there are legal ways to force people to sell their land for the public good (e..g. to build a new road).
Now if you don't trust your current government to do the job properly, make sure to go to the polls next tim
Re: (Score:2)
The thing to understand is that everything the government does, it does badly. Sometimes there is nobody else that can credibly do the job at all. A military comprised of private contractors? That would end well. But when private companies have demonstrated an ability and desire to do the work, it's usually better for the government not to.
The catch is: unconstrained capitalist competition devolves in to oligopoly which ends competition and thus capitalism. So the government's job is to prevent oligopoly ev
Joke Option (Score:4)
Long live the Net Axis (Score:2)
You insensitive clod.
I do not want the same cats who spy... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the mobile payment systems that predated Google Wallet. The cell carriers only allowed their wallet...
The government isn't qualified to manage technolog (Score:2)
I think that everybody would like "neutral" net, but the question of whether the federal government is the best party to make rulings regarding fairness and technical concerns seems ridiculous. This is the same group that thought that the internet was like pipes, and is run by people who think their Yahoo mail accounts are the best places to store sensitive state emails. I don't know anybody on either side who really thinks that the government is fair. So, to have them decide this sort of thing just seems s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In its purest form (Score:2)
I'm in favor of net neutrality in its purest form: the law should require that all ISPs treat every bit of network data the same, with no regard to origin, destination or application layer protocol. I'm not even in favor of QOS at the ISP level. I'm NOT in favor of treating Internet access as a public utility, or having any other such regulations that could later be used to regulate or limit online speech. Just treat a bit as a bit, and nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
regulations that could later be used to regulate or limit online speech.
I haven't heard about this level of regulation. Even in the fear-mongering put out by the big broadband providers. Granted, there are movements to regulate hate speech, child porn and some other stuff. But absent net neutrality rules, this sort of law-making will still go forth. And it's not like the ISPs are just going to charge more for CP content absent net neutrality rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe in Net Neutrality, but this isn't it. Different types of packets should be treated differently. Video streaming, file downloads, Web servers, instant messaging, VOIP...each has its own set of needs, and can tolerate different levels of latency and interruptions. I have no problem with treating these differently, as long as all VIDEO is treated alike, and all DOWNLOADS are treated alike, etc., regardless of the source. What wrong, is to let one video service pay for better performance, compared to
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is QoS [wikipedia.org]. That's not net neutrality. QoS is something that can be implemented on top of net neutrality, but should not be handled by ISPs, unless it's on a per-user basis and is a feature opted in by the user (eg. VoIP priority).
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring ISPs to get permission to manage QoS would be like requiring car manufacturers requiring you to "agree" to the formula they have chosen for balancing the fuel/air mixture and the automatic transmission gear-changing thresholds. You might have a few hard-core enthusiasts that would know or care enough to adjust these parameters, but for the vast majority of customers, they just want it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI CA says I'm a criminal for adjusting my maps. Slushbox? Where? Shoot it.
Lets hand our personal liberties to ISPs (Score:2)
In favor of night newt roller tea (Score:1)
It's the information highway (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you driven on any highways recently? Is that what kind of Internet you want? Really?
There are many problems with the highway analogy. It's a huge government project that has been deteriorating for years. It's enormously expensive. There is congestion everywhere (at least, if you drive through any city of any size).
I'm all for private businesses running the Internet, but regulation is required to ensure that they don't abuse their power.
NN = Internet, by definition (Score:3)
An ISP has to adhere to internet protocols. This means no prioritizing traffic, examining packets, blocking ports, reading or injecting data, etc, or permitting others to do so. If an ISP does any of these things, then the service being provided is not "internet" and the ISP has to call itself something else, say America On Line.
If "internet" service is not provided, the AOL loses Safe Harbor protections, all government tax breaks and subsidies, pole access, right-of-way, peering agreements, access to root zone registries, nameservers, DNS, etc. If the AOL uses the word "internet", it is immediately and vigorously prosecuted under truth-in-advertising laws.
Any company owning infrastructure that is capable of providing internet service, but chooses not to use it for that purpose, (perhaps providing AOL instead), must permit independent providers free access to do so,
Other: abolish goverment meddling (Score:2)
Of course the statists (and corporations who lobbied) will blame freedom and ask government to take even more freedom away.
Making the problems even worse, this is and endless pit of misery.
Re: (Score:2)
Our constitution was specifically designed to limit the powers of government. Yet even the constitution recognizes that there are some specific areas where government is a necessary evil. One of those is to prevent powerful interests from abusing the less powerful. This is exactly what Net Neutrality is designed to do. I'm one who believes that the Republican party has left its conservative roots, but even I agree that government has a role here.
Define "Net Neutrality" first, then let's talk (Score:2)
There's a lot of people with thoughts as to what they believe Net Neutrality consists of. I've found they often don't mean what I think it means.
Get rid of the reason to need it! (Score:2)
With 5-10 competitors in every market across the country, we wouldn't need the government regulating anything and we would finally have the speeds the rest of the world enjoys.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been Randroids on this site for way more than 10 years.
Re:What is net neutrality? (Score:5, Informative)
ISPs would like to inject ads into your connections -- over the service you are already paying them for. I'm paying them to route and deliver packets, not to interfere with or edit the packets.
ISPs complain that Netflix uses too much bandwidth and Netflix should pay. Netflix already pays quite handsomely for its own internet connectivity on its end. If AT&T doesn't like my use of Netflix, then CHARGE ME for the bandwidth I'm using. Netflix didn't just up and start shoving packets in my direction unbidden. But AT&T wants to negotiate a secret smoke-filled back room crooked deal with Netflix so that Netflix pays AT&T to be "zero rated". That is, Netflix traffic suddenly won't count against your usage of AT&T internet service. That sounds good until you realize nothing is free. And it's probably even more expensive with Zero Rated. Netflix isn't just going to absorb that cost. They're going to pass it on to their subscribers. So now a Netflix user on Verizon is subsidizing my free Zero Rated use of Netflix on AT&T. So Verizon may negotiate a Zero Rating deal with, say, HBO streaming. So now AT&T users who use HBO are subsidizing that free Zero Rated HBO content on Verizon. And with all this extra money changing hands and greasing palms, it probably makes your service ultimately more expensive. You're not getting anything for free. If AT&T already had the bandwidth to deliver Netflix zero rated, then they had the bandwidth. No need for zero rating. How about just increase my data cap? Zero Rating also hinders innovation. Do you think a new startup video streaming service could compete with the entrenched Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBO, Starz, etc. that pay under the table money for Zero Rating?
On the subject of privacy. Why should you have to pay AT&T extra for them not to inspect your internet traffic and collect information about you? I know AT&T would argue that Google collects personal information -- but I let Google do that in exchange for providing me a superior internet services. AT&T would like to take away the privacy I had and then charge me extra to buy it back. Where my packets get routed to is none of AT&T's business.
Hope that helps.
Re: What is net neutrality? (Score:1)
Re: What is net neutrality? (Score:2)
It is also that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, all bits have to be charged equally. All types of bits are equal to the same type. But you can have higher priority on VoIP bits vs browser bits. You can't have higher priority on ISP bits vs outside vendor bits. You can't have higher charges for VoIP bits vs browser bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality®, in its truest sense, is a dumb pipe with a price dependent on required bandwidth, the only relevant factor. Fat pipe costs more than thin pipe. What you run through it is your own business.
Re: (Score:2)
To remove the bad stuff from the internet, you need to define what bad stuff is in first place, and the person that do this definition will either pour his bias into it and get replaced by some mega corporation by force, or be a just individual that does not pour his bias into it but still get replaced by some mega corporation by force.
Re: (Score:2)
Although sadly the Republicans very rarely abolish leftist stupidities.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this entirely vacuous and content free post.
Out of curiousity is there a reason you dislike net neutrality or are you against it purely on the grounds that your favourite president appointed someone that dislikes it?
I'm struggling to understand your objections here, and that makes your idiotic abusive attack on people that disagree with you feel purely bigoted, ideological and bereft of sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you completely. One of the government's core responsibilities is preventing the powerful from abusing the weak. This is exactly what Net Neutrality is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law?
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Net Neutrality as it was put forward is a recent regulatory invention under Obama, don't you? The Internet and all its successes (and failures, like AOL) predate that regulation. The Internet evolved *without* NN governance and we did not end up with " ''Welcome to AT&T internet !" on our PCs, at a blazing 56kbps, and paying by the minute, Compuserve style."