View Full Version : Net Neutrality, why it matters:
Fedaykin
10-28-2009, 11:29 PM
This sums it's up very well for those who think "net neutrality" is a communist plot:
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
snowspot66
10-29-2009, 12:09 AM
Is that just a spoof graphic or is that a real setup?
Doggcow
10-29-2009, 12:36 AM
Is that just a spoof graphic or is that a real setup?
Its a possibility, much like we pay for premium cable channels.
Fedaykin
10-29-2009, 12:38 AM
Is that just a spoof graphic or is that a real setup?
It's satire to demonstrate the very real consequences of the bill McCain has introduced (though McCain is certainly not the only person to oppose net neutrality):
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUS348124681720091022
snowspot66
10-29-2009, 08:23 AM
It's satire to demonstrate the very real consequences of the bill McCain has introduced (though McCain is certainly not the only person to oppose net neutrality):
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUS348124681720091022
****ing hell that article is depressing. It's like having my Grandmother in charge of an IT department. They don't know what the **** they are talking about.
Rohirrim
10-29-2009, 08:59 AM
The weasels always end up in control. They killed rock and roll. They'll kill the internet.
snowspot66
10-29-2009, 09:03 AM
Well I do have hope. Pay per minute internet died quite some time ago. The vast majority of the public get their service for a flat rate. If something like this were to ever happen people would be pissed.
We'll also have a lot of companies on our side. Google is on our side and they hold a fair bit of clout to say the least.
Garcia Bronco
10-29-2009, 09:12 AM
Let the market decide. Not government.
Rohirrim
10-29-2009, 11:40 AM
Let the market decide. Not government.
If it was up to the market, you'd have to pay to breathe.
Fedaykin
10-29-2009, 11:46 AM
Let the market decide. Not government.
Do you even understand what net neutrality is and why it's important to both information freedom and commerce? Or, are you just parroting the Laissez-Faire party line like a good sheeple?
Garcia Bronco
10-29-2009, 11:58 AM
Do you even understand what net neutrality is and why it's important to both information freedom and commerce? Or, are you just parroting the Laissez-Faire party line like a good sheeple?
The Federal Governemnt has no business regulating the internet in anyway outside of illegal content. And even that is a local matter. What you don't understand is providers can't charge for content. They would out of business because a free one would rise in it's place.
Garcia Bronco
10-29-2009, 11:58 AM
If it was up to the market, you'd have to pay to breathe.
We already do.
If it was up to the market, you'd have to pay to breathe.
In this case, this is about eventual control of content...you may be ok with more control for Big Brother, but what if Romney or Sarah got these types of powers? Does that not worry you one tiny bit?
On a semi related note: Have you listened to Mark Lyode, the FCC Czar yet? He's great, he just loves Chevez, who if you knew history shut down the radio stations who did not agree with his communist plans...
In Berlin in 1932 people sat back and assumed too much...same thing with the Chavez "incredible revolution" Mark L's words -- not mine -- and appointed by Obama, the speech loving, Liberty loving person, you cannot seem to find anything wrong with...
Rohirrim
10-29-2009, 12:05 PM
In this case, this is about eventual control of content...you may be ok with more control for Big Brother, but what if Romney or Sarah got these types of powers? Does that not worry you one tiny bit?
On a semi related note: Have you listened to Mark Lyode, the FCC Czar yet? He's great, he just loves Chevez, who if you knew history shut down the radio stations who did not agree with his communist plans...
In Berlin in 1932 people sat back and assumed too much...same thing with the Chavez "incredible revolution" Mark L's words -- not mine -- and appointed by Obama, the speech loving, Liberty loving person, you cannot seem to find anything wrong with...
I get the distinct impression that you don't read anything anybody else posts.
Fedaykin
10-29-2009, 12:26 PM
The Federal Governemnt has no business regulating the internet in anyway outside of illegal content. And even that is a local matter. What you don't understand is providers can't charge for content. They would out of business because a free one would rise in it's place.
* What providers can't charge for their content?
* How, exactly, does a system that operates almost exclusively across state lines not fall into the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?
Garcia Bronco
10-29-2009, 12:41 PM
* What providers can't charge for their content?
* How, exactly, does a system that operates almost exclusively across state lines not fall into the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?
Good thing you put the word "almost" in there. The providers have already and are paying duties to operate the way they do. The bottom line is it's their network. Not yours or mine. And if you don't like the way your provider is operating their network you have the right to change providers or not have one at all.
Bronco Bob
10-29-2009, 10:11 PM
If it was up to the market, you'd have to pay to breathe.
GB would let the people who couldn't pay up suffocate. And call it communism
if the government tried to provide free air to them.
snowspot66
10-29-2009, 11:18 PM
The Federal Governemnt has no business regulating the internet in anyway outside of illegal content. And even that is a local matter. What you don't understand is providers can't charge for content. They would out of business because a free one would rise in it's place.
Except in many places in the country there is only one option for internet and cable. People would be ****ed because there would be no other option. No free/flat rate option is just going to spring up. You can't pull that kind of infrastructure out of thin air.
This could be one of the most important economic issues in the history of this country. The internet is the great equalizer that allows the little guy with a good idea to compete against the larger companies. It allows unparalleled access to niche markets across the entire world. That all disappears if ISP's can limit the ability of users to access websites.
Fedaykin
10-30-2009, 12:58 AM
Good thing you put the word "almost" in there. The providers have already and are paying duties to operate the way they do. The bottom line is it's their network. Not yours or mine. And if you don't like the way your provider is operating their network you have the right to change providers or not have one at all.
You just proved you don't have a clue about this subject including how the Internet works or how telecommunications infrastructure is paid for.
A quick lesson on how the Internet works (since your obviously don't have a clue):
Say you want to get to www.google.com
In this scenario, your data will travel over several different networks both ways. It'll travel over *your* ISPs network, Google's ISP's network, and 1 or more "backbone" networks. Now, the particular route your data will take is arbitrary. Your data gets divided into small chunks (packets) and gets sent on its way. Each packet might take a different route over the Internet to get from point to point. It all depends on the real time decisions of the various routers handling your data.
If particular segments of the network are down or there is too much congestion, your data gets routed around the problem and (now this is an important part) no one particular node in the network has control over the exact route taken. Each node along the route taken only has control over the next "hop" along the way.
Now some points....
Point #1: NONE of these networks are wholly privately owned. Many of them are built in part as public works, and most are subsidized in one way or another by federal and local government entities. Network infrastructure is not cheap and no one particular entity outright owns any part of it.
Point #2: You can change your local ISP till your are blue in the face, but any local ISP you get will still have to deal with the same backbone providers (in Colorado the only backbone provider is Level3 -- a major, international backbone provider). Your fantasy free market solution wouldn't work for sh*t. If Level3 decides to throttle all YouTube traffic that passes through its network, neither you nor your ISP (any one you might choose) can do sh*t about it.
Point #3: Good luck changing ISPs at all if you are anywhere but a major urban area.
Point #4: New backbone providers aren't something that can likely happen. The amount of capital needed to start a backbone is hundreds of billions, if not trillions and decades to construct anything resembling a "complete" backbone. Again, this is why there are huge subsidies for this infrastructure work.
Now, why do ISPs want to do away with Network Neutrality? There are a lot of reason, but the primary reason is so they can charge twice for the same service.
Right now when you go watch a video on YouTube, the following fees happen:
* You get charged for your usage of your ISP
* YouTube gets charged for its usage of its ISP
* Your ISP and YouTube's ISP get charged for their usage of the backbone networks.
Now, if Network Neutrality is done away with, your ISP can start discriminating between YouTube traffic and other traffic. Then it can charge both you AND YouTube in various ways (including the way my OPs satirical take on it depicts). So, instead of getting paid once for transmitting the video, they get paid twice!
As another example, if you are a Skype or Vonage user and your ISP also provides it own VOIP solution, without network neutrality laws there is nothing to prevent your ISP from blocking Skype traffic and forcing you to either buy their service or pay a fee to use Skype or Vonage. This and other similar tiered internet shenanigans would be devastating to small companies.
Once again you've demonstrated that you are nothing but a stooge GB. The free market is not a magical cure to all problems.
Finally someone who gets it. The free market doesn't exist, really much of anywhere but on a street corner and even then that is up to interpretation. Hey GB start an oil company, phone company, cable company, power company etc. See how the free market goes for you. Good luck with that.
Finally someone who gets it. The free market doesn't exist, really much of anywhere but on a street corner and even then that is up to interpretation. Hey GB start an oil company, phone company, cable company, power company etc. See how the free market goes for you. Good luck with that.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/317466_diycellphone28.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/317466_diycellphone28.html
I think you missed my point despite this guy having 2 whole subscribers.
frerottenextelway
10-31-2009, 06:24 PM
Let the market decide. Not government.
There is no market when there are monopolies. There are places in my county that have 0 choices for high-speed internet, much less a multitude of them.
Also, on 10-9-09 your opinion was "No they (ISPs) couldn't (block sites). Good lord." It seems your reason for opposing that has completely changed. Do you retract your statement?