Hillary Endorses Net Neutrality - Federal Control of the Internet and the Taking Do

[aikido7]

Being serious here, can one of you explain your side of this issue for me? My understanding is that "net neutrality" means all internet content is treated the same in terms of access and speed. Without it, ISPs would be able to slow down or restrict content they don't like (e.g., things from competitors, political views they don't support), and/or charge extra for speed/access.

Net neutrality OTOH is basically a level playing field for all content.

So how is that a bad thing? Isn't net neutrality more on the side of "freedom" than "ISPs can restrict or slow down content they don't like"?

As I said in another post:

Our system needs an Internet that will bring in needed revenue, plus we don't want the government running it.

Privatization allows the cost of doing business online to be increased whenever it needs to.

Like it or not, that's capitalism folks.

We need to stand up for it.

 

[Morpheus]

As I said in another post:

Our system needs an Internet that will bring in needed revenue, plus we don't want the government running it.

Privatization allows the cost of doing business online to be increased whenever it needs to.

Like it or not, that's capitalism folks.

We need to stand up for it.

Like subprime mortgage bundling. Of course all regulation is evil; because, if you can't trust big corporations to look out for the greater good, who can you trust?


USA Today: What Is Net Neutrality?

 

[aikido7]

Like me subprime mortgage bundling. Of course all regulation is evil; because, if you can't trust big corporations to look out for the greater good, who can you trust?


USA Today: What Is Net Neutrality?

Corporations are people and they have a right to seek success and profits. Besides, they create jobs.
If a corporation has to raise prices, we need to be aware that the increases have to do with the shareholders, which are a necessary part of our capitalist system.

 

[aikido7]

USA Today: What Is Net Neutrality?[/URL]

Net neutrality is actually a socialist scheme from the Obama administration.

Nothing is free and especially freedom.

 

[resodko]

Like me subprime mortgage bundling.

like me apple banana pie pudding

 

[Morpheus]

Corporations are people and they have a right to seek success and profits. Besides, they create jobs.
If a corporation has to raise prices, we need to be aware that the increases have to do with the shareholders, which are a necessary part of our capitalist system.

Are you being facetious now? Which corporations do you want to protect now, he content providers or the ISPs? They were on opposite sides of the issue. Content providers, new startups and consumers pushed for the regulatory change ever since the SCOTUS shot down the old regulatory standards due to a lawsuit initiated by AT&T and Verizon. Immediately after the court decision ISPs began putting new pricing tiers into place with threats to streaming services and others that they either pay more or get their flow throttled back.
All net neutrality does is declare that the internet is a public utility like the airways and telephone system, and that everyone must receive equal, unrestricted access.

 

[Morpheus]

like me apple banana pie pudding

Spell-check on tablets can be a pain sometimes.

 

[Mocking You]

They have, yes.

Do you have links? Because I've heard that ISPs throttle content providers and the proof is offered by.....the content providers. Is there any unbiased 3rd party confirmation that throttling is going on? Or that ISP's charge certain content providers more?

 

[Mocking You]

All net neutrality does is declare that the internet is a public utility like the airways and telephone system, and that everyone must receive equal, unrestricted access.

Sounds great in principle. Let's hope the result is NOT that everyone is entitled to 12 Mps download speeds and the government has determined that no one needs speeds faster than that. Hey, it's equal, unrestricted access!

 

[Mocking You]

Net neutrality OTOH is basically a level playing field for all content.

So how is that a bad thing? Isn't net neutrality more on the side of "freedom" than "ISPs can restrict or slow down content they don't like"?

It could become a bad thing if I'm not able to pay more for faster internet speeds. If everyone has access to the internet at a basic crappy speed, that would not be a good thing.

 

[Morpheus]

Net neutrality is actually a socialist scheme from the Obama administration.

Nothing is free and especially freedom.

Explain that to almost every techie in the world. Net neutrality originated with them. The administration just picked up on it after the movement had gained momentum.

 

[Jose Fly]

Our system needs an Internet that will bring in needed revenue, plus we don't want the government running it.

Privatization allows the cost of doing business online to be increased whenever it needs to.

Like it or not, that's capitalism folks.

We need to stand up for it.

So this isn't specifically about net neutrality, and is more about a general anti-government regulation philosophy?

 

[Jose Fly]

Net neutrality is actually a socialist scheme from the Obama administration.

Nothing is free and especially freedom.

Ah....I see.

 

[Morpheus]

Do you have links? Because I've heard that ISPs throttle content providers and the proof is offered by.....the content providers. Is there any unbiased 3rd party confirmation that throttling is going on? Or that ISP's charge certain content providers more?

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you have links? Because I've heard that ISPs throttle content providers and the proof is offered by.....the content providers. Is there any unbiased 3rd party confirmation that throttling is going on? Or that ISP's charge certain content providers more?

I just remember when Verizon wouldn't allow Google Wallet and AT&T blocked video chat aps.

 

[Jose Fly]

It could become a bad thing if I'm not able to pay more for faster internet speeds. If everyone has access to the internet at a basic crappy speed, that would not be a good thing.

I haven't seen that that's part of this rule. Do you have any specific info showing that it is?

 

[Mocking You]

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

Thanks for the link.

 

[Mocking You]

I haven't seen that that's part of this rule. Do you have any specific info showing that it is?

No, I don't have any information showing that, just a suspicion that a basic minimum download speed is something the government is likely to enforce.

I'm wondering if a better way to go about this is to have Congress legislate 'no throttling' and 'equal access' laws for ISP's as the preferred method of government regulation. It seems archaic to apply an 80 some year old regulation to the internet and give the government carte blanche over the whole thing.

 

[Morpheus]

I haven't seen that that's part of this rule. Do you have any specific info showing that it is?

Basically there is nothing in present regulation concerning consumer speeds and pricing. ISPs will still be able to sell different speeds to consumers; they just will not be allowed to choke down speeds on competitors, or charge suppliers more to boost speed, which means that they would be choking speed to start with. Consumers will still have to pay for adequate bandwidth to receive HQ streaming content, and that is where the ISPs make their profits.

 

[Mocking You]

Basically there is nothing in present regulation concerning consumer speeds and pricing. ISPs will still be able to sell different speeds to consumers; they just will not be allowed to choke down speeds on competitors, or charge suppliers more to boost speed, which means that they would be choking speed to start with. Consumers will still have to pay for adequate bandwidth to receive HQ streaming content, and that is where the ISPs make their profits.

Let's hope so. The actual wording of Title II is vague and open-ended.