Poll

24 votes (75%)
4 votes (12.5%)
No votes (0%)
4 votes (12.5%)

32 members have voted

terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 11:52:33 AM permalink
Seems a controversy looming.
Major ISP's and Cable companies on one side. No regulations.
Silicon valley tech companies and entrepreneurs on the other side. Equal access.

Its also developing in a right left issue.
Obama for Net neutrality.
Ted Cruz against.

Where does everybody stand?
aceofspades
aceofspades
  • Threads: 366
  • Posts: 6506
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 12:09:16 PM permalink
Amazing re: net neutrality

ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6219
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
November 15th, 2014 at 12:10:14 PM permalink
I vote "for", at least based on what I have heard so far.

"No regulations" = "throttling".

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a "we want to be able to build a parallel toll road to alleviate the gridlock on the freeway" situation.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 15th, 2014 at 1:46:51 PM permalink
It's a complicated issue. I voted NO because the government screws up EVERY SINGLE THING they try to do, and every well meaning regulation always ends up screwing the consumer and benefitting the corporations.

That said, local governments have really screwed up the market by creating monopolist ISP's.

However the answer to an overregulated market is less regulation, not more regulation.

Furthermore I am not an expert on the issue but it seems like I have been hearing about this for a decade and in that time it has always been only hypothetical examples of what evil could be done without the rule. Are we aware of any ISP's actually implementing objectionable practices or is this still a solution in search of a problem?
Vote for Nobody 2020!
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6219
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
November 15th, 2014 at 2:26:14 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Are we aware of any ISP's actually implementing objectionable practices or is this still a solution in search of a problem?


Well, AT&T U-Verse has four levels of internet service, depending on what you are willing to pay: 45, 18, 6, and 3 (MBps).

Xfinity also appears to have four levels; 150, 105, 50, and 6 (note that the 150 costs about 2.5x what the 105 does).

I am not sure how "net neutrality" would affect this. In fact, I am not entirely sure how the different speeds are implemented...
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 2:54:20 PM permalink
For because we're paying for access and it's not fair for the providers to diminish and deny us service because someone else doesn't pay their extortion fee.
I am a robot.
Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 786
Joined: Feb 21, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 4:07:43 PM permalink
I am for the aspect of not allowing Comcast to slow Netflix down so it can push its own products with priority. On the other hand, I don't want ISPs to use this as an excuse to force everyone onto the same speed connection.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 15th, 2014 at 4:16:16 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Well, AT&T U-Verse has four levels of internet service, depending on what you are willing to pay: 45, 18, 6, and 3 (MBps).

Xfinity also appears to have four levels; 150, 105, 50, and 6 (note that the 150 costs about 2.5x what the 105 does).

I am not sure how "net neutrality" would affect this. In fact, I am not entirely sure how the different speeds are implemented...



I don't think this would be affected by net neutrality. In the nightmare scenario the ISP's go to the youtubes of the world and extort them into paying off the ISP or else their product will be delivered very slowly compared to competing websites.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 15th, 2014 at 4:17:09 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

For because we're paying for access and it's not fair for the providers to diminish and deny us service because someone else doesn't pay their extortion fee.


Do we have any evidence of this actually happening?
Vote for Nobody 2020!
vendman1
vendman1
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 4:26:28 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

It's a complicated issue. I voted NO because the government screws up EVERY SINGLE THING they try to do, and every well meaning regulation always ends up screwing the consumer and benefitting the corporations.

That said, local governments have really screwed up the market by creating monopolist ISP's.

However the answer to an overregulated market is less regulation, not more regulation.

Furthermore I am not an expert on the issue but it seems like I have been hearing about this for a decade and in that time it has always been only hypothetical examples of what evil could be done without the rule. Are we aware of any ISP's actually implementing objectionable practices or is this still a solution in search of a problem?



What he said.

If anybody could screw this up it would be the government. Actually they might screw it up at least three times. Federal, state, and local. In fact I guarantee it.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 5:01:43 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Do we have any evidence of this actually happening?

No because we currently have net neutrality and it's not allowed yet.
I am a robot.
soxfan
soxfan
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 364
Joined: Oct 10, 2013
November 15th, 2014 at 6:44:49 PM permalink
Well, if that evil, moronic, p.o.s affirmative action incompetent is for it, I am against it, just on general principles, hey hey.
" Life is a well of joy; but where the rabble drinks too, all wells are poisoned!" Nietzsche
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
November 15th, 2014 at 7:48:51 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66


Furthermore I am not an expert on the issue but it seems like I have been hearing about this for a decade and in that time it has always been only hypothetical examples of what evil could be done without the rule. Are we aware of any ISP's actually implementing objectionable practices or is this still a solution in search of a problem?



Nope not at all just a hypothetical Comcast throttled Netflix http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/ .
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
November 15th, 2014 at 9:24:59 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Silicon valley tech companies and entrepreneurs on the other side. Equal access.

Two questions:

1)Is there even a formative list of these supporters of the proposed government regulation?

2)How would it affect satellite services and telecommunications?
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 15th, 2014 at 10:02:11 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

Nope not at all just a hypothetical Comcast throttled Netflix http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/ .


If you want to be taken seriously in an Internet debate you ought to read the articles you link to.

The third sentence in the article reads:
"Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix."
Vote for Nobody 2020!
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
November 15th, 2014 at 10:22:29 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

If you want to be taken seriously in an Internet debate you ought to read the articles you link to.

The third sentence in the article reads:
"Much like Netflix’s ongoing standoff with Verizon FiOS, the drop in speeds wasn’t an issue of the ISP throttling or blocking service to Netflix."

The point of the article was where they could, they did, so not a bad link.
I am a robot.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 16th, 2014 at 4:45:02 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza



1)Is there even a formative list of these supporters of the proposed government regulation?



Against
Verizon
ATT
Comcast
National Cable Telecommunications Assn
National Music Publishers Assn
Time Warner Cable
Cable vision services
Tekelec
Cisco Systems
Charter Communications
Ted Cruz - "Obamacare for the internet"
Many Republican Senators. http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/letters/20141112FCC.pdf

Between January 2011 and June 2014, executives, employees, and political action committees affiliated with nine of the companies that oppose net neutrality, including Verizon, AT&T, and Cisco Systems (and excluding those companies' subsidiaries), gave $762,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $733,915 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) received $317,825 from these companies, while incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) received $159,925





For
Google
Microsoft
Amazon
Facebook
Dropbox
Foursquare
Kickstarter
LinkedIn
Netflix
Reddit
Tumbler
Yahoo
Zynga
Ebay
Aol LLC
Level 3 Communications
Vonage holdings
Consumers Union of the US
Dish Network
Writers Guild of America
Twitter
Christian Coalition
Apollo Investment Management
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 16th, 2014 at 5:04:56 AM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

The point of the article was where they could, they did, so not a bad link.



Perhaps, but that's not what the post said. In fact the post made a claim directly contradicted by the article.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 16th, 2014 at 5:12:00 AM permalink
The same people that rolled out healthcare.gov want to regulate the internet?

I am "against." Not because I have major tech experience, but simply because I look at who is for and who is against and what their records are.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
November 16th, 2014 at 6:05:42 AM permalink
Here is a series of articles about the subject...

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/tim-wu/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/common-carrier/

The whole subject is interesting because the "internet" is not a "cloud" at all--it is servers, switches, routers, fiber, etc. that someone had to pay for. I'm not usually for too much regulation on business, so I hope nothing is done too hastily. I'd like to see the right rules instead of just rules for the sake of rules.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 16th, 2014 at 9:00:54 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

Here is a series of articles about the subject...

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/tim-wu/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/common-carrier/

The whole subject is interesting because the "internet" is not a "cloud" at all--it is servers, switches, routers, fiber, etc. that someone had to pay for. I'm not usually for too much regulation on business, so I hope nothing is done too hastily. I'd like to see the right rules instead of just rules for the sake of rules.



I hope the cable carriers don't become too big to fail.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
November 16th, 2014 at 10:13:05 AM permalink
Quote: terapined

Against . . . Many Republican Senators. http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/letters/20141112FCC.pdf

Although Repubicans are admittedly a minority in the Senate, the two Republican senators who signed the letter are not really "many."
Quote: terapined

Between January 2011 and June 2014, executives, employees, and political action committees affiliated with nine of the companies that oppose net neutrality, including Verizon, AT&T, and Cisco Systems (and excluding those companies' subsidiaries), gave $762,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $733,915 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) received $317,825 from these companies, while incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) received $159,925

The absence of comparable figures for the proponents, as well as listing contributions to Democats, strips these numbers of any significance.
Quote: terapined

FOR
Amazon, Aol LLC, Apollo Investment Management, Christian Coalition, Consumers Union of the US, Dish Network, Dropbox, Ebay, Facebook, Foursquare, Google, Kickstarter, Level 3 Communications, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Netflix, Reddit, Tumbler, Twitter, Vonage holdings, Writers Guild of America, Yahoo, Zynga

The inclusion of businesses like Google, Yahoo and Vonage are outstanding examples of corporate hypocrisy. Companies like those charge extra for enhanced services, yet complain when others do it. Some of the others are just looking to keep down their costs.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 16th, 2014 at 11:06:59 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Although Repubicans are admittedly a minority in the Senate, the two Republican senators who signed the letter are not really "many.".


Move down the document
11 Senators signed
30 House Reps signed
Quote: SanchoPanza


The absence of comparable figures for the proponents, as well as listing contributions to Democats, strips these numbers of any significance..


Good point. They didn't give as much to Dems but still gave a lot, just under 500k to Dem Congressional and just under 500k to Dem Senatorial.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 16th, 2014 at 11:44:39 AM permalink
Quote: soxfan

Well, if that evil, moronic, p.o.s affirmative action incompetent is for it, I am against it, just on general principles, hey hey.



Why not look at the issue.
Here's is a right wing group that supports net neutrality
Christian Coalition . A very conservative group.
http://www.cc.org/questions_and_answers_net_neutrality
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
November 16th, 2014 at 12:05:03 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Move down the document
11 Senators signed
30 House Reps signed

Good point. They didn't give as much to Dems but still gave a lot, just under 500k to Dem Congressional and just under 500k to Dem Senatorial.



They gave based on who they thought would win; nothing more than placing their influence/money more on the winning side than the losing one. Our lack of voters caring about their vote helps seal the influence of big money. Laws restricting money aren't really the answer because folks will found ways around that by forming PACs or whatever is legal. The answer is higher percentages of voters casting a ballot and challenging their elected officials to represent them, not special interests. There is no accountability to voters when large percentages of folks don't vote.
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
November 16th, 2014 at 12:29:38 PM permalink
I'm for net neutrality.

Netflix pays an ISP a certain amount of money for bandwidth to push content onto the internet.

Comcast charges customers money to primarily consume some bandwidth from the internet.

Haf of that bandwidth is being used by the content that netflix is producing.

Both the producer and consumer have paid for a certain amount of bandwidth. Comcast shouldn't be allowed to charge more based on the source of the traffic. If comcast's customers are costing comcast too much money because of the bandwith that they are consuming, then they Re either providing more bandwith than they should, or are not charging enough money. To me, the source and sink of the traffic is irrelivant, and should remain so.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 17th, 2014 at 5:59:23 PM permalink
More company's on the "For" side

UPS
Ford Motor Company
Bank of America
Visa
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
November 17th, 2014 at 8:04:16 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Why not look at the issue.
Here's is a right wing group that supports net neutrality
Christian Coalition . A very conservative group.
http://www.cc.org/questions_and_answers_net_neutrality



Quoting the what Christian Coalition says on their site. (who I probably don't agree with on much of anything normally)

Quote:

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger, company, or group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible as Google's or Microsoft's home page and compete in the open marketplace. Net Neutrality allows and protects this vibrant competition and allows even the smallest, home-based business anywhere to compete in the global economy. Network operators are not permitted to interfere in the flow of information and innovation, based on the content, service, or affiliation.



Regardless of all the big businesses for and against NN, sounds like as far as true competition for small business, being for NN is the way to go.

Tell me why that is wrong?

Anyone?
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 6092
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
November 18th, 2014 at 11:15:13 AM permalink
Well Ted Cruz (against) and Al Franken (for) are going after each other.
Al Franken says Ted Cruz doesn't understand the internet.
Ted Cruz waved around an I-phone asking if you want more of this.

Anyway what is Apples's position?
Apple is not taking sides, silent.
Good ol Steve Wozniak is not silent :-)
The Woz is For.
Romes
Romes
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 5600
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
November 18th, 2014 at 11:23:54 AM permalink
Most big companies are for net neutrality as if it doesn't exist ISP's will start charging them through the roof for 'more bandwidth' to process their higher volume of page requests (i.e. google, amazon, Netflix, YouTube, etc).

Not that it's too difficult, but I'm aware of what the low level details of net neutrality mean as well. It would be an abomination of the internet, and everything it stands for, to give the power of censorship, speed, etc, to individual ISP's.

For example... You like science? Well under a CHRISTIAN ISP's service they will BLOCK science sites from your internet so you can't research anything that isn't "the world is 2000 years old."

...it's like me blocking every news channel/outlet you have except for the shitty, completely biased, fox news. Even if people know it's bullshit, after enough years of only having 1 exposure younger people whom don't know other options once existed will take it as factual truth and eventually rot away humanity with their biased views and poisoned ideas.

Giving companies this power will essentially remove our largest learning outlet known to man kind. The largest video/paper library of experiences and shared information, known as the internet. JUST TODAY, I have an issue with my car and I looked up a temporary fix on YouTube, and it worked! Well, if my ISP decides to talk to car companies losing profits because of these videos, they'll block YouTube on me, so I'd be forced to get a $100 tow, and $100 inspection at a mechanic shop.

...If nothing else they might take our porn. Remember that.


Reposting/Quoting because this actually explains it pretty well:
Quote: aceofspades

Amazing re: net neutrality

Playing it correctly means you've already won.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
November 19th, 2014 at 6:33:15 PM permalink
For. The internet needs to remain in its purest form, and the end user is the only proper censor for themselves and their family. Equal access is necessary.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
November 19th, 2014 at 7:11:29 PM permalink
Thing is, we have net neutrality now. Is there something those against it find wrong with it? Is there something they think changing it will do to make it improve? What will eliminating net neutrality do that makes it better for you?
A falling knife has no handle.
98Clubs
98Clubs
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
November 21st, 2014 at 8:10:07 PM permalink
If one is a business entity, no-NN means that the man in the middle gets to regulate the two ends. The business end gets the stick, the Consumer end the carrot. The ISP in several instances ATT, Google, VZ, et al make appliances for their own ISP which said ISP's feel they can regulate. But if you're UPS, Apple, Ford, or a Bank no-NN means such business must cater to the man in the middle.

The man in the middle offers a tiered system gateway. Consumers generally get the short end, business entities the long end. As previously mentioned elsewhere in the thread both ends ALREADY PAY MONEY for the gateway. Now No-NN wants to allow conduit pricing and or "speed" based upon destination. Pure Greed, and Intelligence. The Consumer end is a hopeless addict. The Business end a hopeless purveyor.

The more sinister aspect of this situation is the lack of availability to use the Consumer's own connection equipment (i.e. modem/router). It can be done at certain low tier-levels of the Gateway. But hooked on cable also means their equipment.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
  • Jump to: