Opinion of Net Neutrality
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:09:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Opinion of Net Neutrality
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Freedom Neutrality
 
#2
Horrible Neutrality
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Opinion of Net Neutrality  (Read 3242 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:00:08 AM »

This is something I diverge with Libertarians on. Then again they don't really know what it is and assume it is an EVUL GUVMENT REGULASHIN
Logged
Murica!
whyshouldigiveyoumyname?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,295
Angola


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2015, 10:10:58 AM »

I should probably know what it is due to what I do, but I don't and all I know is that I support it.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 10:11:20 AM »

Freedom Neutrality.  
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 10:14:31 AM »

This is something I diverge with Libertarians on. Then again they don't really know what it is and assume it is an EVUL GUVMENT REGULASHIN

Do you know what it is though?
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 10:43:03 AM »

This is something I diverge with Libertarians on. Then again they don't really know what it is and assume it is an EVUL GUVMENT REGULASHIN

Do you know what it is though?

It's the principle that all data is treated equally and without special or unfavorable treatment. For instance, just because Comcast doesn't like Cats.com, doesn't mean that they can throttle bandwidth to slow it down, or itemize certain sites, etc
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 10:49:06 AM »

Freedom Neutrality (uses the Internet)
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 11:44:58 AM »

This is something I diverge with Libertarians on. Then again they don't really know what it is and assume it is an EVUL GUVMENT REGULASHIN

Do you know what it is though?

It's the principle that all data is treated equally and without special or unfavorable treatment. For instance, just because Comcast doesn't like Cats.com, doesn't mean that they can throttle bandwidth to slow it down, or itemize certain sites, etc

This is the basic idea. Net Neutrality has been the governing rule of Internet traffic since its formation. This only changed in early 2014, when Verizon successfully got a court to agree to strike down Net Neutrality rules.

The key problem here is that Comcast is not just the company that provides access to content, but it's also a major content provider itself. It is a giant media conglomerate. The same goes for second place ISP Time Warner, which Comcast is currently attempting to merge with. Comcast, for example, owns NBC, Bravo, E!, USA, Telemundo and many more TV channels. It also despises Netflix, Hulu and other streaming services, because these are significantly cutting into cable revenue.

So what happened immediately after Net Neutrality rules were struck down? Comcast significantly reduced Netflix download speeds to the point where Comcast customers could not reliably use the service. It held its customers' traffic for ransom until Netflix agreed to make a major cash payment. Sucks to be a Comcast customer, huh?

Complicating the problem: The American broadband industry is incredibly monopolistic. According to FCC statistics, 38.7% have access to no more than one ISP capable of delivering speeds of 10 Mbps or more -- a pretty basic level that allows people to reliably stream Internet video. And 74.7% of Americans have access to no more than one ISP capable of delivering 25 Mbps speeds. If Comcast f---s with your Internet traffic and blocks you from viewing Netflix, you literally don't have a choice but to let them. What are you going to do, cancel service? And start new service with who, exactly?

And, of course, Comcast and its ilk get huge taxpayer subsidies to build its infrastructure and get favorable treatment when it comes to accessing utility poles. (Upstart ISPs like Google Fiber are required to dig to lay cable, which is 10 times more expensive than using utility poles. Which is why there are virtually no upstart ISPs.) No competition and free money from the government? No wonder why Comcast is such a profitable company despite having some of the absolute worst customer service of any company in the country.

The FCC is currently looking into regulating broadband Internet as a Title II utility (like your phone company is), which would give it the legal authority to once again enforce net neutrality rules. It's also looking to stop Comcast and the rest of the cable industry's attempt to kill municipal broadband -- that's when local communities decide to build their own fiber optic networks to compete against them. No fewer than 20 states have laws that prohibit municipal broadband networks -- laws written, of course, by cable industry lobbyists.

I'm rather optimistic that the FCC will have some success in shaping Internet rules over the next two years. Chair Tom Wheeler has made a lot of moves lately away from the cable industry line and towards the demands of the 81% of the public that supports net neutrality. The agency has the power to fix the problem without getting the Comcast-friendly Republican congress involved. This is one issue where public lobbying and protest has actually made an impact on the government. So that's pretty cool.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 03:06:49 PM »

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 03:55:49 PM »


This is the correct answer. Literally every argument against Net Neutrality I've heard/read was based largely in the person making it's ignorance of what Net Neutrality even is.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 04:08:40 PM »

Horrible neutrality
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 04:13:48 PM »


Okay what's wrong with it
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 04:15:44 PM »


This is the correct answer. Literally every argument against Net Neutrality I've heard/read was based largely in the person making it's ignorance of what Net Neutrality even is.

Here's the only decent argument.

Right now, there are certain internet applications that are impossible due to lack of bandwidth.  Maybe the only obvious one is streaming HD video across wireless networks.  So, you can't get an HD video conference on your Ipad when you're on the train.  If you could prioritize that kind of traffic across the internet, you might be able to boost the speed enough to allow new applications. 

The problem with that argument is that 10 years ago you couldn't stream audio on your wireless device.  And, now you can.  Bandwidth seems to basically keep pace with the web applications we want.  How often do you say, my internet speed is too slow to do "XYZ?"  For me, it's somewhere around never.  When I'm on the go, I don't really want to use high-bandwith applications.  I don't want to stream a full HD movie on my phone while I'm on the bus.  When I'm at home, my home wifi is as fast enough for streaming netflix.  The market is not screaming out for an end to net neutrality.

So, why does Comcast hate net neutrality?  They want to use their market power to extract economic rents.  They want to bully google, Netflix and such into giving them money.  They want to turn an efficient and open market into the most profitable market for Comcast.  That would be bad for consumers, bad for the economy, bad for content creators, bad for new startups and innovators, and good for the big players in the broadband market. 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 04:42:15 PM »

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.

You mean consumers might have to pay ISPs for internet connections?
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,616


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2015, 04:58:42 PM »

I'm sure there was a point where we thought electricity was a luxury too. As new utilities emerge, some government oversight is essential.

Freedom Neutrality.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2015, 05:10:24 PM »

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.  If it is not to be from content providers, it has to come from content consumers.  However, understandably content consumers aren't going to willingly pay more in advance of seeing a need, which they won't until they actually need it.  The problem is that Comcast and other providers promised a speed that could be maintained with their current infrastructure if and only if there were only a few heavy users.  The advent of streaming has upset that model.

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.

You mean consumers might have to pay ISPs for internet connections?

And that if they start using more bandwidth, they'll have to pay more.  I'm old enough to remember when ISPs charged everyone by the amount of data used and not just by the maximum speed possible.  Given the changed dynamics of internet usage, they have the problem of having promised a maximum speed assuming that few users would be making constant use of that maximum.  Getting people to pay more for the same maximum speed is not likely even if it does provide more total throughput.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2015, 06:23:59 PM »

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2015, 08:00:20 PM »

Politicians-and government officials more broadly-are well known for being up to date with developments in technology.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2015, 12:35:50 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2015, 10:38:02 AM by True Federalist »

Not The Onion: Comcast Changes Customer's First Name to Asshole; is Really Sorry

(Fixed Link - TF)
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2015, 01:26:26 AM »

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.

$200 billion of taxpayer dollars went to pay for broadband in the 1990s.
Cable internet is typically $60-$100 a month these days.
And then Comcast and the like want to have the Internet paid for a 3rd time by the content providers like Netflix.
We the people already paid for it twice.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2015, 02:55:43 AM »


Without ISPs being able to "discriminate" against certain users, costs have to go up for everybody and that makes the Internet less accessible.  Its the same reason why people's water is metered. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2015, 10:53:11 AM »

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.

$200 billion of taxpayer dollars went to pay for broadband in the 1990s.
Cable internet is typically $60-$100 a month these days.
And then Comcast and the like want to have the Internet paid for a 3rd time by the content providers like Netflix.
We the people already paid for it twice.

Moderate's comments make more sense than yours, tho not by much since apparently those governments were dumb enough to give money without securing any ownership stake.

But "We the people already paid for it twice" is like complaining about the expense of adding lanes to an interstate when traffic increases because we already paid to build the initial interstate.  Now I'm fairly neutral about how we pay for the extra bandwidth, but someone is going to have to or it won't get built.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2015, 10:59:19 AM »


Without ISPs being able to "discriminate" against certain users, costs have to go up for everybody and that makes the Internet less accessible.  Its the same reason why people's water is metered. 

Your internet provider can charge more money for faster speeds.  That's a fairly common model when it comes to internet.  Verizon has one price for 25 Mbps, another price for 150 Mbps and another price for 500 Mbps.

And, why is that a broken model?  Internet providers are not going out of business.  Internet is not getting more expensive on a Mbps basis.  It's actually getting cheaper on a per Mbps basis.  We just have a few companies who are complaining and want to make even more money.  And, those people claiming that net neutrality will lead to companies deciding not to invest in one of their core businesses  have the burden of proof here.  It hasn't happened yet and it seems rash to create all these massive problems and change the basic way the internet works in order to address a problem that doesn't even exist.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2015, 11:14:49 AM »


Without ISPs being able to "discriminate" against certain users, costs have to go up for everybody and that makes the Internet less accessible.  Its the same reason why people's water is metered. 

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with discriminating against users. It's about discriminating against content. The water metering analogy doesn't make any sense.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2015, 11:46:59 AM »

Freedom Neutrality (uses the Internet)
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2015, 12:20:57 PM »

Depends on how its done. Having the FCC draft binding regulations on the internet without authority is illegal as well as terrifying. That's why the Courts have struck down rules twice now and will likely strike them down again. The first rule was invalid because the FCC claimed the inherent right to regulate the internet, despite no Congressional authorization. The second attempt was invalid because the FCC claimed the right to regulate the internet under Title I of the telecom act. Now FCC is probably going to try and regulate the internet under Title II, even though ISPs are covered under Title I. Congress has passed no law re-titling ISPs.

If federal control over the internet is so important (not a given since O is simultaneously abandoning ICANN), Congress should expressly grant the FCC the power to regulate ISPs. The increased use of the regulatory state to avoid making laws is a big problem, and allowing something as important as the internet to be regulated just because the FCC wants to, is dangerous.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.