Senators opposing net neutrality rake in more campaign cash

[technofox]

Lots of experience simplifying things for users.

Yeah I haven't had to deal with users for years now, because of the work I do rarely involves them, unless they are under investigation. I must be losing my touch lol

 

[ThatRobGuy]

P.S. I have a very strong network engineering background and intimately familiar with this subject. Personally the current fight in congress is for equal access to a shared highway and not having large companies force smaller companies to pay for fast lanes, which technically isn't a fast lane just higher prioritization of traffic (i.e. They can cut ahead inline). It's not completely about access to information as you may think it is.

I understand that it's not completely about information, and I did acknowledge that there are pros and cons to the concept.

As I made reference to earlier, my biggest concerns are pertaining to the fact that a government body will be regulating this and we already have cases of high ranking judges who were formally lobbyists for RIAA making questionable calls. ...like with anything that congress does, the major concerns lie within the fine print. RIAA has already voiced support for net neutrality so long as it's policed by the FCC and the FCC snoops for music downloaders on their behalf (something that ISPs haven't showed much interest in doing for them).

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The ever gray area of trust in america, Who do we trust more for our personal welfare? Big business or the government? Its like trying to decide whether I want to use poison or make a noose for myself.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The ever gray area of trust in america, Who do we trust more for our personal welfare? Big business or the government? Its like trying to decide whether I want to use poison or make a noose for myself.

Well, even with that choice, there's still big business behind both doors.

There are just as many special interests pushing for this as there are pushing against this.

Neither path is going to give us a 100% "free, open, and honest" internet.

If ISP's are running the show, it's not going to be free
If the Government is running the show, it's not going to be open or honest

 

[FreedByte]

When you say "prevent this type of behavior", can you further elaborate on that?

...because, in looking at the Netflix example, I honestly have no problem making people pay accordingly for what they're using in terms of bandwith.

Why should everyone pay the same amount (or pay nothing at all) when there's a handful of resources that are using close to half of the total resources?

When the floodgates get opened, who's going to step up and pay for more infrastructure?...it's certainly not going to be average internet users...I'm not chipping in to build a new data center so that Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube can utilize 99% of the newly allocated resources to boost their profits. ...and it's doubtful that they'd pay for the new infrastructure considering that they'd be essentially paying to get their competitors a chunk of the new bandwith. One would have to hope that all of the major streaming services would band together and collectively fund the new infrastructure...but why would they be on board with that when they would rather have the option to just pay for higher bandwith?

There were valid reasons for putting tiered services in place. Netflix vs. The Guardian UK website have varying resource needs and it's completely logical that Netflix should pay more since they use more.

"new infrastructure" needs would be obsolete if we decentralized the internet and switched to a meshnet system.

 

[technofox]

Well, even with that choice, there's still big business behind both doors. There are just as many special interests pushing for this as there are pushing against this. Neither path is going to give us a 100% "free, open, and honest" internet. If ISP's are running the show, it's not going to be free If the Government is running the show, it's not going to be open or honest

There is only one solution left then. You must flee the USA and start your own country.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There is only one solution left then. You must flee the USA and start your own country.

Or, we just leave the internet as it currently is...

 

[kermit]

Or, we just leave the internet as it currently is...

Agreed....preserve net neutrality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Agreed....preserve net neutrality.

What do you mean preserve?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Agreed....preserve net neutrality.

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet...

I know the term "net neutrality" was poll-tested and found to be a term that could be used to mislead the public in supporting something that they otherwise would completely (and rightfully reject), but you're making the mistake trying to use that term when a lot of people here are actually tech savy.

 

[technofox]

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet... I know the term "net neutrality" was poll-tested and found to be a term that could be used to mislead the public in supporting something that they otherwise would completely (and rightfully reject), but you're making the mistake trying to use that term when a lot of people here are actually tech savy.

It's not a government take over, it's is simply a regulation. The internet is operated by multiple companies that agreed to interconnect their networks. Net Neutrality is meant to prevent double dipping; charging customers for both the backed and front end of communication between two remote systems.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet...

No, we're not.

I know the term "net neutrality" was poll-tested and found to be a term that could be used to mislead the public in supporting something that they otherwise would completely (and rightfully reject), but you're making the mistake trying to use that term when a lot of people here are actually tech savy.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you think 99% of the people who responded to the FCC's open comment period were conned by a catchy slogan?

What is it that you think "net neutrality" is?

 

[kermit]

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet...

I know the term "net neutrality" was poll-tested and found to be a term that could be used to mislead the public in supporting something that they otherwise would completely (and rightfully reject), but you're making the mistake trying to use that term when a lot of people here are actually tech savy.

No, I am advocating for an internet where providers can't throttle content without any feedback from their customers; bear in mind that in most part of the country providers operate as de facto utilities with little to no competition.

Earlier Netflix was cited as being harmed by Net Neutrality. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is. Netflix future existence depends upon Net Neutrality. Providers such as Comcast could crush them by creating a competing service and throttling down Netflix. Also, let's say that Netflix agrees to pay Comcast a fee for higher bandwidth (a cost they don't currently incur), future competitors would likely be unable to afford that cost thus the government is encouraging a huge barrier to entry into a market. Opposition to Net Neutrality is opposition to free markets.

 

[GarfieldJL]

What on earth are you talking about? Do you think 99% of the people who responded to the FCC's open comment period were conned by a catchy slogan?

You're assuming the FCC is telling the truth, given how often this government has lied to the American people these past 6 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't telling the truth about the results.

What is it that you think "net neutrality" is?

This is about trust, and it doesn't matter what they are saying it is, if they've pretty much demonstrated that you can't trust them.

No, I am advocating for an internet where providers can't throttle content without any feedback from their customers; bear in mind that in most part of the country providers operate as de facto utilities with little to no competition.

Which is why I believe comcast needs to be broken up, cause it has been a government backed monopoly.

Earlier Netflix was cited as being harmed by Net Neutrality. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is. Netflix future existence depends upon Net Neutrality. Providers such as Comcast could crush them by creating a competing service and throttling down Netflix. Also, let's say that Netflix agrees to pay Comcast a fee for higher bandwidth (a cost they don't currently incur), future competitors would likely be unable to afford that cost thus the government is encouraging a huge barrier to entry into a market. Opposition to Net Neutrality is opposition to free markets.

I said Netflix would be hurt by Net Neutrality, because they are currently paying to be given a higher priority. If Comcast wants to create a competing service and then throttling down Netflix, then Comcast would be facing serious legal repurcussions under existing law (you don't need to give government more power when the tools to deal with what you are describing already exists).

The paying for the higher bandwidth is okay in my opinion (as long as it is reasonable), btw Netflix already has competitors such as Amazon, Hulu, etc.

 

[HorsieJuice]

You're assuming the FCC is telling the truth, given how often this government has lied to the American people these past 6 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't telling the truth about the results.

So you think they just manufactured all of these comments? It has nothing to do with people actually believing that net neutrality is a good thing? I lost count of the number of pro-neutrality petition requests I was bombarded with during that time.

This is about trust, and it doesn't matter what they are saying it is, if they've pretty much demonstrated that you can't trust them.

I noted that you didn't answer the question. What do you think "net neutrality" is?

I said Netflix would be hurt by Net Neutrality, because they are currently paying to be given a higher priority. If Comcast wants to create a competing service and then throttling down Netflix, then Comcast would be facing serious legal repurcussions under existing law

No, they wouldn't. The FCC tried to impose net neutrality rules, but in January, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said (basically) that they don't have that authority, because of how ISP's are legally classified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_(2014)

(you don't need to give government more power when the tools to deal with what you are describing already exists).

It doesn't exist. You're wrong.

The paying for the higher bandwidth is okay in my opinion (as long as it is reasonable), btw Netflix already has competitors such as Amazon, Hulu, etc.

This isn't about paying more for higher overall bandwidth or more overall capacity; it's about paying more for equal access.

If this were a highway, "net neutrality" would be analogous to saying that everybody who drives on a highway has to pay $1 per mile per ton that their vehicle weighs. People who drive farther have to pay more; people who drive heavier vehicle have to pay more - everything's fair.

What the Comcast and Netflix situation was about was that Comcast was restricting its customers' access to Netflix even though the bandwidth had already been paid for. It was as if Comcast owned the highway and Netflix had already paid the tolls, but Comcast decided that Netflix' trucks couldn't go any faster than 25mph, when everybody else's could do 65mph - unless Netflix paid them an extra toll.

 

[kermit]

The paying for the higher bandwidth is okay in my opinion (as long as it is reasonable), btw Netflix already has competitors such as Amazon, Hulu, etc.

The big players can afford the added cost. Smaller players cannot afford to compete without Net Neutrality.

 

[Belk]

You're assuming the FCC is telling the truth, given how often this government has lied to the American people these past 6 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't telling the truth about the results.



This is about trust, and it doesn't matter what they are saying it is, if they've pretty much demonstrated that you can't trust them.



Which is why I believe comcast needs to be broken up, cause it has been a government backed monopoly.



I said Netflix would be hurt by Net Neutrality, because they are currently paying to be given a higher priority. If Comcast wants to create a competing service and then throttling down Netflix, then Comcast would be facing serious legal repurcussions under existing law (you don't need to give government more power when the tools to deal with what you are describing already exists).

The paying for the higher bandwidth is okay in my opinion (as long as it is reasonable), btw Netflix already has competitors such as Amazon, Hulu, etc.

No offense Garfield, but your distrust of the government has reached irrational levels.

 

[FreedByte]

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet...

The government already controls the internet in many ways.

 

[HorsieJuice]

The government already controls the internet in many ways.

The government essentially invented the internet.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Except you're advocating for the government to be able to come in and start taking control of the internet...

I know the term "net neutrality" was poll-tested and found to be a term that could be used to mislead the public in supporting something that they otherwise would completely (and rightfully reject), but you're making the mistake trying to use that term when a lot of people here are actually tech savy.

Agreed...

As I made reference to earlier, the term "neutrality" is coined and often only described in a positive light...because that word is one that people associate with "fair". However, if they named it closer to what it really was...which is:

"Operation: policing teens for downloading music using the same organization that wasted $3 million dollars of our money when they saw a nipple at the super bowl", it'd be much less likely to garner support.

I have no issues with keeping a tiered service level model. If I own a business, and have made that business successful enough that I'm in a position to where I can request (and pay for) faster internet speeds then some of my competitors, and an ISP (another business) wants to accommodate me in the interest of their own financial gain, then that's between my business and the ISP.

There are dozens of services on the web that we've all used,...and take for granted the fact that we benefit from them due to the fact that they've paid for (and been given) bandwidth prioritization.

We're even seeing some tech companies flip-flopping on the matter...
(Microsoft, Google, and Amazon)

The whole concept is that the FCC step in to regulate the internet like any other utility, yet, on the very first regulatory proposal they've made, those three companies immediately wrote angry letters to the FCC.

Gee...they say they want this...but apparently they only want the parts that don't have the potential to negatively impact their business. Big surprise...

Sounds like they want a dose of good old fashioned crony capitalism lol.