Net Neutrality

[salt-n-light]

A Republican told me it would be good for business for something. The guy failed to understand that corporations are not his friend and care only for whatever profit they can make from him. I know Republicans are very pro business but there has to be some limits on what you're willing to put up with in the pursuit of material goods. Jesus was not a business man and rejected the world's definition of success and worth. He put other's humanity and dignity before profits so that's why I don't believe Republicans are as holy and blameless as they like to believe.

Jesus wasn't a businessman, but He had a treasurer while He was traveling. So, can't totally throw the baby with the bathtub, but I get it.

 

[salt-n-light]

This is thread is a perfect example of why I've lost all faith in the political future of the United States.

Oh stop being so dramatic, lol.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I am against net nuetrality. It's moniker is like the "Affordable Care Act" very misleading. Net nuetrality favors the biggest tech corporations. About half the traffic of U.S. use is Netflix and Youtube. If you consume bandwidth, you shoud pay extra or be throttled back on speed. There should be no free lunch for big consumers of bandwidth. Currently, you are subsiziding the biggest users, including porn I might add which is another huge bandwidth recipient. It is too bad that the Christian forum has the large banner for being against this issue with all the most liberal companies that exist.

Net neutrality isn't about limiting quantity of data or bandwidth.

 

[Richard T]

Net nuetrality does treat every bit of data equally but it does not say that some companies are hogging internet bandwidth. This allows the largest internet companies to avoid paying surcharges or have their traffic slowed. Imagine if we had electricty as the internet, anyone could use it and pay the same price. Those who use just a little electricity are paying the same price as those that use alot. Not to mention that the ones using the most bandwidth are promoting anti-Christian views, (generally). For disclosure purposes, I have no financial gain to make one way or another on this issue. For moral and economic (not political) reasons I suggest Christians should be against net nuetrality.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Google is an ISP lol. People come to the weirdest conclusions.

Thank you for posting in this thread, Brent, since you are CF's Tech Admin. I'm glad to see you and other members dispelling the fear tactics of liberals going after conservatives with net neutrality.

 

[Brent W]

Net nuetrality does treat every bit of data equally

Yes and thank you for finally pointing out that without it each bit of data will be treated differently at the discretion of ISPs, which receive vast Federal funding to improve their infrastructure so that data can be fed to everyone equally.

Imagine if we had electricty as the internet, anyone could use it and pay the same price.

If you want to fight for more bandwidth restrictions for large offenders then fight for that. It is absolutely absurd to throw away Net Neutrality and allow content censorship based on a handful of companies large use of bandwidth.

Repealing Net Neutrality will allow for data discrimination and will allow for ISPs to censor data based. This is unacceptable to me and the majority of Americans.

For moral and economic (not political) reasons I suggest Christians should be against net nuetrality.

You can keep saying this over and over again but you are the one that chose to make it political in your first reply in this thread.

 

[Serving Zion]

Imagine if we had electricty as the internet, anyone could use it and pay the same price. Those who use just a little electricity are paying the same price as those that use alot.

Can you also explain why you think that would not be fair? Thank you.

 

[SummerMadness]

Did I just read a point-by-point breakdown of why someone's anti-net neutrality argument is weak to only get the reply, "Stop personally attacking me!"? Wow.

 

[pgp_protector]

The thing is I pay my ISP for internet access,
I give them $$ They give me access for the Bandwidth and speed I select.
I don't have to pay extra to visit site abc.com vs getting cbs.com with my plan.
Also if I run a server I pay for the bandwidth I use, not based on who accesses my servers.

Given the history of some companies liking to block sites, you just might end up with

 

[pat34lee]

Does anyone know the actual legislation, and do you
think it will work the way that they intend?

What are the intended and unintended consequences?

 

[Inkfingers]

So that big red bubble was put there by site admin and is not a site hack?

I'm English, we are not all American on here....

 

[Nithavela]

If it's so great, why are only the Democrats for it?
What makes it bad for Republicans?

Less donations from lobbyists.

 

[super animator]

This is thread is a perfect example of why I've lost all faith in the political future of the United States.

Don't base your faith on CF to begin with!!!!!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Don't base your faith on CF to begin with!!!!!

I tend to agree this place isn't an accurate depiction of the real world. I'm just not yet sure if that's a good or bad thing.

 

[super animator]

I tend to agree this place isn't an accurate depiction of the real world. I'm just not yet sure if that's a good or bad thing.

I had found flat earthers and geocentrics here. This place is definitely not an accurate depiction of the real world.

 

[adrianmonk]

I understand you have stepped out of the conversation but hopefully someone else finds this explanation helpful.

When I had Comcast, I purchased a plan for 50Mbps down/10Mbps up. The contract stated thats what I get. They have an upper limit of 300gb or so (maybe more now), but in this example, I get to use up to 300GB of transfer with 50Mbps down and 10Mbps up.

I should be able to consume that much data regardless of the content of that data. Thats what I pay Comcast for. I should be able to watch Hulu, HBO Now or whatever other streaming services that I pay for. If Comcast cannot support their customers for the plan they advertise and sell to me, thats their problem not ours (or Netflix's).

With Net Neutrality the internet service providers are not allowed to discriminate based on content source. Which means, 1 bit of data from NBC (owned by Comcast) should be treated exactly the same as 1bit of data from Netflix, or 1 bit of data from Hulu.

Without Net Neutrality, ISP will be able to tier packages based on source. Comcast can choose to charge one person $60 for 50/10/(300Gb) for NBC Universal but if you wish to watch Netflix, they can choose to charge $70 for 50/10/(300Gb). You get exactly the same bandwidth and usage limits, but you are forced to pay more money to subscribe a competing service.

Even with Net Neutrality, Comcast can still sell tiered packages based on usage. Nothing will stop them from doing that. If they have issues with capacity to deal with people using what they purchase, thats a Comcast issue.

Because it's their company. If I was the CEO of a company, I'd want the freedom to offer whatever services I wanted, at whatever prices I wanted. Shouldn't you have the right to have control in your own business without the government interfering? No one ISP owns or controls the internet. Even in areas where there are monopolies, there are options. I only get Spectrum here, but there are smaller internet/satellite internet companies. Most phone providers have options, as a larger chunk of all internet traffic comes from mobile with each passing year.

I'm not FOR the cable companies. I think they suck and charge way too much money as it is, so this isn't about being their supporter.

It's like Netflix. There are payment tiers. If you want to use normal Netflix, it's one price. If you want premium HD streaming, it's a higher price. If you want DVDs, it's another. I don't see anything wrong with structuring things that way. If the government steps in and says Netflix can't charge more for HD premium streaming, than HD premium streaming might not exist.

Let the people decide what they want and what they don't want. If businesses decide to sell out to companies or join them to force monopolies, that's their business. They should be able to run things as they see fit. It opens the door for better innovations. If the government can control who can do what and how much they can charge for it, that not only stifles innovation, but it handcuffs businesses.

Again, I'm not for monopolies either. Just because you fight for the rights of others to freely run their business according to their own models doesn't mean your pro-monopoly. Fear mongering about what companies 'might' do isn't a valid reason to create a law that handcuffs companies. If it's something like health regulations that involves the safety of others, that's one thing. But spreading fear that the internet companies *might* charge you more for a premium service isn't that.

 

[FenderTL5]

I understand you have stepped out of the conversation but hopefully someone else finds this explanation helpful.

When I had Comcast, I purchased a plan for 50Mbps down/10Mbps up. The contract stated thats what I get. They have an upper limit of 300gb or so (maybe more now), but in this example, I get to use up to 300GB of transfer with 50Mbps down and 10Mbps up.

I should be able to consume that much data regardless of the content of that data. Thats what I pay Comcast for. I should be able to watch Hulu, HBO Now or whatever other streaming services that I pay for. If Comcast cannot support their customers for the plan they advertise and sell to me, thats their problem not ours (or Netflix's).

With Net Neutrality the internet service providers are not allowed to discriminate based on content source. Which means, 1 bit of data from NBC (owned by Comcast) should be treated exactly the same as 1bit of data from Netflix, or 1 bit of data from Hulu.

Without Net Neutrality, ISP will be able to tier packages based on source. Comcast can choose to charge one person $60 for 50/10/(300Gb) for NBC Universal but if you wish to watch Netflix, they can choose to charge $70 for 50/10/(300Gb). You get exactly the same bandwidth and usage limits, but you are forced to pay more money to subscribe a competing service.

Even with Net Neutrality, Comcast can still sell tiered packages based on usage. Nothing will stop them from doing that. If they have issues with capacity to deal with people using what they purchase, thats a Comcast issue.

This is an old graphic but it illustrates the point:

 

[drjean]

Can you also explain why you think that would not be fair? Thank you.

I read that post and associated it with water billing. Here in South Florida everyone pays for a certain 'minimum' use of water...whether you use it or not, then those who use more pay extra. I never use the minimum. They keep increasing the price but increasing the minimum too---which only takes MORE from my pocket since I didn't use the minimum in the first place when it was less quantity (and less money).

 

[Nithavela]

I read that post and associated it with water billing. Here in South Florida everyone pays for a certain 'minimum' use of water...whether you use it or not, then those who use more pay extra. I never use the minimum. They keep increasing the price but increasing the minimum too---which only takes MORE from my pocket since I didn't use the minimum in the first place when it was less quantity (and less money).

Maybe the idea of the minimum is that people actually use it. If people don't use enough water, the pipes that carry the sewage get clogged and the city has to flush them. This often happens in germany where, for some insane reason, people are very diligent with using as little water as possible. I think many germans think that any water they don't use is shipped off to africa or something..