Right Wing Media lies about Net Neutrality

[Umaro]

Right-wing media have falsely claimed that the net neutrality principle supported by the Obama administration is an attempt by the government to control Internet content. In fact, net neutrality does not mean government control of content on the Internet; rather, net neutrality ensures equal and open access for consumers and producers of content and applications, and is supported by a wide array of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Christian Coalition of America.

Right-wing delusion: Net neutrality is government plot to control Internet content | Media Matters for America

 

[Gawron]

If Media Matters says we have nothing to worry about, we had better worry.

 

[oldbetang]

If Media Matters says we have nothing to worry about, we had better worry.

+1

 

[Sketcher]

Campaign For Liberty - Net Neutrality

 

[lawtonfogle]

If Media Matters says we have nothing to worry about, we had better worry.

Do you also have a physicist on speed dial to call in case certain sites (such as WND) say the world is round, just to ask who proved the world was flat and how did they do it?

 

[Zoooma]

Umaro, seriously? Media Matters as a source?

What's one of their primary goals for existing?
To smear and diminish any thought that goes against the left's progressive vision for America. "The right is wrong and here's why" could be a slogan of theirs.

How can they be fair when approaching an issue that way? They're not being objective. If a story presented itself with nice things to say about the right, would Media Matters be saying those nice things? No. Even if those nice things are indisputable fact, Media Matters would not print them. But you and others seemingly believe everything that Media Matters and similar organizations say and you all hold it up as gospel truth. That's not right.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

As the Campaign for Liberty article says, Net Neutrality is a fallacy.

Basically it says that the ISPs are going to start limiting websites you can go to like cable television companies not letting you have some channels without paying. Major fallacy because why should they just give you the free channel when they have to pay for it themselves? Its like these people think when net neutrality comes around they can sue their ISP to pay for their porn website subscriptions.

Yet the biggest fallacy is they never mention the way cell phones have come, seriously I remember the unlimited data plans being hundreds for one person, now they are around $100 for a few people, how did they get there? Tiered service.

 

[Phokus]

As the Campaign for Liberty article says, Net Neutrality is a fallacy.

Basically it says that the ISPs are going to start limiting websites you can go to like cable television companies not letting you have some channels without paying. Major fallacy because why should they just give you the free channel when they have to pay for it themselves? Its like these people think when net neutrality comes around they can sue their ISP to pay for their porn website subscriptions.

Yet the biggest fallacy is they never mention the way cell phones have come, seriously I remember the unlimited data plans being hundreds for one person, now they are around $100 for a few people, how did they get there? Tiered service.

I think of all the posts on christian forums, your post is the worst of all post. Not even Ted "the internet is a series of tubes" Stevens said anything this terrible.

Net neutrality is about treating all IP packets the same. What cable companies will want to do is slow down some packets while speeding some others.

This makes sense because IP Television and IP Telephony are becoming more popular. If people get their TV and Telephone through the internet, they will stop buying cable tv and telephone.

I have optimum online and have a special package of $30 for TV, $30 for internet and $30 for telephone.

If i cut TV and telephone, my cable goes up to like $40 maybe, but i don't pay $60 for tv/telephone.

See why cable companies might want to slow down some packets to other services?

Conservatives are quite literally technologically illiterate and should not be talking about the internet.

 

[Phokus]

I find it hilarious that the right attacks net neutrality for doing the OPPOSITE of what it thinks it does.

Net neutrality means you can't discriminate against packets. What conservatives are talking about is internet content filtering (like what china does) which is the OPPOSITE of net neutrality.

"Newsmax promotes Institute for Liberty's claim that net neutrality "is a foray into content regulation which could effectively squash dissenting viewpoints." "

"RedState: Net neutrality means "the censors of the left will even have the power to control the Internet."

Conservatives are literally clueless about net neutrality. Net neutrality means that you can't filter packets and you can't slow down packets based on the destination of those packets. That means if an ISP happens to be pro-Obama, they aren't allowed to slow down or filter packets to foxnews.com!

It's just maddening how stupid the right is when it comes to technology (and in general)

Ugh

 

[Phokus]

Let me put it in a simpler way: if you're against net neutrality, then you're basically for monopolized ISPS dictating which sites you can or cannot visit on the internet and how fast you're allowed to visit them.

 

[Grizzly]

Here's a link that briefly discusses the pros and cons (without the chicken little rhetoric).

The Net Neutrality Debate All On One Page

 

[wpiman2]

I think in theory it is a good idea- but like all good ideas the government will screw it up.

So one kid goes on a torrent bender and brings his neighbors internet down to a trickle. Since we cannot do deep packet inspection; his neighbors should deal with the slow down.

If we are going to treat all packets equally- maybe network spam filters should be outlawed.

If we come to a bottleneck in the network-- which packets should be dropped? Are our QOS algorithms in place today ok?


The best thing that could happen would be to ensure that people have options. If everyone could select from multiple ISP-- then those ISP would need to compete and provide the service that everyone wants. You may opt for an ISP which filter out, say hate speech and porn- or even pay for that service. If your ISP filters out Vonage, you could switch.

We have anti-monopoly laws that are time tested-- lets use them.

 

[trunks2k]

So one kid goes on a torrent bender and brings his neighbors internet down to a trickle. Since we cannot do deep packet inspection; his neighbors should deal with the slow down.

Net neutrality takes network health, stability, QOS, and availability into consideration. You're free to turn down the bandwidth or put limits on the bandwidth of users in order to maintain the network integrity. However, those limits must be applied fairly and without regard to the where the data is coming from (except in certain circumstances such as where traffic is suspected of being malicious). For example, if ISP holds partial ownership in say, NetFlicks, they can't allow users connected to NetFlicks to use a sizable portion of the the overall bandwidth for streaming movies while limiting the bandwidth of other users who are using a different streaming movie site.

Net neutrality allows for bandwidth and usage caps, tiered service, or metered service. It's just that under whatever scheme it uses, it has to treat all the data fairly.

 

[wpiman2]

Net neutrality takes network health, stability, QOS, and availability into consideration. You're free to turn down the bandwidth or put limits on the bandwidth of users in order to maintain the network integrity. However, those limits must be applied fairly and without regard to the where the data is coming from (except in certain circumstances such as where traffic is suspected of being malicious). For example, if ISP holds partial ownership in say, NetFlicks, they can't allow users connected to NetFlicks to use a sizable portion of the the overall bandwidth for streaming movies while limiting the bandwidth of other users who are using a different streaming movie site.

Net neutrality allows for bandwidth and usage caps, tiered service, or metered service. It's just that under whatever scheme it uses, it has to treat all the data fairly.

I don't disagree in principle-- I would buy that service over a competitor who tried to reign me in. Better to give people choice. Maybe you like Netflicks and want uninterrupted movie streaming from them.

The problem becomes who decides what is "applied fairly". Every time some low level IT guys configured his network; he has to worry about some line in some law that will undoubtedly be thousands of pages long.

No doubt, the lawyers will win if this goes into effect.

 

[kermit]

Net neutrality means you can't discriminate against packets. What conservatives are talking about is internet content filtering (like what china does) which is the OPPOSITE of net neutrality.

"Newsmax promotes Institute for Liberty's claim that net neutrality "is a foray into content regulation which could effectively squash dissenting viewpoints." "

"RedState: Net neutrality means "the censors of the left will even have the power to control the Internet."

I don't think these hyper-partisan right-wing sites are uninformed about that Net neutrality means. I think they consider being on equal footing with others to mean their voice is squashed. When RedState says "the censors of the left will even have the power to control the Internet." what they really mean is that they fear that the people will be able to stop right-wing censors. When Newsmax says "could effectively squash dissenting viewpoints" they mean other viewpoints could be as loud as theirs.

 

[DeathMagus]

The best thing that could happen would be to ensure that people have options. If everyone could select from multiple ISP-- then those ISP would need to compete and provide the service that everyone wants. You may opt for an ISP which filter out, say hate speech and porn- or even pay for that service. If your ISP filters out Vonage, you could switch.

We have anti-monopoly laws that are time tested-- lets use them.

So...you suggest allowing half-a-dozen cable companies to run their wires everywhere to try to compete for everyone's service?

There's a reason the number of utilities providers allowed in an area is strictly limited.

 

[trunks2k]

The best thing that could happen would be to ensure that people have options. If everyone could select from multiple ISP-- then those ISP would need to compete and provide the service that everyone wants. You may opt for an ISP which filter out, say hate speech and porn- or even pay for that service. If your ISP filters out Vonage, you could switch.

That would be OK except for a couple things:

1. That doesn't deal with the networks between the two points. I might be using an ISP that deals with all traffic equally, but lets say some network I pass through to get to a site is owned by TimeWarner, but I'm on Comcast. Since Timewarner doesn't like Comcast, they decide to block or slow the traffic meaning my access to $SITE is slowed.

2. There's simply not enough choice available to make this a viable option. Around me I have the option of dealing with either Comcast or Verizon for high speed internet. Actually at the moment I only have the option of using Comcast. Other than that, there's satellite which prices most people out of the market, or dial up, which is too slow. It would be more viable if it was like back in the early 90s when there were tons of dial up ISPs and you had a wide choice between similar services.

Though it would be nice if ISPs gave me the option of assigning bandwidth priority on my own line. If I'm connected to multiple sites doing a variety of things, I'd like to have the option to declare one as a higher priority. So that way if I'm, for example, streaming music while reading message boards, I can make the streaming the priority so I don't have the music skip as I navigate around the board. An extra half second while I wait for a static page to load is worth it if I gain seamless music.

 

[wpiman2]

That would be OK except for a couple things:

1. That doesn't deal with the networks between the two points. I might be using an ISP that deals with all traffic equally, but lets say some network I pass through to get to a site is owned by TimeWarner, but I'm on Comcast. Since Timewarner doesn't like Comcast, they decide to block or slow the traffic meaning my access to $SITE is slowed.

2. There's simply not enough choice available to make this a viable option. Around me I have the option of dealing with either Comcast or Verizon for high speed internet. Actually at the moment I only have the option of using Comcast. Other than that, there's satellite which prices most people out of the market, or dial up, which is too slow. It would be more viable if it was like back in the early 90s when there were tons of dial up ISPs and you had a wide choice between similar services.

Though it would be nice if ISPs gave me the option of assigning bandwidth priority on my own line. If I'm connected to multiple sites doing a variety of things, I'd like to have the option to declare one as a higher priority. So that way if I'm, for example, streaming music while reading message boards, I can make the streaming the priority so I don't have the music skip as I navigate around the board. An extra half second while I wait for a static page to load is worth it if I gain seamless music.

Well- presumably content providers would choose a network which didn't screen their content either.

You are spot on with point 2; most of that is due to government interference at the local level. The only reason you can choose Comcast is your town gave them a monopoly.

 

[HosannaHM]

Well if you ask me you work for what you get. I primarily have conservative views (which is an oddity it seems for my generation), but when it comes to net netruality big business needs to back off.

If Verizon, Comcast, and other various big media companies want to believe they are struggling, you might as well take that thought out of your head. I'm a media major, and if the internet "fast lanes" are going to cause more money, it may prove difficult to be successful in my field.
A group called Save the Internet has the best information on this topic.

 

[Phokus]

I think in theory it is a good idea- but like all good ideas the government will screw it up.

So one kid goes on a torrent bender and brings his neighbors internet down to a trickle. Since we cannot do deep packet inspection; his neighbors should deal with the slow down.

If we are going to treat all packets equally- maybe network spam filters should be outlawed.

If we come to a bottleneck in the network-- which packets should be dropped? Are our QOS algorithms in place today ok?


The best thing that could happen would be to ensure that people have options. If everyone could select from multiple ISP-- then those ISP would need to compete and provide the service that everyone wants. You may opt for an ISP which filter out, say hate speech and porn- or even pay for that service. If your ISP filters out Vonage, you could switch.

We have anti-monopoly laws that are time tested-- lets use them.

You're talking about throttling bandwidth saturation vs. TCP/IP packet queueing which are 2 very different things.

Network Neutrality = TCP/IP packet queuing - this is where some packets are allowed to go on a 'fast lane' while others go on a 'slow lane' on a per application basis.

Bandwidth Throttling - This is where you saturate the bandwidth so much, no matter what apps you're using, the ISP will throttle ALL Your bandwidth, not on a per application basis. My ISP, optimum online, used to throttle bandwidth if you downloaded too much . They didn't care what application you were using, they were going to throttle the totality of your bandwidth. That's allowable under network neutrality. Of course if you advertise that you can download all you want but secretly put bandwidth caps, that's a whole different issue from network neutrality, it's more false advertising.