Right Wing Media lies about Net Neutrality

[trunks2k]

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

They can't really. That makes things incredibly complicated. I could have to go through several different companies' networks before my data reaches its destination. My ISP would only have control over what network its data is passed to, not beyond that, unless we start instituting a really complex set of routing rules. I can't even imagine how messy that would make things. Not to mention we're still stuck with the problem that if the endpoint is on, say, a TimeWarner network and I'm on a Comcast network, and TimeWarner doesn't like Comcast so it slows all their packets to and from a Comcast network down, there's no way Comcast can get around that.

To me that's a bad, bad recipe for big networks crippling the little networks and destroying competition. As much as we'd like to say "oh well people won't use the big networks if they slow the data down like that", I think that idea is wrong. People are going to join the big network so they can get the best performance.

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.

It's not really a monopoly perse. Verizon does serve the city. Except that my particular block is outside the range for DSL, and Fios hasn't gotten to my block yet (slowly getting there though). And even then, I'm still down to Verizon and Comcast. Multiple companies running infrastructure is complicated and expensive and having third parties use the existing infrastructure doesn't work all that well (sorta like phone and power lines).

 

[Scolfield]

I gotta ask, I've used the net for a while, dial up, broadband, and I don't get what's so broken that we need a government program to fix it. Maybe this program, on paper, is good, logical, rational and so on. But once it makes it's way though the halls of congress, it'll be the deformed, illegitimate, retarded stepchild of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

What's so bad about the internet that we have to risk really screwing it up by getting congress involved?

 

[Grizzly]

Kudos to the folks posting in this thread! The (valuable information )/ (political knee-jerk reaction) ratio is remarkably high.

 

[trunks2k]

I gotta ask, I've used the net for a while, dial up, broadband, and I don't get what's so broken that we need a government program to fix it.

As of right now, it is not a problem because network providers (in the US) are more or less doing net neutrality on their own for the time being. It is really what made the internet become what it has become. However as more services such as phone and TV are used over the internet, network providers are threatening more and more to stop being neutral (for various reasons). For example, Comcast recently got in some hot water because it was slowing down bit torrent packets. People are seeing the move towards non-neutral networks as an inevitability or at least highly probable and want to cut it off at the pass before it becomes an issue.

 

[Umaro]

I gotta ask, I've used the net for a while, dial up, broadband, and I don't get what's so broken that we need a government program to fix it. Maybe this program, on paper, is good, logical, rational and so on. But once it makes it's way though the halls of congress, it'll be the deformed, illegitimate, retarded stepchild of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

What's so bad about the internet that we have to risk really screwing it up by getting congress involved?

Right now, and before this, the internet works under the same thing Net Neutrality is going to protect. The companies want to change that now, and the bill is going to make sure the internet stays how it is now.


Right now, if you want to go to Youtube and watch a video or go to Hulu and watch a video, you can do so evenly. However, if we get rid of net neutrality, it might become that if you go to Hulu you can watch a video instantly, but if you go to Youtube you have to wait 10 minutes for it to load because the company doesn't like your provider.

It's hard to explain these computer terms to everyone, since not everyone completely understands how it works. Basically what we have now is like a highway, where everyone with a car can use it. What companies like Verizon and Comcast want to do by removing net neutrality would be like saying if you have a Ford you can drive 70mph, and if you have a Honda you can drive 45mph on the highway. It's just unfair, and we need a bill to protect the people by making sure neutrality stays.

 

[Sketcher]

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 also means if I run a Christian ISP, I can't slow down or filter out hardcore pornography.

 

[kermit]

It also means if I run a Christian ISP, I can't slow down or filter out hardcore pornography.

What exactly is a Christian ISP? Can you name any?

 

[WadeWilson]

It also means if I run a Christian ISP, I can't slow down or filter out hardcore pornography.

Why would your clients be downloading such material?

Oh, and you could just supply optional net-nanny software to your clients. Problem solved.

 

[wpiman2]

What exactly is a Christian ISP? Can you name any?

I think he is saying if he wanted to offer that service- he could not.

 

[Phokus]

Why would your clients be downloading such material?

Oh, and you could just supply optional net-nanny software to your clients. Problem solved.

That, plus technically you could probably set up the ISP so that clients can request you block material on your end, as an opt-in service and not violate net neutrality.

I don't know why anyone would want to block that at the ISP level though, that should be done at the home network

 

[WadeWilson]

I don't know why anyone would want to block that at the ISP level though, that should be done at the home network

Precisely.

 

[Sketcher]

What exactly is a Christian ISP? Can you name any?

Googling "Christian ISP" will give you a large number of them. Unfortunately, they're dial-up.

Why would your clients be downloading such material?

Why does anybody?

Oh, and you could just supply optional net-nanny software to your clients. Problem solved.

Hardly. Filtering software can be circumvented in a matter of minutes if you know what you're doing. If you want the Internet, but you don't want porn in your house, and you've got a clever teenage son or whatever, you need something at the server end. I'd like to see porn made like premium TV channels. When we first got cable when I was a kid, Dad did not want to bring what they have on late nights into our home. So he didn't get the premium channels. Lots of families also make decisions like that. On a non-neutral network, you could charge less money for a family-friendly plan. If you want all the nasty parts of the Internet, you could be charged extra. I think a lot of families would jump at the offer of high-speed Internet, with adult sites and pirating servers filtered out, for less money than they are presently paying for all of the Internet. $35 a month for what you want, or $50 a month for that plus everything you don't want?

 

[Zoooma]

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

STOP GENERALIZING! AGAIN you labeled EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE. Do you honestly believe that's true, that every single one, on the entire planet, is "quite literally technologically illiterate"?

Democrats enjoy practicing pedophilia. Quite literally.

No, that's not true. But by taking a few who that's true for and labeling ALL Democrats that way is WRONG.

So STOP LABELING AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHEN IT'S NOT TRUE.

 

[WadeWilson]

Googling "Christian ISP" will give you a large number of them. Unfortunately, they're dial-up.


Why does anybody?

I figured your clients would be christians, so why would they want to download material that is 'non-christian'.

Hardly. Filtering software can be circumvented in a matter of minutes if you know what you're doing. If you want the Internet, but you don't want porn in your house, and you've got a clever teenage son or whatever, you need something at the server end. I'd like to see porn made like premium TV channels. When we first got cable when I was a kid, Dad did not want to bring what they have on late nights into our home. So he didn't get the premium channels. Lots of families also make decisions like that. On a non-neutral network, you could charge less money for a family-friendly plan. If you want all the nasty parts of the Internet, you could be charged extra. I think a lot of families would jump at the offer of high-speed Internet, with adult sites and pirating servers filtered out, for less money than they are presently paying for all of the Internet. $35 a month for what you want, or $50 a month for that plus everything you don't want?

I think if my son is over-riding parental controls, my ISP is not the problem.

By extension, ISPs could charge more and more for 'features'. Which is a slippery slope. I think this could be pretty close to a comcast or cox exec's dream com true:
$10 a month for Browsing per 50 different sites! Want Streaming video? add $5 a month! IM? $2 a month! Use Itunes? $5 a month. Online Games? $20 a month! etc etc etc...

 

[pgp_protector]

It also means if I run a Christian ISP, I can't slow down or filter out hardcore pornography.

It's that sort of like making a "Christian" Highway & then saying I can't take that some exit?

 

[Sketcher]

That, plus technically you could probably set up the ISP so that clients can request you block material on your end, as an opt-in service and not violate net neutrality.

It wouldn't be profitable if you couldn't throttle the traffic.

 

[chaz345]

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

Just curious how your nearly constant stream of remarks like the above fits in the sentiments expressed in your sig about wanting to reach out to those you disagree with.

And for the record I'm very much a member of "the right" and I'm the IT department for a school.

 

[DieHappy]

I wonder where control over the servers enters into this discussion?
Newsmax - Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

We know China edits google, do we want them controlling even more of the internet? I honestly don't know if net neutrality will help keep data free and flowing or not, which will help us if China starts getting server control?

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.

Nice jab. I think of all the triple and quadruple posters I've seen on the internet, you are the worst offender. There's an edit button.

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?

When the internet started you bought packages of minutes. It was tiered service. Now some people have 56 k modems and some have 9 gig T1s. And the next door neighbor who downloads 6 movies and hours of porn is slowing me down. Why shouldn't he be charged more for increased usage, if it's affecting what I'm paying for?

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

Liberals are quite literally leaches of the economic machine and should get jobs and quit posting on the internet.

 

[Sketcher]

I figured your clients would be christians, so why would they want to download material that is 'non-christian'.

It's a big problem among Christians as well.

I think if my son is over-riding parental controls, my ISP is not the problem.

Yeah, but there's nothing you can really do about it if he's that good. I'm loathe to tell you exactly how he could get around something like that, since somebody might see it, and use it to get porn. I would consider enlightening you over a PM. But suffice to say, if you can have the Internet at home, with filtering on the server side so Junior can't get around it, then it's an all-around good situation. He can get what he needs for school, but he can't get hardcore porn. He can't get underage porn (he IS in high school in this example) and get you in trouble for that, or illegally pirate software or music and get your connection cut for that (it really happens).

By extension, ISPs could charge more and more for 'features'. Which is a slippery slope. I think this could be pretty close to a comcast or cox exec's dream com true:
$10 a month for Browsing per 50 different sites! Want Streaming video? add $5 a month! IM? $2 a month! Use Itunes? $5 a month. Online Games? $20 a month! etc etc etc...

Possibly, but why hasn't that happened yet without net neutrality regulation? Comcast tried throttling only the worst pirate traffic last year (or was it two years ago now?), and got hammered, in spite of their status as a regional monopoly. If you have more choices, this doesn't need to be a problem. People would be choosing the family-filtered value plan at a cheaper price, rather than having anything thrust upon them that they didn't want. Furthermore, I would be in favor of more broadband competition (such as WiMax) to bring more choices to the consumers, in order to keep the big companies from running away with rates like you suggested.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

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.

Could you please flame some more and call me stupid some more when you show no intelligence on the subject?

First, hypothetical situations are a pretty lame way to push for something. Yes lets keep pushing for an idea using hypothetical situations that you have no absolutely no proof will happen. Oh yes bittorent slowing down is evidence? Yet Hulu and YouTube work fine. No use of Port 80 by Verizon, wow what a big deal lets talk about real threats to our rights, saying that people can't have a bible study in their house, but fraternities have drunken parties weekly with more people, yay Arizona! So we have to pay $100s for a zoning permit forced by government, but a few bucks to allow use of port 80 is some how evil of Verizon? Oh no they also block port 25 which is used by spammers to send you annoying penis enlargement emails.

Sorry, but slowing down bittorent and blocking inbound port 80 and outbound port 25 is no evidence of anything.

Comcast, Net Neutrality and The Future of Online Video - Swampland - TIME.com

Funny though. Your argument is a very paraphrased version of that one. Yet I'm the technology illiterate when you have to copy other peoples arguments and promote them as your own while flaming others as stupid.

Seriously everyone take a look at that article and look at all his posts. TV service online and slowing down? In the article and he posted about it. Slowing down Fox News? In the article and he posted about it.

Go call some Glenn Beck drone a idiot, I come up with my own beliefs and arguments and I know so much more then you about the internet. Then theres the fact, a person being a technology illiterate is a lot better then being a constitution illiterate, Internet companies are not the government which is laughable about this 1st amendment argument, then theres the fact that you access the internet through THEIR lines, therefore they have a absolute despotic rule over their own property! Please learn the philosophy of our founders on property and William Blackstone, yes I know I used his idea of despotic rule over property.

Oh yeah FYI to the Time idiot who wrote the article. You get the basic cable package if you have Comcast Cable internet. You can watch all the basic cable channels that you don't have to use a box to access while only using cable internet. Yeah I'm the ILLITERATE RIGHT?