newbi3 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 I never thought that Net Neutrality would be in the news in a million years. I also never thought that it would be something that we would try to get rid of. Ever since obama came out and said he is for Net Neutrality these ill informed politicians have come out trying to convince people Net Neutrality is a bad thing. AND ITS WORKING. People think that Net Neutrality is the government trying to control the internet like SOAPA or PIPA and that it makes a government monopoly out of ISPs. "Its obama care for the internet" as Ted Cruz would put it and a lot of people have caught onto that for some reason. I assume everyone on this forums is all about Net Neutrality but if you're not, why not? I'd like to hear good arguments from people in the computer science and IT worlds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbier Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 net neutrality is good like an equal opportunity for everyone not just in america but globally i feel that politicians want more control and want add censorship over time and get more and more into your life if you look at the things that governments do you get the big picture and they want know what you doing every moment of everyday and control your what you hear and see, and they say we got democracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbi3 Posted November 20, 2014 Author Share Posted November 20, 2014 net neutrality is good like an equal opportunity for everyone not just in america but globally i feel that politicians want more control and want add censorship over time and get more and more into your life if you look at the things that governments do you get the big picture and they want know what you doing every moment of everyday and control your what you hear and see, and they say we got democracy Thats what they want yes and they have been doing that for years with this project called the NAS. Net Neutrality is the opposite of censorship. You got remember its not the white house that will be regulating the ISPs its the FCC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Net Neutrality (or rather the absence thereof) means that ISPs can charge big content providers such as Netflix and Youtube for prioritizing their data streams. I can understand why these parties (=ISPs) would be in favor of it - supply and demand being governed by money, it's capitalism at its best. The strange thing here is that year over year your internet connection gets faster and cheaper (well, here in Europe at least it tends to do that) so as time progresses the reason for wanting something like that becomes sillier and sillier. Imagine if you will South Korea where the average internet speed is over 10 MBit (wikipedia says 14.2 MBit/s in Q1 2013). What do you think a topic like this does in a place like that? ISP: "Content provider, pay us money for priority throughput" CP: "Fuck you. We're fine even at half the current speed" The danger of course is that, if implemented, ISPs could extort content providers by doing the opposite - deliberately slowing down the traffic from their servers. In America of course, this isn't seen as a problem by many. It's still capitalism at its best and those decent folks at AOL Time Warner wouldn't dream of ever doing such a thing . I'm lucky to live in a civilized country where Net Neutrality is required by law... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbi3 Posted November 20, 2014 Author Share Posted November 20, 2014 Net Neutrality (or rather the absence thereof) means that ISPs can charge big content providers such as Netflix and Youtube for prioritizing their data streams. I can understand why these parties (=ISPs) would be in favor of it - supply and demand being governed by money, it's capitalism at its best. The strange thing here is that year over year your internet connection gets faster and cheaper (well, here in Europe at least it tends to do that) so as time progresses the reason for wanting something like that becomes sillier and sillier. Imagine if you will South Korea where the average internet speed is over 10 MBit (wikipedia says 14.2 MBit/s in Q1 2013). What do you think a topic like this does in a place like that? ISP: "Content provider, pay us money for priority throughput" CP: "Fuck you. We're fine even at half the current speed" The danger of course is that, if implemented, ISPs could extort content providers by doing the opposite - deliberately slowing down the traffic from their servers. In America of course, this isn't seen as a problem by many. It's still capitalism at its best and those decent folks at AOL Time Warner wouldn't dream of ever doing such a thing . I'm lucky to live in a civilized country where Net Neutrality is required by law... Got a spare bedroom? Time to jump ship if we abandon Net Neutrality lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Do you look good in a dress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbi3 Posted November 20, 2014 Author Share Posted November 20, 2014 Do you look good in a dress? Depends on if you're eyes are open or closed I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugu Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 If there was ample network connectivity everywhere, this would be a null issue, cause as soon as someone decided to slow down someones Internet, they would just change their service provider. The problem lies in a lack of competition. These service providing conglomerates should not be allowed to keep buying each other out. What ever happened to anti trust laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytedeez Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Correct me if i'm wrong but from my understanding The FCC would be regulating ISP's but would allow ISP's to charge more for premium services. Which in return means the "little guys" of the internet wouldn't get a chance to prosper like they currently do. Now when i say Net Neutrality i mean the current proposal, not what real net neutrality is. I would really like to get my hands on the proposal, so i can read it myself instead of taking 3rd party source's word for it. Does anyone know where i can find it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbi3 Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 Correct me if i'm wrong but from my understanding The FCC would be regulating ISP's but would allow ISP's to charge more for premium services. Which in return means the "little guys" of the internet wouldn't get a chance to prosper like they currently do. Now when i say Net Neutrality i mean the current proposal, not what real net neutrality is. I would really like to get my hands on the proposal, so i can read it myself instead of taking 3rd party source's word for it. Does anyone know where i can find it? I don't know where you heard that from. ISPs are allowed to charge you whatever they want to now and that will not change. Re-classifying ISPs to Title 2 is about keeping the internet the same as it currently is not changing it. If we don't re-classify them then the internet will change (for the USA anyways) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Here's the current state of affairs in the EU with links to the leaked proposal text as it stands right now. My understanding of the run-up to this is as follows: In april 2013 the European Parliament accepted a proposal put forth by European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, miss Neelie Kroes (NL) which would put into law EU-wide net neutrality. One of the additional consequences of this proposal was that it would put an end to roaming costs providers up until then were allowed to charge within europe. Now that the European Parliament has accepted the proposal, it's sent to the European Council (think: Senate) for approval. They get to tweak the proposal in various ways before accepting it. When they're done it gets sent back to the European Parliament for another round of approvals but once both council and parliament approve the same text, that proposal becomes law in all EU member states. Specifically, each member state must pass laws specific to their country to make these rules apply there. EU burocracy... Gotta love it... Currently the EC is in tweak-mode for this proposal and one of the things they've apparently done is remove/replace the definition of net neutrality for the purpose of "required flexability". What the telco's are trying to do in particular is to allow mobile phone operators to either block or significantly hamper the ability of apps like WhatsApp and Skype to replace their regular SMS and telephone conversation services. According to the text, this is particularly a point of concern in the UK, where the text suggests such practices are rather common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbass Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Okay wait a minute all or most of these companies sell cable tv and or voip service. What if I was one of those companies and said pay more to get priority or pay us to use our shitty service. Push non service providor voip to the bottom behind all of the other traffic. I can see them making a internet plan for those who use their own voip service. I can see all those avaya, cisco and meridian phones being tossed a cross the room. The question I have is how do the major players like covad feel about this. The major backbone. P.S put more fiber in the ground and roll out ip v6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.