Net Neutrality

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for the confirmation; I wasn't sure about the conditions in your country. But if that is the case, how does non-Net Neutrality create a more monopolistic situation than currently exists?

I honestly don't know -- I've read articles both pro and con from tech sources, and I don't understand all I know about this.

[Cow Poke]

It seems, back when I first started hearing about net neutrality, it was because some of the major vendors were seeking to "throttle down" content based on deep packet inspection, or other factors, to allow "normal" tcp/ip traffic, but to throttle down gaming and streaming video, in order to charge a fee to allow faster gaming or streaming. In other discussions, it seemed more about major players offering 'tiered service', like being able to pay more for faster service - but many ISPs already do that. I have "professional" level of ATT's internet at home, which supposedly is $20 more than "standard". So, depending on where I look, the definition of "net neutrality", or the desired impact, seems to change.

I think what we need is an online copy of whatever pending legislation is being considered.

[Sparko]

Basically the way I see it is that the networks already ARE monopolies. As it has been said, there are not that many providers out there. The Internet is basically a bunch of interconnected computers, but at it's core, it is a lot of servers owned by a very few companies.

So net neutrality would stop these companies from taking advantage of both the end user and the supplier of the services (like netflix) that use the network. It doesn't change whether the companies that own the backbones of the internet are a monopoly or not. But it does level the playing field for everyone using their network. They want to charge more or throttle you back if you use services like netflix. The way I look at it, is I am paying for 30MB internet service and it should be up to me to use it how I want to, and the only limit should be the ultimate speed of the service (30MB) and not have the cable company try to charge me more if I use my internet to watch movies compared to my neighbor who just visits facebook. They are already saving bandwidth from people who don't use what they are paying for, and if I want to use my bandwidth to the maximum I am paying for, then that is my right since I am paying for it. They shouldn't be allowed to say "woah, sparko is watching too many movies, so let's slow his internet pipe down when he is watching netflix to just 2MB or charge him more."

[Cow Poke]

Here's a recent article on it from Time.

[Mountain Man]

In theory, "net neutrality" means that the internet will stay exactly as it is, unregulated, with every website in the world staying on a level playing field. Amazon won't load any faster than the shop down the street. Netflix won't be able to corner the streaming market by paying for preferential treatment. Unfortunately, this sounds suspiciously like, "If you like your insurance then you can keep your insurance," and we all know how that turned out. Do any of us really trust that the government will be able to fairly and transparently regulate the internet without eventually screwing us one way or another?

As Ronald Reagan once said, some of the most frightening words you could ever hear are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

[Irate Canadian]

In theory, "net neutrality" means that the internet will stay exactly as it is, unregulated, with every website in the world staying on a level playing field. Amazon won't load any faster than the shop down the street. Netflix won't be able to corner the streaming market by paying for preferential treatment. Unfortunately, this sounds suspiciously like, "If you like your insurance then you can keep your insurance," and we all know how that turned out. Do any of us really trust that the government will be able to fairly and transparently regulate the internet without eventually screwing us one way or another?

As Ronald Reagan once said, some of the most frightening words you could ever hear are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

This is actually quite true and has been noted by many supporters as well. The Internet should be a equal place. Unfortunately, unless we can get Comcast and other Telecoms to back down, we may be forced to make legislation regarding the Internet.

[Mountain Man]

All I know is that the US healthcare industry became markedly worse after the government tried to fix it with ObamaCare (significantly higher premiums, razor thin networks making it harder to actually get care, hospitals asking patients covered by Obamacare to pay upfront, etc.). I can't wait to see what ObamaNet has in store for us.

[Irate Canadian]

All I know is that the US healthcare industry became markedly worse after the government tried to fix it with ObamaCare (significantly higher premiums, razor thin networks making it harder to actually get care, hospitals asking patients covered by Obamacare to pay upfront, etc.). I can't wait to see what ObamaNet has in store for us.

The thing is net neutrality is not and should not be a partisan decision. In fact the most likely reason Obama brought it up was to deflect something at thee republicans. If it passes, hurrah, he has bipartisian support. If it doesn't, we end up losing in the end.

[seanD]

I wonder if anyone has ever faced a not neutral internet. It sounds like just more fearmongering of something that could theoretically happen but hasn't happened yet just so government can get its power hungry hands on something it can't control. And we need to think in terms of Orwellian. Patriot Act was the most unpatriotic law ever passed. Affordable Care act is not affordable for a lot of people. Net "Neutrality"...

[Irate Canadian]

I wonder if anyone has ever faced a not neutral internet. It sounds like just more fearmongering of something that could theoretically happen but hasn't happened yet just so government can get its power hungry hands on something it can't control. And we need to think in terms of Orwellian. Patriot Act was the most unpatriotic law ever passed. Affordable Care act is not affordable for a lot of people. Net "Neutrality"...

Net Neutrality is not something like Obamacare. It does not give the government power over the internet. Rather, it's a technological issue which is trying to be resolved with legislation.

[Jedidiah]

Does not answer or even address Sean's question. "I wonder if anyone has ever faced a not neutral internet. It sounds like just more fearmongering . . ."

[seanD]

Net Neutrality is not something like Obamacare. It does not give the government power over the internet. Rather, it's a technological issue which is trying to be resolved with legislation.

In theory. This is the current government we're talking about. Let's wait until they write a bill... that is, if we can read it before they pass it.

[Irate Canadian]

I wonder if anyone has ever faced a not neutral internet. It sounds like just more fearmongering of something that could theoretically happen but hasn't happened yet just so government can get its power hungry hands on something it can't control.

We did have a neutral Internet for around 10 years, until one of the Telcoms removed those protections in 2007 IIRC.

[seanD]

We did have a neutral Internet for around 10 years, until one of the Telcoms removed those protections in 2007 IIRC.

I've personally never experienced the repercussions of a not neutral internet, nor do I know anyone that has. Do you?

[Irate Canadian]

In theory. This is the current government we're talking about. Let's wait until they write a bill... that is, if we can read it before they pass it.

Net Neutrality does not dictate that all traffic is subject to the U.S government, or that they have any power over it. The entire idea is that all traffic should be kept the same, without forcing people to pay more for sending/receiving.