Who here does not understand "net neutrality"? (1 Viewer)

MLU

Please respect my decision!
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,321
Reaction score
21,453
Location
Mesa, AZ
Offline
There is a staggering amount of confusion over the subject and I was curious if there were any misconceptions here. For the life of me I cannot figure out anyone would choose to not support this issue. It's like asking someone if they want to have the air pumped out of the atmosphere and then sold to them at outrageous prices and they get excited at the prospect of paying.

There are a couple doods I have been talking with that are against net neutrality, but are for what net neutrality accomplishes and it's equal parts frustrating and hilarious trying to have a conversation with them. It's not that I'm an expert by any means, but this is an issue that really affects us directly in so many ways. It seems like this gets shoved to the back burner because some have difficulty understanding the issue.
 
Last edited:

daybreaker

STH since 2006
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
12,028
Reaction score
12,988
Age
39
Location
Kenner
Offline
It's proof that anything can be politicized no matter how good the legislation is. And its proof that any politician can be bought by lobbyists no matter how bad their side of the legislation is.
 

TheDeuce53

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
3,233
Location
DFW
Offline
From what I have seen, oppositions of Net Neutrality seem to not be fond of the idea of government being involved.

MLU, what's your argument for net neutrality (I am no expert in the matter other than the very basic concepts). I don't think the internet should be restricted in any way, shape, or form (and it is my understanding that net neturality hopes to accomplish this.. by that I mean keeping it unrestricted).

Spit some knowledge!!!
 

KardiacKat

Very Banned
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
12,933
Reaction score
6,122
Offline
I don't fully understand it. To be honest, I've never even heard of it until someone else posted about the legislation the other day. But generally I oppose restrictions on content and information of any kind, so I think I'm on the right side of this.
 

rich70116

Guest
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
3,443
Reaction score
317
Offline
I don't fully understand it. To be honest, I've never even heard of it until someone else posted about the legislation the other day. But generally I oppose restrictions on content and information of any kind, so I think I'm on the right side of this.

Me, too. I have only heard the proposal mentioned absent the details. Someone fill us in, plz.
 

Crzycjunx76

Iron Era Origional
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
5,265
Reaction score
2,419
Age
41
Location
Seattle by way of Texas, originating in SELA.
Offline
I think companies should be allowed to charge for internet by bandwidth usage if they choose, however I do not think they should be able to pick certain sites or services and charge more for them... if they are charging by bandwidth usage and it just happens to use more that is fine.


Will this law prohibit companies charging for bandwidth usage, or just keep them from charging based upon the content you are using the bandwidth for?
 
Last edited:

staphory

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 21, 1998
Messages
11,416
Reaction score
3,661
Location
Stonewall , MS
Online
I think companies should be allowed to charge for internet by bandwidth usage if they choose, however I do not think they should be able to pick certain sites or services and charge more for them... if they are charging by bandwidth usage and it just happens to use more that is fine.

I disagree. This is just a ploy to be able to stand pat on equipment while increasing profit. Whether you use 1 MB or 1 TB makes no difference to them as far as operational costs. What costs them is equipment upgrades that allow faster throughput to all customers. The big companies don't want to get the equipment to allow that. There is a reason why broadband is a joke in the US compared to the EU or Asia.
Don't get me started on rural broadband.
 

mikaloyd

minion_patriot_drinker
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
9,066
Location
Oildale CA
Offline
Id like a neutral explanation too please. Without too many adjectives or conclusions drawn ahead of time if that wouldnt be too much trouble.
 

RussTKD

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
5,514
Age
49
Offline
Id like a neutral explanation too please. Without too many adjectives or conclusions drawn ahead of time if that wouldnt be too much trouble.
Lets say you have internet service with Cox.

But you also have an account with Netflix and want to stream movies from Netflix to your Xbox or your PC.

But Cox provides their own movie streaming service, and doesn't want to compete with Netflix.

Without any protections of Net Neutrality, Cox could restrict access to Netflix, or charge you more to access Netflix, thereby making you use their movie streaming service instead.

That's a thumbnail sketch of what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent.
 

wcklink

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
2,713
Reaction score
1,953
Offline
Lets say you have internet service with Cox.

But you also have an account with Netflix and want to stream movies from Netflix to your Xbox or your PC.

But Cox provides their own movie streaming service, and doesn't want to compete with Netflix.

Without any protections of Net Neutrality, Cox could restrict access to Netflix, or charge you more to access Netflix, thereby making you use their movie streaming service instead.

That's a thumbnail sketch of what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent.

There's the other side of this as well. The content providers, Netflix, Hulu, Google, etc. don't have the cost associated with providing access. They continue to create bandwidth hogging apps that begin to overload the capacity of your providers network. The cost to constantly upgrade system capacity to deliver the "last mile" services of content is burdensome.

If your provider can't find a way to realize revenue, they stand pat you everyone complains of slow service. The content providers are getting a free ride and your provider is the bad guy.

Now, I don't believe that content should be blocked, but there has to be a method for your provider to create revenue to continue to provide the type of service we all expect.

Think of your cable service. You get some stuff for your base price and if you want premium services you pay more. I have no problem with the providers creating a tiered service or charging an excess bandwidth charge. And since I have a choice of broadband providers, the guy with the best mix of service, speed, content, and cost will prevail.
 

KardiacKat

Very Banned
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
12,933
Reaction score
6,122
Offline
But what if you don't have a choice? What if you live in a rural area and there is pretty much one land line provider (the phone company) or sketchy satellite internet, and that's all you have? I try to understand it from both sides, but damn I am sick of always having to pay more for any little thing. Technology is the only thing in the world that gets better and cheaper at the same time, yet somebody always manages to find a way to cost me more.
 

staphory

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 21, 1998
Messages
11,416
Reaction score
3,661
Location
Stonewall , MS
Online
There's the other side of this as well. The content providers, Netflix, Hulu, Google, etc. don't have the cost associated with providing access. They continue to create bandwidth hogging apps that begin to overload the capacity of your providers network. The cost to constantly upgrade system capacity to deliver the "last mile" services of content is burdensome.

If your provider can't find a way to realize revenue, they stand pat you everyone complains of slow service. The content providers are getting a free ride and your provider is the bad guy.

Now, I don't believe that content should be blocked, but there has to be a method for your provider to create revenue to continue to provide the type of service we all expect.

Think of your cable service. You get some stuff for your base price and if you want premium services you pay more. I have no problem with the providers creating a tiered service or charging an excess bandwidth charge. And since I have a choice of broadband providers, the guy with the best mix of service, speed, content, and cost will prevail.
They typically already provide tiered service based on speed. If you don't want to pay for a fast connection then youn't stream well and downloads take longer. The issue they seem to have is that users who pay for the highest bandwidth packages seem to want to use what they paid for to the fullest extent possible.
None of the big carriers (Cox, Charter, Time Warner) are hurting. They only started pulling these sorts of shennanigans once they started being content providers.
Oh, and look around the 'net to see what they do to people who try to start up a small ISP.
 

mikaloyd

minion_patriot_drinker
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
9,066
Location
Oildale CA
Offline
Lets say you have internet service with Cox.

But you also have an account with Netflix and want to stream movies from Netflix to your Xbox or your PC.

But Cox provides their own movie streaming service, and doesn't want to compete with Netflix.

Without any protections of Net Neutrality, Cox could restrict access to Netflix, or charge you more to access Netflix, thereby making you use their movie streaming service instead.

That's a thumbnail sketch of what Net Neutrality is trying to prevent.

Are those protections currently in place and net neutrality intends to ensure that they stay in place?
 

staphory

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 21, 1998
Messages
11,416
Reaction score
3,661
Location
Stonewall , MS
Online
But what if you don't have a choice? What if you live in a rural area and there is pretty much one land line provider (the phone company) or sketchy satellite internet, and that's all you have? I try to understand it from both sides, but damn I am sick of always having to pay more for any little thing. Technology is the only thing in the world that gets better and cheaper at the same time, yet somebody always manages to find a way to cost me more.

The big companies don't want you as a customer. But when Congress allocates money for rural broadband initiatives they are the first ones in line with a hand out.
They don't want to build out infrastructure to rural customers (for cost reasons) but will shut down small ISPs that don't even compete with them.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,119
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
I think companies should be allowed to charge for internet by bandwidth usage if they choose, however I do not think they should be able to pick certain sites or services and charge more for them... if they are charging by bandwidth usage and it just happens to use more that is fine.

Will this law prohibit companies charging for bandwidth usage, or just keep them from charging based upon the content you are using the bandwidth for?

Net neutrality specifically addresses the site/service/equipment discrimination in your first paragraph. Providers would still be free to cap accounts or charge based on total bandwidth usage.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,119
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
There's the other side of this as well. The content providers, Netflix, Hulu, Google, etc. don't have the cost associated with providing access. They continue to create bandwidth hogging apps that begin to overload the capacity of your providers network. The cost to constantly upgrade system capacity to deliver the "last mile" services of content is burdensome.

If your provider can't find a way to realize revenue, they stand pat you everyone complains of slow service. The content providers are getting a free ride and your provider is the bad guy.

Now, I don't believe that content should be blocked, but there has to be a method for your provider to create revenue to continue to provide the type of service we all expect.

Think of your cable service. You get some stuff for your base price and if you want premium services you pay more. I have no problem with the providers creating a tiered service or charging an excess bandwidth charge. And since I have a choice of broadband providers, the guy with the best mix of service, speed, content, and cost will prevail.

Content providers do have costs associated with providing access. They pay for the bandwidth, equipment, datacenters, and employees required to provide content. ISPs will still be free to charge whatever they want and limit bandwidth as much as they want. They will just be prohibited from blocking or charging extra for specific sites and services.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom