Net Neutrality - Anyone disagree with this?

[Necrosis]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/barack-obama-net-neutrality

Seems like the right move.

[oldtimer1]

I have a problem with net neutrality. The problem is everyone is for it but everyone has a different definition of what constitutes what it is. Look on comcast and time warner's web site. They both say on their web sites they are for it but THEIR version. Same with Obama. Does he really believe in a completely free and unfiltered internet or does the democratic party wants ways to selectively steer searches concerning political issues?

Hopefully Obama is truly for net neutrality but I'm concerned about a hidden agenda just like the game Comcast and Time Warner is playing when they say they are for it.

[Archer77]

My problem is the involvement of the FCC.  The FCC is a regulatory body and as such would certainly seek to regulating the internet.  What they regulate would become politicized.  I'd prefer to avoid that pitfall.

[dr.chimps]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/barack-obama-net-neutrality

Seems like the right move.

It is. But in the hands of the 1%. Cory Doctorow has been talking about this (non-stop) for the longest time @BoingBoing. Gonna be interesting.

[Schnauzer]

Nobody even listens to Obama any more. Everybody's just watching the clock run out on his second term.

[Shockwave]

Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.

So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.

[Archer77]

Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.

So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.

Allowing the FCC power to regulate content is a huge risk.  Content regulation could be as bad or worse than ending net neutrality. 

[dr.chimps]

Im still waiting to see the exacr wording of the legislation. As someone else has pointed out, EVERYONE says their for net neurtraliy, their version of it.

So far i havemt seen anythinf but more worthless rhetoeric about it. Once i see what the FCC is actually trying to do, ill know whats up.

Getbig chaff. Nicely done. Kinda like global warming stuff.  

[ProudVirgin69]

Allowing the FCC power to regulate content is a huge risk.  Content regulation could be as bad or worse than ending net neutrality. 

Well currently, that's exactly what ISPs are doing.  Before Netflix paid the cash to Comcast, they were restricting the bandwidth available for that... and the only reason that became public is because of the settlement.  Who knows how many other websites or services are getting bottlenecked without our knowledge.   

Treating the Internet as another public utility ought to help prevent that.  Of course, the exact language of the legislation is very important.  Considering that the head of the FCC is a former Comcast lobbyist, I'm a little concerned.

[Shockwave]

Well currently, that's exactly what ISPs are doing.  Before Netflix paid the cash to Comcast, they were restricting the bandwidth available for that... and the only reason that became public is because of the settlement.  Who knows how many other websites or services are getting bottlenecked without our knowledge.   

Treating the Internet as another public utility ought to help prevent that.  Of course, the exact language of the legislation is very important.  Considering that the head of the FCC is a former Comcast lobbyist, I'm a little concerned.

Agreed.

Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.

No one seems to be able to tell me yet.

[dr.chimps]

Agreed.

Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.

No one seems to be able to tell me yet.

Yes, they can. Liar!

[Shockwave]

Yes, they can. Liar!

well, tell me. Ive asked several times on the poli board, on here, and all thats been posted and everything ive seen has just been more talking points.

[Shockwave]

Yes, they can. Liar!

oh, wait... did i just totally have the sarcasm going flying over my head?

[_aj_]

It won't be legislation, it'll be "rules" from the FCC.

My guess is that it'll be anything but "neutral".

Since the government always seeks to regulate what it wants to control, and always seems to fuck up whatever it regulates, I am ipso facto against this on principle.

Show me a compelling need for this regulation. You can't, because none exists. It's a thinly veiled vehicle for an Internet-based "Fairness Doctrine". Fact.

[ProudVirgin69]

It won't be legislation, it'll be "rules" from the FCC.

My guess is that it'll be anything but "neutral".

Since the government always seeks to regulate what it wants to control, and always seems to fuck up whatever it regulates, I am ipso facto against this on principle.

Show me a compelling need for this regulation. You can't, because none exists. It's a thinly veiled vehicle for an Internet-based "Fairness Doctrine". Fact.

ISPs have been clandestinely controlling and restricting consumer access to the Internet, something that is arguably a public utility.  I'm sure you're not in favor of that, either.

[dr.chimps]

oh, wait... did i just totally have the sarcasm going flying over my head?

Pretty sure that's the only thing over your head. 

/sorry

[_aj_]

ISPs have been clandestinely controlling and restricting consumer access to the Internet, something that is arguably a public utility.  I'm sure you're not in favor of that, either.

It sure as fuck is NOT a "public utility"

[ProudVirgin69]

It sure as fuck is NOT a "public utility"

Why not?  It's a service that requires a massive infrastructure, and is therefore prone to natural monopolization--just like electricity, water, and telephones.

Regardless of whether or not you consider it a public utility, are you in favor of your ISP restricting your internet access?

[Shockwave]

Pretty sure that's the only thing over your head. 

/sorry

my bad. You know on getbig you always gotta remain on your toes.

[_aj_]

Why not?  It's a service that requires a massive infrastructure, and is therefore prone to natural monopolization--just like electricity, water, and telephones.

Regardless of whether or not you consider it a public utility, are you in favor of your ISP restricting your internet access?

Restricting it to what? Bandwidth limitations? Access to certain sites? If the latter, your "cure" is likely going to be worse than the disease.

[dr.chimps]

my bad. You know on getbig you always gotta remain on your toes.

No shit. The lady-friend wants to do the library-book-saley-thingy. Wish me the best.

[ProudVirgin69]

Restricting it to what? Bandwidth limitations? Access to certain sites? If the latter, your "cure" is likely going to be worse than the disease.

All of the above.  I don't want ISPs to have the ability to control what I see and do on the Internet without a court order.  I don't want ISPs to charge content providers a toll for quality service--like Comcast did with Netflix.  And I definitely don't want ISPs to artificially degrade my Internet service because I'm using the Internet for 'undesirable' purposes.  A packet of data should be treated just like any other packet of data, no matter its source or recipient.

A free market solution would be ideal, but natural competition is impeded due to the high cost of infrastructure.  Ultimately, I guess I have more faith in the FCC than in any of the big ISPs--and I'm guessing that's where our opinions differ.

I'm sure we both want the same thing: unrestricted access to the Internet.  How would you suggest that we achieve that, if not through government regulation?

[thebrink]

It is. But in the hands of the 1%. Cory Doctorow has been talking about this (non-stop) for the longest time @BoingBoing. Gonna be interesting.

X2

[The True Adonis]

Agreed.

Im so confused right now. Both sides are pointing the finger, everyone is saying their for net neutrality and the others against it, lots of buzz words flying and plenty of 'i back the need for a free and open internet' by everyone, but i have yet to actually see what theyre trying to put into the legislation.

No one seems to be able to tell me yet.

Everything is right here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

[The True Adonis]

Here is whats at stake.

You like the internet the way it is and want to improve service with costs not going up for anyone or any site, you are with Obama and the Democrats and whoever else supports these regulations by the FCC.

or

You want to pay more for the internet, limit your ability to download at certain speeds, want a capped bandwidth, want limited access to sites, want more ads and a limited search engine all at higher costs, complete control goes to your ISP provider- you are with the Republicans and everything they wish to do. 

The Republicans are not hiding this at all.  They already voted in 2011 to end Net Neutrality.  They WILL do this.  There is no secret agenda, its not a conspiracy theory, its very real. 

There is no fence.  These are your choices.