Net Neutrality

For those of us sitting here before our screens and either typing in words or reading them, this should be a very important subject. But, how many of us understand what this means? Or even what the Internet is? This is one of the most informative articles on the subject I've read. The main thing it points out is:

To summarize, the Internet comprises two types of things: public domain ideas, such as the TCP/IP protocol and HTML coding language; and private property, such as personal computers, servers, and fiber optic cable.*

And, using this, there is a huge, FREE interchange of ideas and information. That being the case, just what is “net neutrality”? Here's another summary:

Plainly stated, net neutrality is the idea that the Internet is “public property”; thus, the government must ensure that online content is delivered in a “neutral,” non-preferential fashion.

This informative – and frightening – article can be read @ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality/

 

Just don't f**k with the Internet. Simple.

 

I pay a lot of money per month for this "free" internet.

 

Me too. But, at this point, I have no restrictions on how I use it. I just don't want the government to tell me where and what I can view on the Internet.

 

The debate is about whether Comcast or whoever can tell you where and what you can view on the internet, or more specifically, what you won't be able to view via their service like netflix.

 

Maybe I don't understand the entire thing.

I currently have Cox Cable that literally carries everything there is. If, for some reason, they stop providing what I want, I have at least a dozen other services to select from.

To me, this argument is about government stepping in and telling me what service I can select and what I am allowed to see once I get on the internet.

Am I wrong on this?

 

Sort of. "Net Neutrality" is a misnomer. They paint it this way, but in reality, it is the opposite. They don't want the government making it okay for Comcast to force netflix to pay them or lose access to Comcast internet subscribers. The concern boils down to they do not want to government stamp of approval on business practices that might cause people to actually have to subscribe to Comcast for $75 a month instead of Netflix for $10 a month.

It cracks down on the free riders who do so at the expense of investors and subscribers who have to pay for all the infrastructure that makes $10 netflix possible, or hulu or amazon on demand, or whatever, but is sold as "Old Political Forum wouldn't exist is these new laws get put in place because it cannot afford to pay comcast" as if comcast gives a rat's booty about sites like this.

 

Much like Communism, "Net Neutrality" sounds good in theory. Problem is, who decides what is "neutral" ?
This has a huge potential to be misused as an excuse to control freedom of the press and information.

 

The internet scares the government. They see how it can mobilize people, they saw how it was such an important tool in bringing down Mubarak in the Egyptian "Arab Spring". They see how its a route around the media gatekeepers and they know they cannot control the message any longer. The "progressives" (who are behind so-called net neutrality) saw how they lost control of talk radio and it became the backyard of the conservatives, they saw how the internet was the medium used to organize the effort that destroyed their sneaky "green tip" ammunition ban. The government desperately wants to be able to control the internet, they do not want an open and free internet.

 

The internet should be regulated, but that is not what the big kerfuffle really is about. It is about the people who suck up massive amounts of bandwidth wanting to continue to freeride while others have to pay for the massive equipment and infrastructure improvements necessary to allow the web to continue to grow. As a user, sure I would rather the internet be not regulated by the government or my ISP policies. That does not keep me from recognizing that to keep it working, and keep people able to compete for content and services and keep their doors open will require something to change.Right now we are in a race to the bottom.

 

You really want the same people that push for a "fairness doctrine" to regulate the internet?

And you think the internet, something which with essentially no government regulation or oversight has grown into one of the most amazing open systems ever produced by mankind and is working just fine, requires the most cumbersome, politically driven, biased, most reviled organization in the world to regulate it?

The FCC rules sound innocuous now, but its the nose of the camel. It will be incrementally expanded, just as all govt regulation is expanded. Some of that expansion will be justified, most will be empire building, and it won't be long before "net neutrality" becomes just another tool for the government and big internet providers to do favors for each other.

 

Uncle Ferd says it's gubmint's way...

... of figgerin' out a new way...

... to tax us.

 

I like tools. The government does too. The Patriot Act is a wonderful tool for the government. They won't regulate it too much. If Netflix costs $29.95 a month it is the price of freedom. Think of it as a war bond that never pays off.

 

Is that a dodge of the issues or a joke?

 

Here is some additional information on net neutrality
By Chris Morran April 30, 2014
Title: FCC Chairman: I’d Rather Give In To Verizon’s Definition Of Net Neutrality Than Fight
"Quote" With every word he writes, recently installed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler shows he has little interest or belief in net neutrality as most consumers understand it. In another flimsy attempt at defending his position on “fast lanes” — i.e., allowing Internet service providers to charge more to content companies seeking priority access to end-users — Wheeler contends that consumers should do what Verizon and other telecoms want because well, it could take a while to do it correctly.

Full Article: http://consumerist.com/2014/04/30/f...zons-definition-of-net-neutrality-than-fight/

 

Neither. The internet will be regulated. Is that clear enough?

 

LOL, of course the internet will be regulated, thanks to the fools who supported "net neutrality".

The result of regulation is the issue, some think regulation of the internet by the most ignorant biased greedy conceited people on the planet, people who managed to totally fail at creating a web site, will make for a good internet.

Other people are intelligent and see what a stupid idea "net neutrality" is.

 

The internet is run by businesses. Every other business in the country is subject to regulations. There is no reason to think that ISP's or content providers or webhosts somehow are different. There is nothing stupid about it. Stupid is acting like the internet is some magical place of unicorns and pixies. So far all I hear is the same generic nonsense that people spewed when the DMCA was enacted--"oh it will destroy the internet" when sales taxes started being collected "oh it will destroy the internet". Napster being shut down "Oh it will destroy the internet".

The internet is like Mark Twain. The reports of its death are always exaggerated.

 

LOL, so because everyone else has jumped off the cliff, you think the internet should also?

The internet is close to a "free wheeling marketplace", its run by a lot of businesses, with no monopoly, all vying for customers and revenue and attention, all competing against each other and working with each other when appropriate. You largely don't need to ask permission or get approval from the govt or anyone else, you just do what you want and see what works. Everything from crowd funding to pornography to medical/legal advice to retail and more. The internet is a success because the govt broadly stays out of it.

Now the FCC is going to wonder about access and content, "racial disparity", "fairness", its going to classify and regulate and permit based on who it determines to be a "reporter" or "journalist". Sound familiar?

Look at how the govt drives up costs through regulation and mandates and reviews, just the cost of proving you meet regulations is significant. Look at how the govt abuses the EPA, ATF, OSHA, even the IRS. You truly believe the govt will stay impartial with the internet? Not a chance.

 

I am fine with EPA, ATF, OSHA, even the IRS. I am fine with the FCC too. I am fine with Netflix costing more, and content thieving sites having the screws put to them, and p2p being shut down, and Call of Duty being throttled when you are trying to play it over the web with your buddies, and all the rest.

 

I see, so you really don't like the internet and all it stands for, you like Big Brother.

 

Exactly! This has been my concern from the moment I first heard this.

 

I like some of the things. Not everything.

 

I don't think you get the point. The Internet is our last bastion of free speech throughout the world. Put restrictions on that and you stifle the free interchange of information and beliefs - just was dictators and One Worlders want!

 

The internet is the last bastion of people yelling at each other without listening to anybody else. The internet, however, is heavily regulated throughout the world as are the service providers already. The only difference now is that it might actually cost Americans more to access the stuff they already pay to access. Other than that, no difference. "Free Speech"="Free Lunch"