Net Neutrality

I've heard conversation coming out of animal pens that is more intelligent than what is going on in here.
Pumaxcs
Posts: 12816
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Team: Kyle/Luiz
Location: Western, Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Pumaxcs » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:13 am

m121c wrote:Im not for over bearing government regulation where it doesn’t belong, nor do I trust an appointed commitee to make decisions in secret to decide what those regulations are, and what can and can happen with ISPs and content sites.

Its very “anti-monoply” on the surface, but does anyone ask why coperate giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. are for something that would essentially give the government the means to control them? My guess would be is they have the means in capitol and money to corrupt affectively controlling their compeition via the government.


If that were the case then why would Telecom companies bribe the government for yes votes? Companies are against it because they realize they are a destination. The less people that travel to their site, the less revenue they get. Popular places will get data plans or special access. Either the customer can pay for the special access or data plan or the companies that are destinations can pick it up, or both. If you are so against monopolies I have no idea why this doesn't scare you. I can count on one hand how many times a company has done the right thing and considering they want this I'm guessing this won't be one.
Image
Everytime you post something stupid, a baby gets punched in the face. Please be smart, for the children.

MXS Cares

m121c
Posts: 2846
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby m121c » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:56 am

I dont actually know... but if I had to guess those large “ending destination” services are either owned, partnered, or have stocks with large ISPs, just my guess.

Net Neutrality even has a part in which it says the FCC can control and dictate on what they want/prefer a service to fuction. That could mean an inderict suppression of speech...

And because in my mind net neutrality creates a monopoly. Its just a government regulated monoply where so long as they play by the “rules” (that they lobby for), they are insured significant barriers for any other new, innovative, and competing firms to enter the market. Making it virtually impossible any new or smaller companies to bring competition to the major ISPs.

User avatar
808
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:08 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby 808 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:18 am

m121c wrote:I dont actually know... but if I had to guess those large “ending destination” services are either owned, partnered, or have stocks with large ISPs, just my guess.

Net Neutrality even has a part in which it says the FCC can control and dictate on what they want/prefer a service to fuction. That could mean an inderict suppression of speech...

And because in my mind net neutrality creates a monopoly. Its just a government regulated monoply where so long as they play by the “rules” (that they lobby for), they are insured significant barriers for any other new, innovative, and competing firms to enter the market. Making it virtually impossible any new or smaller companies to bring competition to the major ISPs.


The way I see it, is Net neutrality for ISPs is like having a 1st grade classroom in which every kid gets and equal education, no kid is favored better than all the rest. So taking net neutrality down is almost like taking that same 1st grade classroom and cutting it in half. One half gets a quality education, while the other just waits for the bell to ring to go to recess. Not exactly fair
PM me for free skinzzzz

User avatar
Phathry25
Posts: 7374
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:09 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Location: WI
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Phathry25 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:37 am

This is the internet without net neutrality.

Image

I'm all for less government regulation, but the internet needs to be unrestricted. If the government has to step in to make it stay that way I'm okay with that.

Pumaxcs
Posts: 12816
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Team: Kyle/Luiz
Location: Western, Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Pumaxcs » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:52 am

Bingo, you are correct. The tax payers and consumers paid for the data lines in the promise that they would use the money to build the infrastructure, we were promised to have nation wide fiber by 2005. The net Neutrality law said that no matter who or what went through those lines it could not be discriminated against (even now that happens constantly, example being speedtest.net). With this law in place everything has to be treated equally, service, protocol, company or person (which sounds like an open market to me?).

Now, there is a possibility that they add-on packages will exist. They do in other countries and there is no rule anymore saying they can't. What the problem is, is that now the ISP will control the base package for these lanes. Most likely bigger companies can afford to stay on the base package and not have their bandwidth limited (mostly, Netflix is throttled even while its illegal)(Second fun thought, how do you think they keep track of which website you are going to and if your plan allows it? By literally logging everything you do, neat. We already know that ISP's are open for the government to track thanks to NSA.). Meaning start-ups or alternatives to the mainstream will most likely never get a foothold as the streams to them will be so un-user-friendly that they will just go back to the mainstream destinations. NBC is owned by Comcast, Yahoo is owned by Verizon, etc. Clearly a conflict of interest, at the very least a way to control the information we see.

Truth be told I hope it fails miserably and there is such a backlash that some monopoly crackdown happens. The government takes some access lines away and makes them public domain. There is no reason in this day and age that internet can't be distributed the same way that water and electric are.
Image
Everytime you post something stupid, a baby gets punched in the face. Please be smart, for the children.

MXS Cares

User avatar
808
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:08 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby 808 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:22 am

m121c wrote:
sethiemeboi wrote:Literally 99% of people were for Net Neutrality but it still ended up happening, honestly nothing we could have done about it, it was going to happen no matter what


I would say that a good majority of the folks against net neutrality put their thoughts in with their votes instead of RESIST petitions and text messages. 99% would be a huge overstatement.

Although I feel the net neutrality crowd has a valid arguement, I am one that is against it.

Im not for over bearing government regulation where it doesn’t belong, nor do I trust an appointed commitee to make decisions in secret to decide what those regulations are, and what can and can happen with ISPs and content sites.

Its very “anti-monoply” on the surface, but does anyone ask why coperate giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. are for something that would essentially give the government the means to control them? My guess would be is they have the means in capitol and money to corrupt affectively controlling their compeition via the government.

My distrust for the government is your distrust against corporate America. I view it in that the American people should speak with their money vs. a few selected government cronies.

I think the issue is something that both sides have merit on, I guess it just comes down to fundementals in what you believe. However I feel the discussion has extremely been disingenious and fear mongered to unreasonable level and there needs to be an honest discussion about it. However thats where our politics is at sadly, for both sides of the aisle.

My .2 cents


OK bud keep on thinking that until some stupid shit like this ends up happening to you..

Image
PM me for free skinzzzz

User avatar
SKlein
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:08 pm
Team: Evergood
Location: MN

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby SKlein » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:03 pm

m121c wrote:And because in my mind net neutrality creates a monopoly. Its just a government regulated monoply where so long as they play by the “rules” (that they lobby for), they are insured significant barriers for any other new, innovative, and competing firms to enter the market. Making it virtually impossible any new or smaller companies to bring competition to the major ISPs.

If you think removing NN is going to reduce the ISP monopoly currently taking place you're going to be sadly mistaken.

User avatar
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: BPC
Location: Cold

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Jakob Hubbard » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:17 pm

SKlein wrote:
m121c wrote:And because in my mind net neutrality creates a monopoly. Its just a government regulated monoply where so long as they play by the “rules” (that they lobby for), they are insured significant barriers for any other new, innovative, and competing firms to enter the market. Making it virtually impossible any new or smaller companies to bring competition to the major ISPs.

If you think removing NN is going to reduce the ISP monopoly currently taking place you're going to be sadly mistaken.

Sean is right, they will try and monopolize people using the internet. Some people in rural areas can't even use certain types of ISPs because they don't allow it. If someone is forced to stick with an ISP that charges them money to use their service and they can't switch, these rural people are screwed.

I hate it so much when I see these tweets by corporal companies that think this is now true "internet freedom", no it isn't. It's only freedom to the companies to be able to control what people see. It generally makes me mad that some of the FCC representatives didn't even seem to care about the people. If I had to guess, most of these people were payed by large companies to vote for no net neutrality, and that just sickens me. It's disgusting that our democracy (not full democracy, we have a republic) is diminishing by people getting payed to vote.
Image

m121c
Posts: 2846
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby m121c » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:57 pm

SKlein wrote:
m121c wrote:And because in my mind net neutrality creates a monopoly. Its just a government regulated monoply where so long as they play by the “rules” (that they lobby for), they are insured significant barriers for any other new, innovative, and competing firms to enter the market. Making it virtually impossible any new or smaller companies to bring competition to the major ISPs.

If you think removing NN is going to reduce the ISP monopoly currently taking place you're going to be sadly mistaken.


The difference is just how we view which is the best of two evils.

You see monoply (competitive monoply I would say) of corporate greed, I see a monoply with government control.

In the monoply you all dislike, I see that decsions in the market place are ultimately controlled by the people, with their money. And entertainment services are not a life necessity, therefore I feel I would much rather have the people have their say vs a committe of appointees in which we have no say in. Unless proven to be needed (we were/are not at that point).

In the monoply that I dislike, the government has not only a say on what ISPs can do, but they can influence and dictate what the services that use them can do/cant do. Ultimately we have no say on what all those regulations are or how we want them to act. It ulitmately stagnates innovation and discourages competition. And “tin foil” hat me thinks it opens the door for corruption and censorship.

Im not saying the NN crowd has no merit to their arguement. I understand it, and theres a certain level of justification. Im just not into government intervention based on whims.

User avatar
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby TeamHavocRacing » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:05 pm

Ask your IT guy about NN. "There's never been NN, what's everyone freaking about?"
jlv wrote:I disagree with your disagreement.

User avatar
SKlein
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:08 pm
Team: Evergood
Location: MN

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby SKlein » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:12 pm

m121c wrote:In the monoply that I dislike, the government has not only a say on what ISPs can do, but they can influence and dictate what the services that use them can do/cant do. Ultimately we have no say on what all those regulations are or how we want them to act. It ulitmately stagnates innovation and discourages competition. And “tin foil” hat me thinks it opens the door for corruption and censorship.

By no means am I saying what we have now is perfect. I do however think that our current path (removing NN) is one that's going to lead to even more corruption and censorship than what's already taking place. You're saying it will produce more competition; as it sits now it's already near impossible to jump into the scene when companies like Comcast and AT&T will just try and block any attempt at expanding into their regions. The assumption is current ISP's will try and change pricing schemes to get more money out of you. If that truly is the case how is anyone who's not Google (or Elon Musk) going to be able to fight that battle? If they can't do it now I don't see competition popping up all over just because NN is gone.

Jakob Hubbard wrote:If I had to guess, most of these people were payed by large companies to vote for no net neutrality, and that just sickens me. It's disgusting that our democracy (not full democracy, we have a republic) is diminishing by people getting payed to vote.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/1510 ... -fire-sale

Pumaxcs
Posts: 12816
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Team: Kyle/Luiz
Location: Western, Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Pumaxcs » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:18 am

m121c wrote:In the monoply you all dislike, I see that decsions in the market place are ultimately controlled by the people, with their money. And entertainment services are not a life necessity, therefore I feel I would much rather have the people have their say vs a committe of appointees in which we have no say in. Unless proven to be needed (we were/are not at that point).


Really? Living in a city where I have two ISP choices and being stuck with one because the other won't allow them to use the lines for my road sure doesn't feel like my consumer money has any rights to me. I have a job thats an hour away and sometimes I have overnight on call for a data center. There have been occasions where I have been woken up from someone in India telling me about an alert that needs to be dealt with now, not in an hour. Internet has a life outside of entertainment and for some people that need internet no matter the location having a fair market is important.

m121c wrote:In the monoply that I dislike, the government has not only a say on what ISPs can do, but they can influence and dictate what the services that use them can do/cant do. Ultimately we have no say on what all those regulations are or how we want them to act. It ulitmately stagnates innovation and discourages competition. And “tin foil” hat me thinks it opens the door for corruption and censorship.

Im not saying the NN crowd has no merit to their arguement. I understand it, and theres a certain level of justification. Im just not into government intervention based on whims.


They only say NN allows the government to have over ISP's is that they must not intervene. That's literally the title of it. The government can't control what influence they have or dictate the services. Removing them means the government can't stop the ISPs from doing that. What stagnates competition is allowing the biggest corporations to sit on this giant cash stock that we allowed them to get and using that to lawyer up against anyone encroaching their space.

Remember when you had to use FaceTime through WiFi because the connection wasn't good enough but somehow similar apps like Skype didn't have this? Its because ATT had a similar app and didn't want its customers to use FaceTime and use their app instead so they limited its bandwidth when the FT app ID was used on data. If it wasn't for Apple's money being able to match ATT, and instead it was this start up company looking for its first success we would have never heard of it. That is a perfect example of the "free market" we would have without NN.
Image
Everytime you post something stupid, a baby gets punched in the face. Please be smart, for the children.

MXS Cares

User avatar
Phathry25
Posts: 7374
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:09 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Location: WI
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Phathry25 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:38 am

Very unexpected take on this by a tech company. Really surprised me how little they thought it actually meant. Starts at 2:20


User avatar
Brock1198
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:20 am
Team: Cycleworks
Location: Texas

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby Brock1198 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:23 am

honestly i kinda wish net neutrality went away. i mean whats to stop you from switching isp's if one starts charging?
ever since 2015 when is was first enforced the internet bill has slowly crept up and keeps going up. The internet was fine without it before 2015 so why would it make a difference now? all of those people saying that isp's are going to start charging for websites are just guessing. I feel its just big companies gas lighting social media users into revolting against the removal.
jlv wrote:
yzmxer608 wrote:Alrighty jlv time to lock this, politic arguments get people nowhere fast. :?

Are you kidding me? This is a perfect opportunity to break out the American Chopper meme!

User avatar
SKlein
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:08 pm
Team: Evergood
Location: MN

Re: Net Neutrality

Postby SKlein » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:46 am

Brock1198 wrote:honestly i kinda wish net neutrality went away. i mean whats to stop you from switching isp's if one starts charging?

A decent portion of the country only has one ISP to choose from in their city. That's why it's not as simple as switching over when a person feels it's necessary. Please take some time and actually look into the issues at hand before you pick a side.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests