Net Neutrality

[Demosthenes]

I'm not sure how much folks around here pay attention to this sort of thing, but there is a large protest across the internet today seeking to protect Net Neutrality. The current head of the FCC is attempting to roll back protections which prevent internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner, from slowing down, censoring, charging extra, or blocking different websites. Imagine a world in which you have to buy your internet like you buy your cable: paying extra and upgrading to larger packages so you can access all of the websites you use every day. Want to watch Netflix? That will be an extra $20 per month on your Verizon bill. Want to read news sources that disagree with the CEO's personal political views? Sorry, those websites are blacked out. This would also affect small websites like Simply in that ISPs would be able to charge the forum extra in order for it to be available through that service. Imagine website creators having to pay dues to each and every ISP in order for their site to be available on that network. This will stifle creativity and innovation, and turn the internet into something totally unrecognizable. No one in this country (or the world really) thinks this is a good idea except for people who are on the payroll for the cable companies - and you can include a lot of our stellar politicians on that list. The current head of the FCC who is proposing all of this deregulation, Ajit Pai, used to be a lawyer for Verizon.

If you want to do something about this, the FCC is still taking comments. Tell them to throw out their "Restoring Internet Freedom" act, and to preserve Title II classification of Internet Service Providers.
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/n...imizelycontrol

[Clawhammer]

Thanks Kesley, this is an important issue that many overlook because it seems complex or boring, but could have a big impact on people's lives and wallets.

[Second Hand Pat]

I know Al created a thread on this a while back http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showth...light=internet. Good explanation and resource links.
Pat

[dillct]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

[Clawhammer]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

In most localities there is only one ISP, usually Time Warner / Comcast. The internet is a utility and necessity and should be regulated as such to assure all Americans fair access.

Net neutrality "government regulation" is the status quo

[dillct]

Regulation kills competition and drives up prices, which is likely why you're stuck with one ISP. We've seen what the "status quo" has gotten us with healthcare. What do you mean by "fair access"?

[Clawhammer]

There is only one ISP in many locations because like power the infrastructure to deliver internet access is very expensive to build, not because of regulation.

What I mean by unfair access, well let me lay out a scenario. Net Neutrality goes away, Time Warner buys Hulu. Time Warner has 100% market share in my former hometown of Cincinnati. Time Warner decides if you want to use netflix, it will cost you $50 more a month, but guess what, Hulu is free. So now if anyone from Cincinnati wants to watch Orange is the New Black, they have to pay up to TWC. This same thing will happen across the internet in many different ways, stifling innovation and putting the consumer at a terrible disadvantage.

Lets take ideology out of this and look at the facts.

[nc0gnet0]

Regulation kills competition and drives up prices, which is likely why you're stuck with one ISP. We've seen what the "status quo" has gotten us with healthcare. What do you mean by "fair access"?

I really don't think you grasp how ISP's are allowed to serve a particular region exclusively.

[nc0gnet0]

While slightly off-topic, I read an article today that estimates the 52% of all internet traffic was by BOT's, and that it will continue to climb.

[dillct]

I really don't think you grasp how ISP's are allowed to serve a particular region exclusively.

And who exactly allows an ISP to serve a particular region?

[brewmaster15]

What we don't need is the government regulating the internet...which is pretty much what "net neutrality" is. If you don't like the price/service your ISP provides, this is America and you are free to find another provider. It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers. There is a lot of fear mongering going around in regards to this topic, most of it unwarranted.

I'm sorry, but this is a falsehood thats perpetuated by the large corporations that currently control the internet and want to tighten that control and increase profits. The Line, "this is America and you are free to find another provider " sounds great. I have my Red White and Blue Flying high here too, but unfortunately, It doesn't fit the problem. You can not find another one because they are all monopolies. The problem isn't that people don't want another choice, its a problem because our system failed miserably by not regulating these big telecoms better using existing monopoly laws. You may be entitled to change ISPs, but your choice would be in effect, accept the one you have or go without. If you think thats a choice, we differ dramatically on what "choice" means.

I strongly advise any one looking for more information on Net Neutrality, Read here....https://www.eff.org/

We have already concentrated way too much power into the hands of the Internet Giants. Net Neutrality is there to counter that control and prevent these Big businesses from doing things that alter the way the internet works. The threat is not over blown and the fear mongering is actually coming from the Telecom giants and their mouth pieces in Congress.

If you liked the way the internet worked where everyone had equal access, your usage wasn't throttled, and your content wasn't dictated to you by giant corporations like Comcast you should support Net Neutrality. I am a die-hard proponent of Net Neutrality and the about face the FCC is taking is not in our best interests. The head of the FCC is too tied to Verizon to even be slightly unbiased.

I'm not sure how much folks around here pay attention to this sort of thing, but there is a large protest across the internet today seeking to protect Net Neutrality. The current head of the FCC is attempting to roll back protections which prevent internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner, from slowing down, censoring, charging extra, or blocking different websites. Imagine a world in which you have to buy your internet like you buy your cable: paying extra and upgrading to larger packages so you can access all of the websites you use every day. Want to watch Netflix? That will be an extra $20 per month on your Verizon bill. Want to read news sources that disagree with the CEO's personal political views? Sorry, those websites are blacked out. This would also affect small websites like Simply in that ISPs would be able to charge the forum extra in order for it to be available through that service. Imagine website creators having to pay dues to each and every ISP in order for their site to be available on that network. This will stifle creativity and innovation, and turn the internet into something totally unrecognizable. No one in this country (or the world really) thinks this is a good idea except for people who are on the payroll for the cable companies - and you can include a lot of our stellar politicians on that list. The current head of the FCC who is proposing all of this deregulation, Ajit Pai, used to be a lawyer for Verizon.

If you want to do something about this, the FCC is still taking comments. Tell them to throw out their "Restoring Internet Freedom" act, and to preserve Title II classification of Internet Service Providers.
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/n...imizelycontrol

Kesley is 1000% correct here... and I agree fully.



I also want to comment on this...

It's not in the best interest of an ISP to screw over consumers

That may be true, but when the customer has no where to go... screw the customer is what they do.. Have a look at how well they treat their customers... https://www.google.com/search?q=Comc...stomer+ratings


al

[Discus-n00b]

Agreed Al and others, I'm fighting the fight now. My internet speeds are constantly throttled up and down depending on what the carrier thinks I and others in the area are doing on the internet. It's ridiculous. I pay for a certain speed, yet they can change that speed whenever they deem it necessary. Tired of it. I'm actually about to switch carriers, I wish I didn't have to. Like said above, I don't want another choice. I don't want to just bounce around carriers when service gets bad.

I am 100% behind this, been for a while.

[nc0gnet0]

It's really a very complicated issue, one in which I admit I don't totally understand. There are a some incorrect assertions on both side of the fence so far. For one, "throttling" has always happened, it's a necessity. To play the devil's advocate here, Al, let's say your next store neighbor decides to host a start up streaming company, and all of a sudden, he sucks out 98% of all the bandwidth available to your neighborhood. What then?

Honestly, and something that has not been addressed, is that local and state municipalities are as much to blame for the current lack of competition as anyone. This has to do with right of ways, access permits, etc, that they feel are perfectly justified as revenue streams, making it nearly impossible for new comers to enter into a geographic location.

[brewmaster15]

It's really a very complicated issue, one in which I admit I don't totally understand. There are a some incorrect assertions on both side of the fence so far. For one, "throttling" has always happened, it's a necessity. To play the devil's advocate here, Al, let's say your next store neighbor decides to host a start up streaming company, and all of a sudden, he sucks out 98% of all the bandwidth available to your neighborhood. What then?

Honestly, and something that has not been addressed, is that local and state municipalities are as much to blame for the current lack of competition as anyone. This has to do with right of ways, access permits, etc, that they feel are perfectly justified as revenue streams, making it nearly impossible for new comers to enter into a geographic location.

Rick,
If you pay for 6 gbs of data on your smart phone. How many Gbs of data do you expect to recieve?

al

[pitdogg2]

It's only going to get worse for the throttling as UHD movies will suck up huge amounts of bandwidth. The FCC sucks it is nothing more than a mouthpeice now for who ever is in the white house. Look at it this way @dillct the electric company comes by and shuts down your electricity because you have used more than your alloted amount for the month.
Basically what this is about. I have 2 choices in my neck of the woods Comcast or Verizon. They are letting a new company in but it will be 3 yrs before they are up and running. Our hospitals and college's coughed up their own cash to bypass both verizon and comcast because of cost. Verizon's fios was born here where i live yet they choose to drop it out east then all but abandoned it from what i understand. We never ever had fios around here just dsl or cable.
Oh the new company bet they never get any clients we have had several in the past years that suddenly went out of business bought out by you guessed it COMCAST