Net Neutrality

#1
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

If you think Sesta/Fosta are fucked up this will nail the lid shut on the coffin for the Internet as we know it. We get one shot at fixing this before it all goes down the tubes and your favorite places there disappear at the whim of your ISP.

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-to-reinstate-the-open-internet-order
 
#2
I don't understand the issue here. I have access to many ISPs. They have invested big bucks in equipment, software, facilities, etc. and offer me access at various speeds with corresponding pricing. They invested the money such that they can better compete for my $'s.

Why do you feel that the ISPs should not also be able to compete to get content providers business as to what level of services and at what price for those services?
 
#3
Why do you feel that the ISPs should not also be able to compete to get content providers business as to what level of services and at what price for those services?
You don't understand the concept of net neutrality. It isn't that one ISP can offer you higher speeds (which is a result of their hardware investment, and something they should expect to be able to recoup by charging a higher price for their higher service) than another. It's that the ISP you have can offer different content to you at different speeds. So maybe optimum takes $1 million from Facebook and they push that into your house at 200 mps, but little UG can't afford to pay that bribe, so that gets slowed to 10 mps (gotta free that bandwidth up for FB somehow, right?) Or maybe Netflix chooses not to pay off every ISP in the country, but Amazon does. Good luck trying to finish out the season of House of Cards.
Or maybe this is just you being you (ya' know, taking a contrary position just to start a discussion/argument). Here's a metaphor for you: What if the DOT decided the right lane of the LIE is free, and you can use that all you want, but if you want to use the middle lane you need a sticker on your car that'll cost you $500/year, and if you want to cruise in the fast lane, that's a different one that'll run you $2,500. Who needs lane neutrality, anyway? In fact, I'm thinking this could be a good cure for those folks who drive 50mph all day in the left lane. I can just hear the DOT making the argument that we need to end lane neutrality, because it will improve traffic flow, saving us all time and gas. We'd al be better off, in fact. See, it's not a matter of "taking the toll road because its faster, but I'll take the free road when I can". No, this is "There's only one road. It used to be free. Now somebody you don't know gets to decide just how fast you get to drive, and how much it's going to cost you if you want to go faster".
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#4
That's an interesting analogy considering the government is planning on selling off highways to private investors who will charge tolls on them.
 

justme

homo economicus
#5
That's an interesting analogy considering the government is planning on selling off highways to private investors who will charge tolls on them.
I pay my ISP. The issue isnt that bandwidth should be free.

The better analogy would be if the toll were a function of what was in the vehicle. Bike rack? Extra 1.00. Baby seat? Extra 100.00... etc.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#6
More like if the speed limit was dependent on what make/model car you were driving and payments made by the manufacturer. Mercedes? Yeah, they pay us so you can drive 80mph. DeSoto? No payment so you can only go 10mph.
 
#7
That's an interesting analogy considering the government is planning on selling off highways to private investors who will charge tolls on them.
Originally (as in horse and carriage days) good roads were privately owned toll roads. I'd like to remind you that originally the subways were privately owned until the city started regulating how much they could charge. How has that worked out for everyone?
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#8
It's apparently working out very well for the ferry operators.

But this issue isn't about regulating how much they can charge, but instead whether they can discriminate amongst customers or take payments from both sides of the aisle.

How about if on bridges, tunnels and highways, Uber, Lyft, etc drivers plus Hertz, Avis and other rental cars, plus those leasing from big car companies got express lanes but individuals owning their own vehicles had to drive in the right lane only?
 
Last edited:
#9
You don't understand the concept of net neutrality. It isn't that one ISP can offer you higher speeds (which is a result of their hardware investment, and something they should expect to be able to recoup by charging a higher price for their higher service) than another. It's that the ISP you have can offer different content to you at different speeds. So maybe optimum takes $1 million from Facebook and they push that into your house at 200 mps, but little UG can't afford to pay that bribe, so that gets slowed to 10 mps (gotta free that bandwidth up for FB somehow, right?) Or maybe Netflix chooses not to pay off every ISP in the country, but Amazon does. Good luck trying to finish out the season of House of Cards.
Or maybe this is just you being you (ya' know, taking a contrary position just to start a discussion/argument). Here's a metaphor for you: What if the DOT decided the right lane of the LIE is free, and you can use that all you want, but if you want to use the middle lane you need a sticker on your car that'll cost you $500/year, and if you want to cruise in the fast lane, that's a different one that'll run you $2,500. Who needs lane neutrality, anyway? In fact, I'm thinking this could be a good cure for those folks who drive 50mph all day in the left lane. I can just hear the DOT making the argument that we need to end lane neutrality, because it will improve traffic flow, saving us all time and gas. We'd al be better off, in fact. See, it's not a matter of "taking the toll road because its faster, but I'll take the free road when I can". No, this is "There's only one road. It used to be free. Now somebody you don't know gets to decide just how fast you get to drive, and how much it's going to cost you if you want to go faster".
Come on — it’s all about money and you guys now it. Amazon is going to be able to negotiate better deals for shipping the same size box, that the local mom and pop store. Is that unfair — no it is not IMHO, it is just economics. For the mom and pop shop to survive it is going to have to offer something that Amazon cannot in order to absorb the higher rate or they will cease to exist.

BTW, we right now have lanes in the road that are limited to certain kinds of vehicles during certain times of the day.
 
#10
Come on — it’s all about money and you guys now it. Amazon is going to be able to negotiate better deals for shipping the same size box, that the local mom and pop store. Is that unfair — no it is not IMHO, it is just economics. For the mom and pop shop to survive it is going to have to offer something that Amazon cannot in order to absorb the higher rate or they will cease to exist.

BTW, we right now have lanes in the road that are limited to certain kinds of vehicles during certain times of the day.
If you were using Amazon as a hypothetical and not as an example then in actuality Amazon is in support of net neutrality as is Google, Apple and Facebook among others who may never have had a chance to blossom and grow from seed without net neutrality. The Internet has become for the most part our sole source of information. It is not only a tool but it has also become a necessity of life to a large part of the population. It is a place where anyone can freely express their views, roll out a new idea and compete on a level playing field. It is a place where any business large or small can creatively vie for the attention of the consumer. Innovation is not stifled. Inventions can be brought to fruition. Dreams can be realized. The consumer can now freely choose what products, services and content to consume. Net neutrality is consumer protection in a nutshell. Without it the only destinations and exits on that highway that we now freely travel wherever we wish to go will be those which someone else determines will be more beneficial to us then the ones that we were trying to get to. Do you really want people who control the wealth to control that?
 
#11
That's called the Virginia DOT...not only did they charge Uber like surge pricing during high traffic times but they also charge to even just to drive in the HOV lanes, and even if you wanted to pay, they won't let you even enter the extortion racket (in this case they used state and federal taxpayers money to construct the HOV lanes) without an surveillance EzPass token
 
#12
Honestly I can sort of see both sides but the traffic analogy I think of is NYC''s proposed "congestion pricing". The rich will happily pay whatever they have to pay for empty midtown roads. The rest of us poor shlubs will have to walk or take subways to avoid the cost.
And I think Amazon and Netflix already pay extra for a big pipeline to deliver their content. Albiet not at the customer level. But there I already pay more for my bigger pipe as well.
But I'm not well versed in the details of net neutrality.
 
#13
If you were using Amazon as a hypothetical and not as an example then in actuality Amazon is in support of net neutrality as is Google, Apple and Facebook among others who may never have had a chance to blossom and grow from seed without net neutrality. The Internet has become for the most part our sole source of information. It is not only a tool but it has also become a necessity of life to a large part of the population. It is a place where anyone can freely express their views, roll out a new idea and compete on a level playing field. It is a place where any business large or small can creatively vie for the attention of the consumer. Innovation is not stifled. Inventions can be brought to fruition. Dreams can be realized. ?
Dreams realized? I'm surprised you aren't suggesting the UG members hold a campfire meeting where we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

What the Net-neutrality proposed law is is to require those who have skin in the game, i.e., investors of big $'s, not be able to enter into to contracts as to how and when the fruits of their investments can be utilized. Consumers have always been able to vote with their feet, or perhaps in this case with their fingers on a keyboard, if the companies they do business with and/or products offered are not to their liking. One of the tenets of the current administration is to reduce government regulation of business—not to increase it.
The consumer can now freely choose what products, services and content to consume. Net neutrality is consumer protection in a nutshell.?
When ever I hear the words "consumer protection" I think of other "protections" imposed by . governments on other people's assets. Examples in the US and especially in other parts of the world have not worked out well. For example what pops to mind is the rent control laws that were imposed on landlords to handle the emergency of 1943 — so how has that been working out.

Without it the only destinations and exits on that highway that we now freely travel wherever we wish to go will be those which someone else determines will be more beneficial to us then the ones that we were trying to get to. Do you really want people who control the wealth to control that?
What I want is that the someone else, i.e., the ones who invest their money, control how their investments are used. Anything else is just tyranny by the majority.
 
#14
Dreams realized? I'm surprised you aren't suggesting the UG members hold a campfire meeting where we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Facebook which I am not a fan of is an example of a dream realized and if I wanted to put some effort into it and look I am sure there are thousands of other American success stories of common people without a pot to piss in who woke up in the middle of the night with an idea or an aspiration. The free and neutral Internet gives them the opportunity to see if that idea or aspiration can fly and not be stifled by someone who bribed Verizon, Comcast or Optimum to have that idea or aspiration squashed before it ever saw the light of day. Those dreams and aspirations by millions of people are what made America great and why our country is so unique, the idea that you can be whatever you want with some hard work and focus. There is little opportunity for anyone to get that idea out there without a free Internet. It sounds like you subscribe to making America great again right? That's what Net Neutrality does! :)

What the Net-neutrality proposed law is is to require those who have skin in the game, i.e., investors of big $'s, not be able to enter into to contracts as to how and when the fruits of their investments can be utilized. Consumers have always been able to vote with their feet, or perhaps in this case with their fingers on a keyboard, if the companies they do business with and/or products offered are not to their liking. One of the tenets of the current administration is to reduce government regulation of business—not to increase it.
When ever I hear the words "consumer protection" I think of other "protections" imposed by . governments on other people's assets. Examples in the US and especially in other parts of the world have not worked out well. For example what pops to mind is the rent control laws that were imposed on landlords to handle the emergency of 1943 — so how has that been working out.


I'm not too familiar with with rent control except that my daughter has a very nice apartment in the city right by Central Park that she pays $2300 or so a month for so it has been working out very well for her. :D

What I want is that the someone else, i.e., the ones who invest their money, control how their investments are used. Anything else is just tyranny by the majority.
As opposed to tyranny by the 1%? Just sayin..... :)
 
#15
It suddenly occurred to me that people may be confusing "free" Internet with something for nothing at the governments expense which is not the case. A free Internet is a place where we are all free to express ourselves and the ability to have our voice heard without fear of censorship as in freedom of speech much like what we just lost with Sesta/Fosta. The writing is on the wall for those who care to see it. Just sayin... :)
 

Waterclone

Go ahead. Try me.
#17
We need to define censorship. Not all restrictions on speech are censorship. For example I don't believe libel laws are censorship. Nor laws forbidding shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none.
 
#19
I define it as Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.

We need to define censorship. Not all restrictions on speech are censorship..
IMHO they are. Doesn't mean some are not proper in a civilized society or in accordance with our Constitutional freedoms — classified information, voluntary nondisclosure agreements, voluntary noncompete agreements, inciting murder, etc, come to mind and are properly censored. For example, I had a employment contract where all discoveries I made on the company's time and dime could not be disclosed in professional papers, patent applications, etc., w/o permission of the company. I voluntarily signed such (they paid for such restrictions to my right of speech and print and if I didn't want to sign I didn't have to work for them). I had to submit to them anything I wanted to publish and they would allow or, (let's say for lack of a better word), censor what I gave them. Was this censorship?

For example I don't believe libel laws are censorship.....
Correct, they are not. I'm not sure that libel or slander is criminal —I always thought in US they were civil law. If I'm right (maybe our UG lawyer types can clarify this) you can write or speak (slander) all you want. You just may end up paying a lot of $ damages to the entity you libel or slander.

Nor laws forbidding shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none.
It is INHO — just not unjustified or improper in accordance with our Constitutional freedoms.
 
Top