Net- neutrality decision Discuss

[olevetonahill]

Ill hang up and listen

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

[SicEmBaylor]

Net-Neutrality was the correct decision, and it is long over due. Anyone who opposes doesn't understand net-neutrality. The anti-net neutrality rhetoric is bought and paid for propaganda by a very small handful of very evil telecommunications giants in this country.

[olevetonahill]

Net-Neutrality was the correct decision, and it is long over due. Anyone who opposes doesn't understand net-neutrality. The anti-net neutrality rhetoric is bought and paid for propaganda by a very small handful of very evil telecommunications giants in this country.

Does ANYONE understand this crap?

[SicEmBaylor]

Does ANYONE understand this crap?

Yes.

[yermom]

i'm confused by some of the language.

i have a bad feeling about this.

[olevetonahill]

Yes.

Thats what scares me about, YOU being the only one who says they really understand this crap.:devilish:

[yermom]

i get it from the corporate side, i guess

i'm not sure how to keep consumers from taking it in the shorts

[rock on sooner]

I hesitate, a little, getting into this, but as I understand it, this is a good
thing because it is supposed to keep the RILLY big dudes from telling the
little dudes what they have to pay, how to pay it and, if they don't, what
will happen to whatever the little dudes want to try to do. Umm, could
be that the gubment wants a level playing bandwith for all the players on
Gore's invention...

[SicEmBaylor]

The simplest way to explain net-neutrality is thusly:

It requires your ISP to treat all of your network traffic equally. For example, everyone here knows how cable television works, correct? You pick a 'package' and you have access to those channels within the package you pay for. You don't have access to all channels and you can't pick and choose individual channels you'd like to pay for 'a la carte.' Network neutrality ensures this kind of scheme doesn't come to the internet. It keeps the internet free and open. Without net-neutrality, we're reaching the point where ISPs would likely start charging more depending on what websites you visit. This has already happened with Netflix -- ISPs started requiring that Netflix pay to ensure its customers have full access to Netflix.

Let's say you pay $60/mo for 250gbs of data at a speed of 50mbps. It means that no matter what do on the internet, you are able to fully use the speed/data that you pay for. It means that your ISP can't charge you more or throttle your speed (slow it way down) just because you visit a webpage that you don't pay additional money for.

That's what net-neutrality is. It isn't regulation of the internet. It's regulating providers to ensure that your provider doesn't regulate the internet.

[SicEmBaylor]

i'm confused by some of the language.

i have a bad feeling about this.

Which part? I haven't read the entire ruling, so admittedly I'm a little apprehensive about what else may have been thrown in there.

[yermom]

i don't really want my internet access to be like my other "utilities". they are even more of a monopoly that my internet access, and the extra fees and costs on top of actual usage don't sound like a model i'd like to see

so the comparison and classification change is a bit scary, to me anyway.

even the comparison to something like a landline doesn't sound pleasant. maybe i'm a cynic, but this sounds like one of those briar patch sorta things, like healthcare seems to have been

[SicEmBaylor]

i don't really want my internet access to be like my other "utilities". they are even more of a monopoly that my internet access, and the extra fees and costs on top of actual usage don't sound like a model i'd like to see

so the comparison and classification change is a bit scary, to me anyway.

even the comparison to something like a landline doesn't sound pleasant. maybe i'm a cynic, but this sounds like one of those briar patch sorta things, like healthcare seems to have been

Yeah, I agree with you insofar as classifying telecoms as a Title II utility.

[dwarthog]

The simplest way to explain net-neutrality is thusly:

It requires your ISP to treat all of your network traffic equally. For example, everyone here knows how cable television works, correct? You pick a 'package' and you have access to those channels within the package you pay for. You don't have access to all channels and you can't pick and choose individual channels you'd like to pay for 'a la carte.' Network neutrality ensures this kind of scheme doesn't come to the internet. It keeps the internet free and open. Without net-neutrality, we're reaching the point where ISPs would likely start charging more depending on what websites you visit. This has already happened with Netflix -- ISPs started requiring that Netflix pay to ensure its customers have full access to Netflix.

Let's say you pay $60/mo for 250gbs of data at a speed of 50mbps. It means that no matter what do on the internet, you are able to fully use the speed/data that you pay for. It means that your ISP can't charge you more or throttle your speed (slow it way down) just because you visit a webpage that you don't pay additional money for.

That's what net-neutrality is. It isn't regulation of the internet. It's regulating providers to ensure that your provider doesn't regulate the internet.

Using your example numbers, those are probably "sales numbers", (pick any numbers), which boast of a best possible scenario with regards to the performance of your connection.

Ultimately what will happen, no doubt after a bunch of geeks/nerds/wingnuts drive the various ISP's crazy with constant calls they arent' getting their "contracted" throughput, is that everyone will see their connections throttled such that whatever number is given is exactly what you'll get. There isn't unlimited bandwidth on the other side of the connections that people use to access the internet. It requires huge investments in technology and infrastructure to provide the resources being used.

This is probably a case where we'll see costs escalate or services diminished to some degree. Most likely a combination of both.

[East Coast Bias]

I believe the "throttling down" of internet speed by the provider happens a lot in our area. We know already that internet speeds are significantly faster in Europe, and why is that?maybe this will keep the providers from charging more for faster speeds?

[SoonerorLater]

Net neutrality sounds good and it really is, however this is one where the devil will be in the details. I haven't read the ruling but the thing that stands out in the Gov has now shoved their foot in the door and will become involved in the regulation of the internet. Think new and innovative taxes.

Both sides of this debate had valid points. My main regret in all of this is that remaining status quo was never going to be an option. It was just a matter of which sorry bastard was going to win the mud wrestling contest.

[dwarthog]

Net neutrality sounds good and it really is, however this is one where the devil will be in the details. I haven't read the ruling but the thing that stands out in the Gov has now shoved their foot in the door and will become involved in the regulation of the internet. Think new and innovative taxes.

Both sides of this debate had valid points. My main regret in all of this is that remaining status quo was never going to be an option. It was just a matter of which sorry bastard was going to win the mud wrestling contest.

Net neutrality was nothing more than a Trojan horse.

Anything a majority of Dems favor is something to be avoided like the plague.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thats what scares me about, YOU being the only one who says they really understand this crap.:devilish:Supposedly, it's a 300 plus page law, that only a few people in the govt. have seen. and was illegally passed. Should have been by Congress instead of the SEC.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i don't really want my internet access to be like my other "utilities". they are even more of a monopoly that my internet access, and the extra fees and costs on top of actual usage don't sound like a model i'd like to see

so the comparison and classification change is a bit scary, to me anyway.

even the comparison to something like a landline doesn't sound pleasant. maybe i'm a cynic, but this sounds like one of those briar patch sorta things, like healthcare seems to have beenexcept, not validated by congressional vote.

[Soonerjeepman]

Supposedly, it's a 300 plus page law, that only a few people in the govt. have seen. and was illegally passed. Should have been by Congress instead of the SEC.

the catch phrase of the last 6 years....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the catch phrase of the last 6 years....ie comes as no surprise?