Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:07 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
The idea is admirable. The application will be horrific.
Huh? In the early days of the internet, meaning until like 2003, the internet being anything other than net neutral was impossible. The foundation of the internet was net neutrality. Are ISPs running deep packet inspection or not? Seems pretty simple. Don't let them discriminate data.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:10 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Isn't net neutrality becoming law essentially making this impossible? All data must be treated equally...
Only for private ISPs. There is nothing in it preventing the FCC, a government run bureau, from doing it.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:12 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
Did you read that in the undisclosed document?
No. But did the people claiming that the exact opposite of net neutrality will happen read it? I just don't get where the claims that conservative websites will be discriminated against is coming from, when NOT discriminating data is the sole intent behind net neutrality. Or better yet, why they think if we don't have net neutrality laws, what's stopping those website from being attacked already? The free market? The liberals shouldn't be able to discriminate against conservatives and without net neutrality they can do it all they want. I get being suspicious of the government but I need someone to provide me a bit of context here because I'm crazy confused. I heard Rush Limbaugh yesterday talk about his anti-net neutrality stance and I was shocked. I usually like what Rush has to say and he was just feeding the opposite of reality in my opinion. Again, I am not an IT guy, but from everything I understand I don't get where the accusations in this thread are coming from.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:14 pm to PrivatePublic
I find the whole discussion interesting.
I sell and install packet shapers and schools and universities have been rate limiting for years and years. It's interesting that government entities have been doing this and people are just people realizing that the fed gov doing this is bad.
I'm torn... Net Neutrality in and of itself is a good thing, but what was passed today wasn't Net Neutrality. It's the government saying "no let us run it, we promise we'll keep it legit"
I sell and install packet shapers and schools and universities have been rate limiting for years and years. It's interesting that government entities have been doing this and people are just people realizing that the fed gov doing this is bad.
I'm torn... Net Neutrality in and of itself is a good thing, but what was passed today wasn't Net Neutrality. It's the government saying "no let us run it, we promise we'll keep it legit"
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:14 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Didn't quote this earlier, but what do you mean by this? How is that going to happen?
The tax part would be similar to taxing utilities, like currently under title II.
They would tax usage..for example 1cent per megabyte of internet used. Most likely taxed on the ISP, costs passed on to the consumer.
WIth content, now that the FCC has their regulatory hands in the internet, they could simply set a list of guidelines for a website to adhere too, and any new sites must be "approved" before launching.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:16 pm to deltaland
quote:
Only for private ISPs. There is nothing in it preventing the FCC, a government run bureau, from doing it.
What's stopping private ISPs from doing it without net neutrality? Comcast already throttled Netflix to shake them down for more money, so why would anyone want that?
And where are you reading that under net neutrality the government can treat data differently? I haven't seen that at all. How would that not violate freedom of speech?
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:19 pm to deltaland
quote:
The tax part would be similar to taxing utilities, like currently under title II.
How? The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access. And they have said they won't enforce any Title II price controls.
quote:
They would tax usage..for example 1cent per megabyte of internet used. Most likely taxed on the ISP, costs passed on to the consumer
Well all of that is currently illegal even under the newly passed law, and what does that have to do with treating content equally?
quote:
WIth content, now that the FCC has their regulatory hands in the internet, they could simply set a list of guidelines for a website to adhere too, and any new sites must be "approved" before launching.
What? That's not true at all.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:21 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
What's stopping private ISPs from doing it without net neutrality? Comcast already throttled Netflix to shake them down for more money, so why would anyone want that?
I agee and I'm fine with Gov't addressing this single issue. But addressing this issue doesn't take 320 pages of regulation..there's no telling what else is hidden in there. This is just the 1 part that is parroted by the media to garner support.
quote:
I haven't seen that at all. How would that not violate freedom of speech?
Oh they'll come up with something...like porn sites are too easily accessed by children. They'll label certain political blogs/sites as "extremist" and use some BS from the Patriot Act to defend their deleting of the site.
Trust me, way more bad will come of the FCC regulating internet than good.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:23 pm to TeLeFaWx
You are so unbelievably full of crap.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:27 pm to deltaland
quote:
I agee and I'm fine with Gov't addressing this single issue
Good.
quote:
But addressing this issue doesn't take 320 pages of regulation..there's no telling what else is hidden in there. This is just the 1 part that is parroted by the media to garner support.
I can't just assume the worst. You might very well be right, but how can I assume that laws enforcing the principle the internet was built on are malicious? You might very well be right, but at this point, I can't say that.
quote:
Oh they'll come up with something...like porn sites are too easily accessed by children.
So I don't get this. There are already illegal websites that the government goes after people for using.
quote:
They'll label certain political blogs/sites as "extremist" and use some BS from the Patriot Act to defend their deleting of the site.
That violates far too many laws, and any attempt to do that would immediately be met with lawsuits. I think this is an overreaction.
quote:
Trust me, way more bad will come of the FCC regulating internet than good.
I'm pro-small government but the way the telecom giants were heading, net neutrality was necessary to be re-enacted, IMO. The implementation might be up for debate, but net neutrality is important, and the government are the people that make the laws and enforce them. I hate the government sometimes, but any anti-profit control policy has to be implemented by them.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:28 pm to 3nOut
quote:
You are so unbelievably full of crap.
What did I do to upset you? And what am I saying that is full of crap? I would appreciate some context.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 8:27 am to PrivatePublic
Bracing myself for the Department of the Internet and some more taxes.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 8:29 am to BoulderReb
quote:
Department of the Internet
All your base are belong to us.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 8:48 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
higher cost, slower performance and more outages, yes?
You forgot less competition. Otherwise, solid list.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 8:52 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Comcast already throttled Netflix to shake them down for more money, so why would anyone want that?
Is that like when the SEC demanded a certain amount from Comcast to have their content carried by them? If Comcast charges Netflix too much, Netflix just doesn't go on Comcast. They obviously crunched the numbers and decided it was worth it.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 8:53 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:20 am to the808bass
I feel like the solution is to get individual users to pay more for the "fast lanes" if they want them. All charging providers will do is make my Netflix fees go up, even though I personally don't care to have the fast lane. If a consumer needs to steam that much content at peak hours, they should pay for it.
It's like tiered Internet packages I suppose, but those who want more faster pay more for it in the real world. The same should apply here.
Sidebar: ISPs have no one to blame but their shite customer service to blame for this. No one would be that upset about Internet speaks and costs if they were giant assholes to deal with.
To be fair, my ISP (Cox) is a pain in the arse to deal with but generally nice and helpful.
It's like tiered Internet packages I suppose, but those who want more faster pay more for it in the real world. The same should apply here.
Sidebar: ISPs have no one to blame but their shite customer service to blame for this. No one would be that upset about Internet speaks and costs if they were giant assholes to deal with.
To be fair, my ISP (Cox) is a pain in the arse to deal with but generally nice and helpful.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:22 am to Duke
quote:
I feel like the solution is to get individual users to pay more for the "fast lanes" if they want them. All charging providers will do is make my Netflix fees go up, even though I personally don't care to have the fast lane. If a consumer needs to steam that much content at peak hours, they should pay for it.
Couldn't Charter/Comcast etc have done this on their own?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:24 am to the808bass
I don't see why they couldn't have, but I'm not familiar with the regulations they have to play by.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:36 am to PrivatePublic
Just as with Obamacare, you can bet that businesses will respond in a way that reduces the impact of government control which will likely be a "net" negative for consumers. And yes, the pun was intended. 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News