Net Neutrality

[Valsuelm]

[Meshugger]

More info: http://time.com/101418/fcc-fast-lane-net-neutrality/

[samm]

Bad rap in the intro, but good and highly important content. They're right about the average user however, and this Wheeler guy with his "Open" internet claims will convince some others.

It's just another step into an online future that began looking very bleak with everyone on earth being treated as profitable data, more recently a suspect and now soon as member of a social class.

[Mor]

previous thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/52825-net-neutrality/

[Oerwinde]

[Mor]

^most meddlesome middlemen, huh ?! the idea that customers pay more for higher quality service isn't new e.g. postal service charges customers more to deliver time sensitive packages overnight than normal two/three days delivery, same goes for the internet the idea that business pay extra for guaranteed connectivity, QoS (security, support etc) is common practice.. even you pay for better speed\data packages.

 

Anyway, as before I see no problem what so ever with the new law, in fact IMO its a necessary and welcome step to ensure QoS, after all we passed the internet "porn phase", no ones pays for high bandwidth to watch HQ porn today the same infrastructure delivers internet\tv\phone\etc to our homes and to many business and we expect a certain QoS. ( At least it would be here, but since this is really a USA think all I can say from previous discussion is that the problem is really with your lack of competition in the infrastructure\internet provider market )

Edited May 25, 2014 by Mor

[Meshugger]

^Of course not. But that is not the issue. The issue is the control of information masked as a technological one. 

[Azdeus]

^most meddlesome middlemen, huh ?! the idea that customers pay more for higher quality service isn't new e.g. postal service charges customers more to deliver time sensitive packages overnight than normal two/three days delivery, same goes for the internet the idea that business pay extra for guaranteed connectivity, QoS (security, support etc) is common practice.. even you pay for better speed\data packages.

 

Anyway, as before I see no problem what so ever with the new law, in fact IMO its a necessary and welcome step to ensure QoS, after all we passed the internet "porn phase", no ones pays for high bandwidth to watch HQ porn today the same infrastructure delivers internet\tv\phone\etc to our homes and to many business and we expect a certain QoS. ( At least it would be here, but since this is really a USA think all I can say from previous discussion is that the problem is really with your lack of competition in the infrastructure\internet provider market )

 

I'm sure that you will have a problem when your ISP - that also happens to have a stake in a cable TV company - extorts money from Netflix/Youtube or you to provide more than 5kB/s of traffic to them on your 100Mbit line.

[kirottu]

[Elerond]

 

I would not like to be that government worker who has to read all those comments and revise them

[Rosbjerg]

Was about to post that, perfect haha

[ShadySands]

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html

Edited February 26, 2015 by ShadySands

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So my internet service providers can't discriminate sites I visit?

[Hurlshort]

People are cray cray.  

[Fighter]

I'm still kind of confused about what this is. Was this only going to affect America or everyone?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm still kind of confused about what this is. Was this only going to affect America or everyone?

Near as I can tell, it requires American ISPs to not discriminate against net traffic,.like slowing down speed to certain sites.

[Blarghagh]

So the FCC voted to make it a utility, right? So they kept net neutrality?

 

Because if so America is lucky and the rest of the world is less likely to to change it too.

Edited February 26, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[ShadySands]

I'm still kind of confused about what this is. Was this only going to affect America or everyone?

 

I don't think it has any direct effects internationally. Most of the global arguments I've seen are more about precedent and influencing other countries

Edited February 26, 2015 by ShadySands

[Guard Dog]

This is much ado about nothing at the moment but it can (and probably will) be a segue into more sinister things. My two biggest problems with it are 1) It is NOT needed. It is a solution in search of a problem. 2) It was done in secret, by an agency that is not accountable to anyone that refused to even talk to congress about it. That bit about tyranny might sound a little looney but there is more than a grain of truth in it.

[Guard Dog]

I LOVE Verzion's response to this pile of BS:

 

 

For those not familiar with old technology that is morse code. It was the preferred method of communication when the law that now governs internet traffic was written.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Guard Dog

[Valsuelm]

I LOVE Verzion's response to this pile of BS:

 

 

For those not familiar with old technology that is morse code. It was the preferred method of communication when the law that now governs internet traffic was written.

 

While I agree that the 'net neutrality' rules as adopted by the FCC is likely a giant pile of BS (I haven't yet had a chance to read the 300+ pages of new regulations, though I'll be amazingly and pleasantly surprised if they are anything but BS), Morse code wasn't the preferred method of communication between most people in the 1930s in the US. The telephone was, and had been for decades at that point. By the 1930s the telephone was in very wide use, and in fact had been in millions of homes prior to 1910. In the 1930s Morse code was primarily used by aviators, the military, and telegram services at the time. The latter in many ways being the precursor to the fax machine, and also something that the Average Joe need not know (if one wanted to send a telegram one generally wrote the note out in plain language and it would be translated into Morse by a professional telegrapher),

 

Morse code was invented in the 1830s, not the 1930s. Verizon is playing the propaganda game, and I guarantee you they are not on the side of good when it comes to the 'net neutrality' debate.

 

The Communications of 1934 that Verizon is referring to isn't near as archaic as they are attempting to portray. Much of what that act encompasses and states is very relevant today, much of it was actually repealed and updated in the 1990s, and there have been other communication laws and regulations implemented and repealed through the years since 1934. Note that I'm not defending the Communications Act of 1934, as like so much else that FDR's administration was responsible for it is very arguably a massive overreach of Federal powers in many ways. I'm just pointing out that Verizon in no way is representing the situation factually, fairly, or objectively. They have a lot of skin in the game. Billions of dollars worth of skin.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Didn't millions of people petition for net neutrality, while a bunch of big corporations spent millions trying to strike it down?  I get being concerned about big government, but I'm plenty concerned about the practices of Comcast as well.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Didn't millions of people petition for net neutrality, while a bunch of big corporations spent millions trying to strike it down?  I get being concerned about big government, but I'm plenty concerned about the practices of Comcast as well.

Those were all paid shills of the Zionist World League.

[Enoch]

Didn't millions of people petition for net neutrality, while a bunch of big corporations spent millions trying to strike it down?  I get being concerned about big government, but I'm plenty concerned about the practices of Comcast as well.

It wasn't just David v. Goliath-- more like David picking a side in a brawl between a bunch of Goliaths.  The ISP-types were against it, but the big companies on the content side were for neutrality. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm neutral on net neutrality. We'll see how it pans out.