Originally Posted By Mr X So what just happened? Something to do with Obama and the FCC, I gather. I must admit, I don't really understand this issue too much, but it seems pretty clear cut - big corporations want to control it, which would make the internet suck for the rest of us. That's my take, anyway. As usual, a small but vocal cadre of my right winger friends are pissed off and bitching about it on facebook, though even they can't seem to articulate why except "because Obama". What's the flip side here? Am I missing something?
Originally Posted By SuperDry I think you pretty much have it. Some of these "big corporations" are claiming that by requiring neutrality, they'll be denied the extra revenue they otherwise could have received, and as a result, won't be able to afford to invest as much infrastructure, resulting in slower/poorer service in some cases. While there is *some* amount of truth in that, it's not as if they want the extra revenue in order to pour it all back into making things better for the user: the vast majority of extra revenue would be used to line their own pockets, rather than passed on to the end user in the form of better service. Another argument against net neutrality is more philosophical: it's more government regulation, and against the free market. Of course, these arguments when put forth by a utility are always very interesting: the "free market" they talk about, where they're allowed to go about their business unfettered, inevitably results in *higher* prices and *less* choice to the consumer, because the utility will be able to act freely to block competition at every possible turn. <<< As usual, a small but vocal cadre of my right winger friends are pissed off and bitching about it on facebook, though even they can't seem to articulate why except "because Obama". >>> That, and their radios told them it was a bad idea, cherry-picking obscure examples put forth by the utility lobby as to how it will be bad.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/08/net-neutrality-regulations-will-harm-internet-consumers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf02262015netneturality">http://dailysignal.com/2014/12...turality</a> A link I was directed to. Not even seeing the obscure examples in here, although I did find it amusing they claim Sprint is a spunky little up & comer fighting the good fight against the big boys (maybe they are, I dunno...a distant 3rd sounds small-ish I suppose).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Some conservatives get it, and even blast one of their darlings when he shows that he doesn't: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/1344716/-After-nonsensical-comments-on-Net-Neutrality-conservatives-rage-against-Ted-Cruz?detail=email">http://m.dailykos.com/story/20...il=email</a>
Originally Posted By Donny I think the Internet is a utility and does need to be regulated by the federal government.
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't think people realize just how essential net neutrality is. We hear the "fast lane/slow lane" example all the time, but people need to appreciate just how badly things could go without it. Imagine you have Comcast as your ISP. You want to watch "Friends" on Netflix. You fire up Netflix but you get a message on your browser: "We're sorry, Netflix is a premium service. Please call 1-800-Scru-You to upgrade." Or, imagine the same scenario, but every time you type in www.netflix.com, or you even select it from your bookmarks or browser history, you are redirected to NBC's (owned by Comcast) craptacular streaming video website. Imagine you go to visit LP, but it turns out Disney has paid Comcast to redirect any traffic from LP or MousePlanet or Miceage to www.disneyland.com. In short, you assume that because you type in a web address or go to visit a website, that it will magically happen. You assume this because we've had de facto net neutrality since the beginning of the internet. But without it, there is nothing stopping your ISP from doing whatever it wants, including passing you through ads before directing you to the site you want, slowing down speeds for mom and pop websites but speeding them up for big companies that can afford to pay up, and so on.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd add, the free market types insist that the scenarios I lay out will be corrected by the market and competition. This is, as usual, fantasy. About 80% of Americans get their internet from 3-4 (I forget the exact figures) companies. Competition in ISPs is a myth. There is no robust free market that allows me to go select from five or six different service providers in my area. I imagine most of us are in the same boat.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Would this mean the ISP's could increase advertising on the internet to a level similar to cable television? That would be disastrous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think the Internet is a utility and does need to be regulated by the federal government.> But all other utilities ARE regulated. This is because they are considered basics (electricity, water, phone, now internet), and thus must meet certain minimum standards. All but water we could live without, but they are still considered basics for modern life. You have inadvertently made the case FOR at least a certain level of regulation. It doesn't mean these companies can't make money (ask Con Edison), it doesn't mean they're going to face anything onerous. It just means they have to meet certain minimum standards; standards that, as ecdc says, we've long enjoyed and taken for granted, but would really really be angry about if they disappeared. And without net neutrality, they could.
Originally Posted By ecdc Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think you're misreading Donny and adding a "not" to his sentence that isn't there. He said >>I think the Internet is a utility and does need to be...<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Here's what I meant and how I read him: he thinks that since the internet is a utility, the ISP's don't need to be regulated. I'm saying that since the internet is a utility, that's exactly the reason they DO need to be regulated, like every other utility is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Really? Because I thought he was taking a Ted Cruz like attitude (see post #4). He said he didn't think the Internet needed government regulation. And net neutrality is regulation. Pretty low level stuff, but regulations guaranteeing equality of access. So I don't think he agrees with us, but perhaps he can let us know.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh crap. I now see that I did indeed insert a "not" into his post in my mind. My bad! I don't know how I missed that that badly, even when it was pointed out to me. Thanks, guys.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Was the Internet of the last 20 years broken? Did it not work, or evolve quickly enough, or not grow fast enough? It suddenly needs government bureaucrats to saddle it with regulations drafted in the 1930's and Washington DC overlords in ill-fitting suits to manage it? I've been using the Internet daily since 1996-ish, and watched it evolve beautifully. I'm not convinced a government entity could have done it any better.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 TP, all this is about is government instituting "even playing field" regulations and actually insuring that the internet will continue to function AS we know and love it. Without net neutrality we could easily see "some net customers are more equal than others." ecdc explained it well in #6. We've had de facto net neutrality since the beginning, but some ISP's want to end that. If you like things as they are, you WANT net neutrality.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<We've had de facto net neutrality since the beginning, but some ISP's want to end that.>> Bingo. It's all about pay-to-play. No one should be held hostage to the business whims and political preferences of the ISP executives when there is virtually zero competition amongst providers. Net consumers are at the mercy of the bandwidth overlords, which is why net neutrality is absolutely vital and must be guaranteed. The 21st century has divorced itself from the 20th century mostly because of the internet. International commerce, exchange of information, the ability to stay abreast of a rapidly changing world are mostly because of our relatively easy access to an unfettered and unrestricted (for the most part) world wide web. Without net neutrality, our online communications would morph into the censored quagmire that Chinese citizens contend with. Why would anyone but the profit mongers advocating its removal ever be in favor of such a raw deal?
Originally Posted By doombuggy "You want to watch "Friends" on Netflix. You fire up Netflix but you get a message on your browser: "We're sorry, Netflix is a premium service" Until last year Microsoft was doing this exact thing with Xbox and why I never bought one.
