Net Neutrality...

[g0lden3agle]

Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)

This is the root of the support for net neutrality.

This comment is why we can't have nice things on this board.

[warriorchick]

Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)

This is the root of the support for net neutrality.

Generalize much?

[Jockey]

Someone who is as socially progressive as you claim to be should know that trying to insult someone by calling them a woman is offensive.

You're right. I apologize.

I was actually trying to compare him to a little girl rather than a woman, but that is almost as bad. Gender should not have entered into it. I should have used the term "child" instead.

PC rocks

 

[MerrittsMustache]

You're right. I apologize.

I was actually trying to compare him to a little girl rather than a women, but that is almost as bad. Gender should not have entered into it. I should have used the term "child" instead.

PC rocks

I have 4 children ages 2-8, plus several young nieces and nephews and I'm deeply offended that you'd put them in the same category as chicos!

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)

This is the root of the support for net neutrality.

This is absurd, even for you.

[mu03eng]

The irony of this is that both sides of the "fight" ISP and Content Providers are inoculated against wherever this lands (Net Neutral or not Neutral). Netflix has deals in place with ISPs so that they won't be throttled should Net Neutrality be nixed as do other major content providers. This is really about creating a digital moat for all the current major corporations playing in this space.

The key to "solving" this problem is the pipes, he/she who owns the pipes owns the internet. Until the internet infrastructure is some sort of public utility or private/public hybrid the ISPs will dictate the rules and will vertically integrate with content providers(or sign throttling deals to the same effect) which will have the effect of killing competition and significantly reduce the ability to enter that market.

Roads/Interstate is the perfect analogy.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is absurd, even for you.

It probably is ...

But the larger point is correct.  Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video.  If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.

[Tugg Speedman]

The irony of this is that both sides of the "fight" ISP and Content Providers are inoculated against wherever this lands (Net Neutral or not Neutral). Netflix has deals in place with ISPs so that they won't be throttled should Net Neutrality be nixed as do other major content providers. This is really about creating a digital moat for all the current major corporations playing in this space.

The key to "solving" this problem is the pipes, he/she who owns the pipes owns the internet. Until the internet infrastructure is some sort of public utility or private/public hybrid the ISPs will dictate the rules and will vertically integrate with content providers(or sign throttling deals to the same effect) which will have the effect of killing competition and significantly reduce the ability to enter that market.

Roads/Interstate is the perfect analogy.

Highlighted is correct and is the problem/danger.  Thinking net access is like interstate highways is a terrible way to go.

Once the technology stabilizes and does not change, then it can be a utility.  What you assume is the "pipe" is a settled technology and once it is "laid (to keep with the analogy) it will never change.  Well, it is already changing.  The current "pipes" will be obsolete when 5G and 6G come out (over the air gigabit speeds).  We will all go wireless.

If we make net access a utility, it will never change, and they will make it illegal to change (see the old AT&T that stifled competition and how much was unleashed when it was broken up in 1984). 

Nothing is settled with internet access.  It is far from being a utility and it should not be treated as such.  It is still a rapidly evolving technology.

Make is a utility and they will tax 5G and 6G to "pay for" pipes no one wants anymore. 

See mobile broadband speeds, we subsidize and promote the dead technology of copper wired landlines which have lead to the US ranked 28th in the world for mobile broadband speeds, Estonia, Kenya, Egypt, and Greece are ahead of us.

http://time.com/money/4808996/fastest-internet-countries-mobile-broadband/

This is what happens when things become a utility.

[jesmu84]

It probably is ...

But the larger point is correct.  Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video.  If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.

Not at all about ISPs deciding which content/sites I can access? (Non-streaming)

[Tugg Speedman]

Not at all about ISPs deciding which content/sites I can access? (Non-streaming)

then you don't understand net neutrality

[jesmu84]

then you don't understand net neutrality

Lol. If you don't think that's what they would try, I'll refer you to my previous post outlining what they have tried already.

[Hards Alumni]

The current pricing is unfair.  Why not allow for a "non-streaming" option for access?  This takes so little bandwidth it is could be free.  What not allow for ad-supported access at a lower cost?  Net Neutrality will not allow this. (Right now, Net providers can charge for differing speeds, not differing access.  But, if you understand MIPS, most way overpay for fast access they do not need.  Eventually, they will understand this and this way of pricing will get more efficient).

Wrong.  AOL dial up still has 2.1 million monthly subscribers.  So don't tell me that people are overpaying for fast access they do not need.

I think the fundamental reason you don't agree with Net Neutrality is because you simply don't understand it.  There is no cheaper version of bandwidth.  What you seem to think is that a certain amount of bandwidth costs a certain amount of money for ISPs.  It doesn't.  The only thing that costs money is laying new fiber or replacing old fiber. 

If you don't like any of this, pay more and not deal with it?

Pay more than $60ish per month for something all of our tax dollars have already helped to pay for?  I'm not saying I shouldn't be charged for using the Internet, I should, obviously.  What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be up to my ISP to decide what I can and can't do with the service.  They shouldn't be able to censor what they choose to censor.  They shouldn't be able throttle how fast I can access different websites without my knowledge.

Lastly, this conversation assumes that net access is a done and stable technology.  Hards diatribe has this as its assumption ... just lay the fiber and you're done. This is a utility type of thinking, just lay the pipes and water access is done, same as it has been for 2,000 years.

But net access is not "done," a lot of R&D and innovation is to come.  Net neutrality discourages this innovation.

I never said that, but I'm sure that was a pretty easy Straw Man to knock down. 

What I said is that the internet infrastructure is akin to the interstate highway system.  Something we've all paid for, which needs constant maintenance. 

I think if you actually educated yourself in the subject you'd probably be FOR net neutrality.  Instead you seem to be having a knee jerk reaction against it.. are you for free speech, no government subsidies for private companies, and free market economics?

Then you're FOR net neutrality.  The ONLY people who are against it are people affiliated with telecoms... stock holders, employees (Chicos is one), or their rubes.

[GB Warrior]

It probably is ...

But the larger point is correct.  Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video.  If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.

It probably is about heavy bandwidth usage... until it's not.

This is why smart, thoughtful regulations will always have a role in preventing unforeseen consequences. A well meaning regulation can have enough holes to be meaningless in 5-10 years time, too. And even if I thought the FCC was well-intentioned in removing guardrails off the ISPs as you are suggesting (I don't think that), removing regulations rather than creating smarter ones is even worse than writing bad regulations. Pandora's box. We lose all control over this solution from here on out. What starts with heavy bandwidth may not evolve that way.

And for the record, I'm not suggesting that we have this 100% right as it stands now. But it's better than letting technology run its course without having some input into where it takes us.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Here's my question, why is this a vote by the FCC and not by congress? Seems like it should have to be a bill that would be passed.

[Hards Alumni]

then you don't understand net neutrality

No.  Clearly you don't.

At all.  Turns out I was right.  You're not dealing with a real understanding of the topic at hand.

Let's make it really simple for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyzP5hejxI

[mu03eng]

Highlighted is correct and is the problem/danger.  Thinking net access is like interstate highways is a terrible way to go.

Once the technology stabilizes and does not change, then it can be a utility.  What you assume is the "pipe" is a settled technology and once it is "laid (to keep with the analogy) it will never change.  Well, it is already changing.  The current "pipes" will be obsolete when 5G and 6G come out (over the air gigabit speeds).  We will all go wireless.

If we make net access a utility, it will never change, and they will make it illegal to change (see the old AT&T that stifled competition and how much was unleashed when it was broken up in 1984). 

Nothing is settled with internet access.  It is far from being a utility and it should not be treated as such.  It is still a rapidly evolving technology.

Make is a utility and they will tax 5G and 6G to "pay for" pipes no one wants anymore. 

See mobile broadband speeds, we subsidize and promote the dead technology of copper wired landlines which have lead to the US ranked 28th in the world for mobile broadband speeds, Estonia, Kenya, Egypt, and Greece are ahead of us.

http://time.com/money/4808996/fastest-internet-countries-mobile-broadband/

This is what happens when things become a utility.

You realize road building is an evolving technology, both how it's done and what a road "is", correct?

And you know why those 3rd world countries are ahead of in wireless technology? Because they have to be. They can't support two infrastructures so they pick one and as a consequence they have limited redundancy and run everything through one "pipe". We have the luxury of two pipes that allows us to support two different uses cases appropriately (do both well, while these countries you speak of don't do either that great)

[mu03eng]

Here's my question, why is this a vote by the FCC and not by congress? Seems like it should have to be a bill that would be passed.

Same reasons that EPA controls what is and isn't pollution or the SEC has final say on Bitcoin regulations, etc. Bureaucracies are a helluva thing.

[jesmu84]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[jesmu84]

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

[#UnleashSean]

The 2020 democratic nominee for President, Mark Cuban is against net neutrality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/?utm_term=.33e7bda82908

The example above about electricity is way off.  You pay for the electricity you use, kilowatt/hours.  In other words, a variable cost.  So yes if you have a drill Press in the basement, you pay more for it than another person that only has a reading light in their basement.

If the net was the same, you’d pay by the downloaded gig.  You don’t, you pay a flat fee.

37% of All North American internet traffic is Netflix

https://www.google.com/amp/appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes/amp/

30% is porn

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3187682

So two-thirds of internet traffic is Netflix and porn streaming.

It clogs everything for everyone else.  You should pay more to jack off so everyone else can have a better online experience.

There is no "clog" in the bandwidth. Only ISP artifically created ones. ROFL you're dumb or ignorant.

[#UnleashSean]

The current pricing is unfair.  Why not allow for a "non-streaming" option for access?  This takes so little bandwidth it is could be free.  What not allow for ad-supported access at a lower cost?  Net Neutrality will not allow this. (Right now, Net providers can charge for differing speeds, not differing access.  But, if you understand MIPS, most way overpay for fast access they do not need.  Eventually, they will understand this and this way of pricing will get more efficient).

If you don't like any of this, pay more and not deal with it?

Lastly, this conversation assumes that net access is a done and stable technology.  Hards diatribe has this as its assumption ... just lay the fiber and you're done. This is a utility type of thinking, just lay the pipes and water access is done, same as it has been for 2,000 years.

But net access is not "done," a lot of R&D and innovation is to come.  Net neutrality discourages this innovation.

This literally already exists. How ignorant are you? lol

[#UnleashSean]

then you don't understand net neutrality

After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. 

[MU82]

After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. 

Smuggles will NEVER admit this. Been reading his stuff for years; when he's wrong he never apologizes or admits it ... he just leaves the thread never to be heard from there again. Then starts a new thread. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Pakuni]

Smuggles will NEVER admit this. Been reading his stuff for years; when he's wrong he never apologizes or admits it ... he just leaves the thread never to be heard from there again. Then starts a new thread. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Don't worry, there will be a few oversized charts coming soon to explain why we're all wrong.
Also, infowars hyperlinks.

[mu03eng]

After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. 

1.21 probably: