Net Neutrality is a regulation that ensures speed of information flow, not the opposite. It's more like a rule that forces cops to allow protestors to protest. It's not infringing on the freedom of speech.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Net Neutrality is a regulation that ensures speed of information flow, not the opposite. It's more like a rule that forces cops to allow protestors to protest. It's not infringing on the freedom of speech.
My company is not a company...my company is a government...the one that is setting up this system for you...maybe you should listen.
I feel like the author saying this is a bad idea, but no one cares...Obama said it so it must be good. I'm done replying.
Yeah, it has. Until a couple of years ago, the FCC ruled on net neutrality without forcing ISPs to become utilities, and the internet backbone was built on the idea that no one could act as gatekeeper for certain types of data. It has been the foundation of the Internet As We Know it.
...until now.
My take is the free market will eventually come up with an innovation that will bypass any government regulation.
As I mentioned in other threads, the Internet is going on a fifty year old technology with IP packets restricted to the word length if instruction sets in old routers.
Eventually the Internet as we know it will be replaced and proprietary networks will go away as a brand.
IMO, this whole Net Neutrality vote is moot.
Where don't monopoly conditions exist?
Here is an adult Youtube that says all that need be said wrt ISP's and the conditions facing too many in the U.S. . . . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
This is apples and oranges.
Who you work for, they have their rules on content in the work place. Whether it be the government (with whom I also work with their networks), or a company, it matters not. These rules/regulations come in the form of filters that are applied to ensure the security of the workplace network, and the appropriateness of the work force. Much like you can't bring a gun into work, you can't download a virus. Much like you can't slap your co-worker's ass, you can't browse porn. This is all very logical, and normal in any part of the developed world.
Net Neutrality is a consumer protection on the opposite end of the spectrum, and completely unrelated to how your workplace internet is governed. Net Neutrality protects your rights, kind of like the Constitution protecting your rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Net Neutrality protects you from Comcast, Verizon, etc telling you what data you can and cannot get at full speed, or at all (excluding illegal content, of course). Net Neutrality is a protection for consumers.
This has nothing to do with Obama, and you know it. Stop being disingenuous, it just makes you look petty.
They can control their network speed as a whole, usually to throttle connections during congestion. But they can't give preference to certain types of information.
That's the difference.
They can't give preference to anything.
Like, say you're a republican, and your ISP is run by a democrat. During the presidential election, your ISP only decides to let the democratic candidate websites through for free for anyone to watch, while you have to pay an extra fee to watch the republican candidates.
...is that free speech? Does free speech only exist for those who control how the information gets to you?
Ok, one last:
Net neutrality is massive like ACA. It regulates every aspect of the internet. You are just highlighting one point and denying the others exist.
This is similar to people saying Death Boards don't exist in the ACA and the ACA will reduce the cost of health care by $2500 for every household. Now it's more public knowledge that a board will decide if you get certain treatments like Cancer treatments based on age, job, and contributions to society. If you don't meet that standard, you're on your own. And how's that $2,500 cost reduction working for you? Some it is true, some it isn't.
yeah...... the private sector is the problem here in THIS case. They want NO competition. Period.
----------
Question.... What did that board do differently than insurance before ACA? Did they not decide what they would cover for their customers?
It's a difference of before and after...with pervious insurance you could get cancer treatment if you came down with it and your plan covers it. Now, even if your plan covers it, a board has to still decide if it will honor that treatment coverage.
That is how the newspapers have been running for over a century. That is the case history to be brought up. Freedom of Speech includes the right to abstain from communication if you own the communication equipment.
While most Freedom of Speech cases involve suppression of speech, there are many cases that include forced compulsory speech by the government. This was the case during the FDR New Deal and the National Recovery Act (a socialist program if there ever was one.)
Wow. Ok, yeah, when you are this wrong on basic facts, there's no having a discussion. You "win", heh.
Try competing against government agencies they are by far more monopolistic than any private venture.
For decades HHS has been trying to shut down private charity and welfare groups like Catholic Charities since they don't play by the current secular programs enforced by the Fed.
So why should we give even more power and more control to the entity that created the problem in the first place? One intervention will always create problems that "require" another intervention, because central planning does not take into account the almost infinite complexity of economic activity and thus retards it.
Because the others don't exist.
DEAAATTHHH PANNNEELLLLS!
I hate to tell you this, man, but insurance companies have been weighing the cost of your life LONG before the ACA came into play. In 2001, a friend of mine got into a bad car accident. It cost about 2-4 million dollars to put him through the hospital. His family went through three death panels. He only had a slim chance to live, and their insurance company wanted to pull the plug.
The ACA has done nothing to change that, nor have they added anything that makes requirements even more strict. In fact, quite the opposite, since the ACA requires insurance companies insure those with preexisting conditions.
The whole death panel thing was nothing but a political scare tactic meant to turn ignorant people against the ACA.
----------
As I said earlier, we wouldn't need net neutrality if there were more competition among ISPs.
But since there's not, and it doesn't look like things are gonna change there anytime soon, we might as well settle for the next best thing. Forcing ISPs not to throttle my access to certain sites because they want me to pay them more just because they can.
You would be wrong. The aircraft is not regulated; the AIRSPACE is. In fact, it is regulated to prevent people and entities from doing various illegal and erroneous activities over buildings, homes, and places/sites in this country.
Your analogy is egregiously incorrect.
BL.
Write up a business plan to give the customer more choices and profit from it and get funding. Quit being a victim.
And this is the point where others say that no...what is in the bill does not exist...can't win that argument against that. Have a good night.
There's a difference there. ISPs aren't newspapers. They're free to host their own website that offers up the owners opinions, but they can't restrict other websites because they run one of their own. They act first and foremost as a gateway to information, to a hundred thousand newspapers, not as a portal to their own opinion pieces.
----------
How? As I said earlier, all the big ISPs have exclusive rights to the poles in any given area. No one can just go out and start an ISP of their own to compete.
Usually what people do in this situation is provide proof. Show me where it says something about blacklists and whitelists in the Net Neutrality bill. Don't just scoff and run.
While you can throw as much rhetoric as you want here, you need to look at case history.
Ironically, the EFF has been vanguard keeping government interference out of the owners and operators of computing equipment. While this may seem all nice and fluffy, what is keeping from this ruling forcing private ISPs from relaying government propaganda?
My take is this ruling is moot, the ISPs will go to court. Use the last thirty years of Internet case history and whatever is voted on will never effect a single packet of information flowing on the net.
This should be a relatively cost free regulation. At worst they'll have a panel that might review network policies, but I have a feeling that panel is already in place.
----------
At it's core, Net Neutrality protects consumers from predatory practices of monopolies. It's that simple. I don't understand how anyone could be against it unless you're paid off by said monopolies.
But your solution is a case of government regulation begetting more government regulation. It becomes self-reinforcing because the only companies that eventually can cope with all the regulation are the big ones like Verizon and Comcast. As much as they are fighting this now, if it holds up, eventually they will turn their infrastructure into cash cows to be milked and protected through more regulatory barriers. After all, if they will get commodity returns, better to put up some more barriers to actual competition.
It's happening to banks, too. After all the old regulations couldn't prevent the last financial crisis, the government imposed a bunch of new regulations to try to solve the problem of "too big to fail." But what's actually happened is that the bigger banks have gotten even bigger. So when the next crisis hits, there will be that much more pressure for another rescue.