Net Neutrality — Obamacare for the Internet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    So Ted Cruz tweets ...

    ... and I wonder, is this really the next big Right v. Left battle?

    Could conservatives explain why net neutrality is such a bad thing?
     
  2. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    I am hoping that Cruz will march body forward with this position, only to later look around and realize that no one (except the lunatic fringe) is following him.
     
  3. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    Horse crap, net neutrality is mine and everyone elses rights as citizens of the world. No one owns the internet.
     
  4. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    But this is more about pricing isn't it?

    Nobody is saying Australia is denied the internet, just that U.S. customers could be throttled and prioritized according to who pays more.
     
  5. D.T. macrumors G3

    D.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Location:
    Vilano Beach, FL
    #6
    It’s about _not_ allowing the service provider to throttle, control, direct or filter your internet content based on their own agenda (that usually being money).

    The pipe they provide should be completely neutral, and unbiassed to what’s passing through it (the content, source, destination, domain, port, etc.)
     
  6. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    You start throttling the internet in the United States and you affect every consumer that is plugged into the internet globally.

    The internet is not an American play toy, internet pipes should be completely neutral, no one owns the internet no less American corporations.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    Only for awhile. If it's abused too heavily, everyone else will start building their own backbones around us.

    It happened with foreign corporations moving away from US based cloud services due to the NSA having unfettered access to any data stored on sovereign soil. Thinking we can be cut out of the loop entirely due to our ignorant laws isn't too far of a stretch.
     
  8. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Interesting.

    I need to Learn more about this issue.

    I would have thought it possible to restrict customers within a region without overtly affecting users outside that region.
     
  9. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    There aren't that many pipes that go through those places, particularly when your talking about major service providers trying to control what's going through their pipes in the same way as subscription cable services.

    Then we have to figure as Australians that 90% of our data traffic that doesn't leave through satellite or other means is piped through the east coast of the United States so we run the risk of coming out at your end and being caught up in the mess of all of this.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11

    Not at all. We already get raped by most ISPs. Why is my bill cheaper only if I have a phone from Cablevision. Seriously, if I cancel my $25 a month phone, my bill goes up by $10 more than if I had kept the phone.

    It's about access. Do you want ISPs determining which site gives you the best speeds to watch movies regardless of what you prefer? How about some small ISP deciding they don't want gay traffic over their pipes so they slow sites they deem gay to a crawl.

    On second thought, it is also about money. They want to be paid twice for the traffic - once by the sender and once by the receiver. They want the old US text model for Internet access. **** them!
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    The issue here also is that Obama would like the FCC to classify the major ISPs (TWC, Comcast, Frontier, CenturyLink, etc.) as a utility. That way they would not be able to set up these 'fast lanes' (such a horrid term) for certain content that they (the ISPs) prefer to be served faster to their customers.

    To the pro-Net Neutrality camp, they may have the advantage with this, because of two companies who have their hands in this issue: ATT and CenturyLink (Sprint). Telcos were already under the umbrella of the FCC, because they are utilities in and of themselves. Cable Companies, especially when the rules regarding this were in play, were on the outside of this issue, because they weren't as big then (mid-1970s) as they are today.

    Plus, with CenturyLink and ATT also being ISPs and already are classified as utilities, that provides the clout needed to show that Comcast, TWC, and others are the same. Unless they get out of the ISP game altogether, those against Net Neutrality will have a bit of a hill to climb.

    BL.
     
  12. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    What does one expect from the FCC when the FCC is pro Cable TV and run by an ex cable TV executive? Silly nonsense such as this :rolleyes:
     
  13. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #14
    Yup, but that's just an "at the moment" situation. If things get too out of hand, you Aussies can say screw it, our internet is too expensive as it is, and lay a pipeline over to India instead, giving you direct access to the European infrastructure.

    And if everyone else does the same, Europe will eventually end up being the central backbone of the internet, rather than us. This isn't something that'll happen anytime in the immediate future, but it could happen over time if we in the US don't make the right choices in how the internet is governed.

    We've already given everyone else an excuse with the NSA. Nixing Net Neutrality would only be one more straw in getting the rest of the world to bail out from relying too much on US comm technologies.
     
  14. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #15
    Brazil is doing that right now all thanks to the NSA with a new pipe coming out in Portugal.
     
  15. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Same with me. I bundle my internet, phone and TV with Suddenlink. One of my new pastimes is negotiating with their rep to reconfigure my bundle and try to figure out why my phone bill has anything to do with my internet. Funsies.

    I'm still waiting for someone on the right to defend Cruz or the Republican strategy of lining up against net neutrality.

    I'm sure it's a "free market" argument. But I would like to see who here is willing to take it up.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    I've commented on this before, so, I will keep it brief.

    There is, for the moment at least, plenty of competition among the "Tier-1" default-free providers that carry traffic from Los Angeles to New York &etc. Some of those providers also provide business-to-business services that, using one of several techniques, deliver some level of defined service among the various multiple sites that businesses usually have. Some of those techniques are not exactly "neutral", in that they prioritize traffic in output queues on congested links in some way to help achieve some kind of Service Level Agreement. In general, it does not make sense for the government to regulate this market, because it is already very competitive and efficient.

    You all, on the other hand, typically have one or two providers available to your home. Several of those last-mile providers make no bones about using their monopoly power to extract as much money from you and your chosen content providers as they can. This is where the problem is. I would hate to see regulation of this problem screw up the competitive core internet service providers, but, I also am appalled by how some last-mile providers behave, and talk, as if their customers are chained to their service.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    In principle I'm in favor of strict Net Neutrality. It has been one of the guiding principles of the ole Interwebs since the days when it was just University boxes talking to each other.

    But I'm a little concerned when I read that:

    Going forward, I'm a little concerned as to what that mean for other content providers and consumers.

    Netflix right now has about 28 million streaming subscribers. And I wonder what might happen to internet performance if that number, or the number of people using similar, competing services increases.
     
  18. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #19
    We face another internet crunch, but just like the last time we'll find a way to resolve it before it becomes an issue. There is much more data throughput capability in optical fibre cables than we could ever imagine and that's what we're working on.
     
  19. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #20
    Net neutrality means different things to different people. We'll have to wait for the actual legislation to see what the administration has in mind.

    If it simply requires equal access for all, fine. However, since this is Congress there will be thousands of exceptions, loopholes, and other variables put in to satisfy Big Telco. It's almost certain to be worse than what we have now.

    I have a great idea: meter the Internet. You pay by the byte. Just like your water and electric bills.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    They had that in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand in the early 90s to 2000. Gouged prices like you wouldn't believe, while we had a flat rate.

    AOL did the same thing, where they charged by the minute.

    BTW: in my area, we still have flat rates for water usage.

    BL.
     
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    No offense, but, this is not a great idea. Networks are not very analogous to water. Water can be stored almost indefinitely. Network links, on the other hand, cost virtually the same, whether usage is 0% or 100%. Network bandwidth*distance gets cheaper the longer the distance is. Whoever is paying for the link might as well use it at least up to the 30-40% level regardless-- there is zero marginal cost. Might as well use up all the bandwidth available.

    It makes much more sense to charge mostly by the size of the link, and, mostly, that is the way it is.

    Oh, and, don't worry about streaming video "using up all the bandwidth". Somebody already paid for a big pipe somewhere to get all the streaming video into the ISP's network.

    ----------

    Say, don't you live in the desert? A flat rate for water usage there is insane.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Partially. I'm split between Sacramento and Las Vegas. 80% NorCal, 20% Vegas, though that 20% may be getting less.

    BL.
     
  23. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #24
    We still do have it depending on your plan your on for excess data, and particularly if you're on cellular data. You should have seen the uproar when Facebook turned on videos by default, and then there's all the data usage people go through with KIK, Snapchat, etc...
     
  24. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    The Obama administration does want to make the internet more like an utility service. Same as water, gas, electric, and etc. But I don't see the internet being metered by bytes a viable solution and I doubt the FCC will force that direction.
     

Share This Page