Net Neutrality
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
I had never heard of this until your post, so I had to do a little Net Neutrality 101.
Bottom Line - if they win we end up paying the phone companies money for something we have been doing FOC since the start of the internet
An ISP treating all data in a neutral manner, whether it's a torrent file, an MP3, video chat, an e-mail , a Web page, or a YouTube video. When we get on the Internet, we assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like... watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging... anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.
What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Without the legal protection of Net Neutrality, users could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable. The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane. But the fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers.
What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Without the legal protection of Net Neutrality, users could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable. The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane. But the fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers.
It's #4. Net Neutrality is the de facto method for which the Internet has been run since day one. The FCC has been ensuring that it stays that way.
Look up "google net neutrality" and read the articles that also mention AT&T. AT&T got busted for treating rural phone numbers differently than other numbers, then screamed when Google Voice was doing the same.
Look up "google net neutrality" and read the articles that also mention AT&T.
AT&T got busted for treating rural phone numbers differently than other numbers, then screamed when Google Voice was doing the same.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Turtle:
Look at this way...........
If the FCC dissolved the Net Neutrality basis and let the Internet Providers themselves control what net "Services" they wished to provide to their customers, supply and demand would take over. Once that goes into effect, all it would take is 1 or 2 Internet Providers to monopolize what 80% of the internet users all over the world would want, thus sending our Internet usage costs through the roof.
"Net Neutrality" as it is today is what has kept my home high speed service, and my DSL service out here at my office, in the $30 or so a month price range.
Now let's say the FCC says to the Internet Providers "Have at it - Do what you wish". What do you think would happen then? Answer, just look at your Time Warner-Charter-Comcast-Dish Network-Direct TV "Bill", what all they supply you and do not supply you at the costs they are charging you, and you will see exactly what would happen if the FCC dissolved "Net Neutrality" when it comes to internet service.
Personally, I'm not ready to pay $180 a month for internet service if the FCC allowed a monopoly to take over what it is I am looking for in an internet service provider.
It's #4. Net Neutrality is the de facto method for which the Internet has been run since day one. The FCC has been ensuring that it stays that way.
Look up "google net neutrality" and read the articles that also mention AT&T.
Look at this way...........
If the FCC dissolved the Net Neutrality basis and let the Internet Providers themselves control what net "Services" they wished to provide to their customers, supply and demand would take over. Once that goes into effect, all it would take is 1 or 2 Internet Providers to monopolize what 80% of the internet users all over the world would want, thus sending our Internet usage costs through the roof.
"Net Neutrality" as it is today is what has kept my home high speed service, and my DSL service out here at my office, in the $30 or so a month price range.
Now let's say the FCC says to the Internet Providers "Have at it - Do what you wish". What do you think would happen then? Answer, just look at your Time Warner-Charter-Comcast-Dish Network-Direct TV "Bill", what all they supply you and do not supply you at the costs they are charging you, and you will see exactly what would happen if the FCC dissolved "Net Neutrality" when it comes to internet service.
Personally, I'm not ready to pay $180 a month for internet service if the FCC allowed a monopoly to take over what it is I am looking for in an internet service provider.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
It's #4. Net Neutrality is the de facto method for which the Internet has been run since day one. The FCC has been ensuring that it stays that way.
Look up "google net neutrality" and read the articles that also mention AT&T.
lol....Turtle, I am the one who started the poll, I know which is the right answer, I don't have to Google it. I am looking to see what others think about the issue.
Question: When submitting a poll, is there a way to have participants only answer the poll and not comment?
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Answer: Hopefully Not........
All that would do is to make it where other threads would have to be started so that replies can be made towards what said Poll is all about.
Don't want opinions brought forth with regards to your "Poll", then don't start the Poll at all. Know what I mean.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Easy killer.
All I'm asking is if the poll can stand alone without comments. It would be interesting to see what others thought without the influence of others. If anyone wanted to comment on "said poll" by starting their own thread, so be it.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
I had never heard of this until your post, so I had to do a little Net Neutrality 101.
Bottom Line - if they win we end up paying the phone companies money for something we have been doing FOC since the start of the internet
Pretty much it. Not bad, it only took you what, 1/2 hour to figure that out? Yet, there are some that will tell you it is something much worse.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
You'd be shocked to hear how many people believe the opposite of what you just posted. I've argued with them over and over, but they believe Net Neutrality means regulating the freedom out of the internet.
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
BBC News Dec 1
US regulators are set for a showdown over rules to ensure an open internet.
The rules are intended to prohibit phone and cable companies blocking or discriminating against internet traffic over their broadband networks.
Net neutrality was one of the Obama administrations top campaign pledges to the technology industry.
Today, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Julius Genachowski sent draft rules to its members.
Two Republican commissioners have already said they oppose the chairman's "reckless" proposal which they will be asked to vote on when the Commission meets on 21 December.
In a speech in Washington, Mr Genachowski said his rules were "consistent with President Obama's commitment to "keep the internet as it should be - open and free".
"It is the internet's openness and freedom - the ability to speak, innovate and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone's permission - that has enabled the internet's unparalleled success."
Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued comments criticising the chairman's move.
"This is a mistake," said Commissioner Baker.
"We do not have the authority to act."
The issue of net neutrality has been in limbo for months following a ruling earlier in the year when the courts said the FCC did not have the authority to penalise cable firm Comcast because it slowed some internet traffic going over its network.
Since then the Commission has been thrown into disarray over the best way to safeguard the future of an open web where all traffic is treated equally.
Mr Genachowski had in the summer proposed a so-called "third way" where he suggested reclassifying broadband under stricter regulations.
Phone and cable companies were critical and said this stricter reclassification of broadband would stifle innovation and investment. Technology companies however have argued that regulations are needed to keep the internet free of restrictions.
Search giant Google and telecom titan Verizon came up with a compromise in August where fixed line services would be treated differently to that of wireless. That proposal was not taken up.
Mr Genachowski has now abandoned the "third way" approach. Senior Commission officials now say they are confident the Chairman's agenda can proceed without reregulation and that they have a "legally sound approach" going forward that does not involve stricter regulation.
Despite the confidence of the Chairman and senior Commission officials that they have the legal authority under existing rules to move ahead, advocacy groups are not convinced.
"While we are pleased this issue is now on the (FCC's) agenda but we think the Chairman should have pushed through on his "third way" which would have provided a firmer legal foundation," said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge.
"This one will go to court. They all do and this is a gamble."
The Centre for Democracy and Technology's Leslie Harris called Mr Genachowski's move "a first step, but a critical one" but noted that "adopting these historic rules will not be the end of the internet neutrality debate, it will be just the end of the beginning".
Josh Silver of the public interest group Free Press said he believes Mr Genachowski should have gone further to secure the future of an open web.
"To achieve real net neutrality and preserve the level playing field that is the DNA of the internet, the FCC must do a lot better than offer failed proposals we have seen this year floated by big corporations or designed to win the unanimous consent of Congress."
Verizon has also welcomed the Chairman's move and said "the stated objective of this initiative - an open internet- is not an issue.
"The only issue is the extent to which the FCC should regulate in this area," said Tom Tauke, Verizon's vice president of public affairs, policy and communications.
"In this fast-moving marketplace, inappropriate regulation can be very harmful to consumers, companies and the ability of this industry to create jobs, provide new services, and be an engine for economic growth. That is why it is so important that policymakers get this right.
US regulators are set for a showdown over rules to ensure an open internet.
The rules are intended to prohibit phone and cable companies blocking or discriminating against internet traffic over their broadband networks.
Net neutrality was one of the Obama administrations top campaign pledges to the technology industry.
Today, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Julius Genachowski sent draft rules to its members.
Two Republican commissioners have already said they oppose the chairman's "reckless" proposal which they will be asked to vote on when the Commission meets on 21 December.
In a speech in Washington, Mr Genachowski said his rules were "consistent with President Obama's commitment to "keep the internet as it should be - open and free".
"It is the internet's openness and freedom - the ability to speak, innovate and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone's permission - that has enabled the internet's unparalleled success."
Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued comments criticising the chairman's move.
"This is a mistake," said Commissioner Baker.
"We do not have the authority to act."
The issue of net neutrality has been in limbo for months following a ruling earlier in the year when the courts said the FCC did not have the authority to penalise cable firm Comcast because it slowed some internet traffic going over its network.
Since then the Commission has been thrown into disarray over the best way to safeguard the future of an open web where all traffic is treated equally.
Mr Genachowski had in the summer proposed a so-called "third way" where he suggested reclassifying broadband under stricter regulations.
Phone and cable companies were critical and said this stricter reclassification of broadband would stifle innovation and investment. Technology companies however have argued that regulations are needed to keep the internet free of restrictions.
Search giant Google and telecom titan Verizon came up with a compromise in August where fixed line services would be treated differently to that of wireless. That proposal was not taken up.
Mr Genachowski has now abandoned the "third way" approach. Senior Commission officials now say they are confident the Chairman's agenda can proceed without reregulation and that they have a "legally sound approach" going forward that does not involve stricter regulation.
Despite the confidence of the Chairman and senior Commission officials that they have the legal authority under existing rules to move ahead, advocacy groups are not convinced.
"While we are pleased this issue is now on the (FCC's) agenda but we think the Chairman should have pushed through on his "third way" which would have provided a firmer legal foundation," said Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge.
"This one will go to court. They all do and this is a gamble."
The Centre for Democracy and Technology's Leslie Harris called Mr Genachowski's move "a first step, but a critical one" but noted that "adopting these historic rules will not be the end of the internet neutrality debate, it will be just the end of the beginning".
Josh Silver of the public interest group Free Press said he believes Mr Genachowski should have gone further to secure the future of an open web.
"To achieve real net neutrality and preserve the level playing field that is the DNA of the internet, the FCC must do a lot better than offer failed proposals we have seen this year floated by big corporations or designed to win the unanimous consent of Congress."
Verizon has also welcomed the Chairman's move and said "the stated objective of this initiative - an open internet- is not an issue.
"The only issue is the extent to which the FCC should regulate in this area," said Tom Tauke, Verizon's vice president of public affairs, policy and communications.
"In this fast-moving marketplace, inappropriate regulation can be very harmful to consumers, companies and the ability of this industry to create jobs, provide new services, and be an engine for economic growth. That is why it is so important that policymakers get this right.
The pole questions are not well written. As with MOST polls, it seems on the service to be looking for a per-conceived outcome.
As to the internet, the government has NO business regulating it, or most other things that they already stick their nose into.
As to the internet, the government has NO business regulating it, or most other things that they already stick their nose into.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But on the other hand you have this new issue of Wikileaks and how they may have to regulate the "internet" in order to control leaks.
These leaks spell doom web freedom - Daily Mail
The last three paragraphs of the article.
Wiki leaks stuff was passed to them by ILLEGAL means. We need to control things better. Look to congress or higher for the source of MANY leaks. Controlling the outlet is NOT the answer. Not in my book. Then, arrest and prosecute those who break the laws. IF they are found guilty, lock them up and throw away the key. No matter who they are or what position they hold. No matter if they are in the public or private sector.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
EXACTLY...... and when you add it to this comment....
I think it shows that the OP is trying to play games with other member's knowledge, or lack of. I don't have time for games or tests. It's one thing to have adult discussions on the issues of the day, quite another to "bait" the membership in hopes of an opportunity to hold someone up for ridicule. I won't participate in that.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well here is the real problem, with our forgiving society, we allow a lot of crap to go by and no one gets the idea that we need to do more than present plea bargains.
The solider who released information acted on his own and aided the enemy, the crime is treason and the punishment should be without any doubt a firing squad.
The POS who killed an American in Afghanistan got a good deal but he too should have faced death. His actions were that of an animal and he was open about the intent.
The sad fact that people don't seem to get is that crimes, like spying are not simply something that should go unpunished, like some of the CIA members who deserve more than a jail sentence.
The solider who released information acted on his own and aided the enemy, the crime is treason and the punishment should be without any doubt a firing squad.
The POS who killed an American in Afghanistan got a good deal but he too should have faced death. His actions were that of an animal and he was open about the intent.
The sad fact that people don't seem to get is that crimes, like spying are not simply something that should go unpunished, like some of the CIA members who deserve more than a jail sentence.
I would have NO problem handling these crimes as they should be handled. NO problem at all!!
I wonder, just how many in here would not be alive today IF our so called "Free Press" and these Wikiwackos were allowed to spout their swill during WWII? I would venture to guess that there would be MANY of our current members that would NEVER been born. How quickly we forget.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOS,
I have to say that I am really not all that surprised by your position on this - as I believe you to be a man of principles.
Kudos for having such principles and being willing to stand by them - even if doing so may ultimately cause certain outcomes that you feel to be dangerous and detrimental to the security of our country.
While you and I may differ on many, many things, you certainly have my respect for your principled position on the matter.
Of course, by publicly admitting this, I will no doubt be accused by those who border on being legally blind, of having a "man crush" on you ...
I can tell you that your position will not be at all popular with some on this board ..... who while claiming to live by certain principles in their daily lives, are all too willing to toss the very same principles over the side of the boat when it comes to anything done in the name of "security" or "national defense" ....
Last edited:
Thank you.
I don't understand one thing you said. How is my defense of our Constitution EVER going to harm anyone? NOTHING that I have EVER done in either my life or prior career was contrary to our Constitution, our way of life OR the safety of either our troops or this Nation.
You are right. I stand by my principles, as do you. We often don't agree but one must do what one must do.
As you may have gathered by now, I don't worry about what others think of my positions. I have lived my life by my "Code of Ethics" from the time I was nearing adulthood and will continue to do so.