Do you support Net Neutrality?

[NeverTrump]

Pretty Simple. It's a topic that has been going around this forum lately.

If so, why?
If not, Why?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Simple why I support it. I like the internet as we now know it. I dont believe that providers should be able to dictate what speeds certain sites get (a fast lane).

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I support it. An Internet without net neutrality would lead to an Internet that mimics television - the only content providers who would ever get seen by the public would be those who were funded by a select number of rich corporations. Net neutrality does so much in the way of helping "the little guy" get heard as much as the the big ones. It's extremely important for the future and present of our society.

 

[jamesrage]

Pretty Simple. It's a topic that has been going around this forum lately.

If so, why?
If not, Why?

Yes I support net neutrality. The only reason my speed should be lower than what I pay for when visiting a website is if it is something on the website's end. I do not want the risk of the websites I like visiting put in the slow lane or stopped altogether because my ISP does not like their politics or wants to squeeze more money out of me just to visit those sites. If you honestly think this is about netflix and hulu users not wanting to be choked then you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Gina]

Pretty Simple. It's a topic that has been going around this forum lately.

If so, why?
If not, Why?

May I ask why you don't support Net Neutrality?

 

[celticwar17]

May I ask why you don't support Net Neutrality?

I support its sentiment....

but declaring the internet as a public entity and such makes me worried that people implementing net neutrality is not genuine and will abuse the power for increased government control of the internet.

You would have to convince me there are harsh/defined limits that the internet ought to be untouchable...the liberty of free speech and sharing of information is kept completely unspoiled. I do not have that confidence in the current administration.

It could be opening a door to something that has no checks and balances once its opened.

 

[Fenton]

Uhm, NO.

The fallacy that the Government could and would mandate " neutrality " or " equity " or " fairness " seems to only appeal to those who're naive enough to believe that a Government entity is sincere when they push for nonsense like this.

The title of the damn bill should raise red flags.

 

[jamesrage]

I support its sentiment....

but declaring the internet as a public entity and such makes me worried that people implementing net neutrality is not genuine and will abuse the power for increased government control of the internet.

You would have to convince me there are harsh/defined limits that the internet ought to be untouchable...the liberty of free speech and sharing of information is kept completely unspoiled. I do not have that confidence in the current administration.

It could be opening a door to something that has no checks and balances once its opened.

How will telling ISPs that they can't treat the internet like a cable tv or satellite tv package and that access to all websites must be treated equally going to lead to government abuse of net neutrality?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

 

[iliveonramen]

I support its sentiment....

but declaring the internet as a public entity and such makes me worried that people implementing net neutrality is not genuine and will abuse the power for increased government control of the internet.

You would have to convince me there are harsh/defined limits that the internet ought to be untouchable...the liberty of free speech and sharing of information is kept completely unspoiled. I do not have that confidence in the current administration.

It could be opening a door to something that has no checks and balances once its opened.

It's not declaring it a public entity, it's declaring it a utility, which for various economic reasons means that it requires added protection for consumers.

 

[brothern]

I support its sentiment... but declaring the internet as a public entity and such makes me worried that people implementing net neutrality is not genuine and will abuse the power for increased government control of the internet.

I think you misread something somewhere. The internet is not being touched. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be what's being classified as "common carriers," not public entities, and thus would be prevent from discriminating against the data they carry.

You would have to convince me there are harsh/defined limits that the internet ought to be untouchable...the liberty of free speech and sharing of information is kept completely unspoiled. I do not have that confidence in the current administration. It could be opening a door to something that has no checks and balances once its opened.

You mean, at the complete discretion of AT&T, Comcast, TWC and Cox Communications who are repeatedly named the worst companies in America?

 

[Gaius46]

I have no problem in theory with the basic definition of net neutrality - that ISPs should treat all data moving across their networks equally. ISPs should also treat their own content the same as everyone else's. Anything else is essentially anti competitve. No idea how you achieve that in the real world.

Caveat. Not having a background in network engineering I don't know that that is technically the best way to run a network which may also complicate the picture.

 

[NeverTrump]

I have no problem in theory with the basic definition of net neutrality - that ISPs should treat all data moving across their networks equally. ISPs should also treat their own content the same as everyone else's. Anything else is essentially anti competitve. No idea how you achieve that in the real world.

Caveat. Not having a background in network engineering I don't know that that is technically the best way to run a network which may also complicate the picture.

Without getting into all the technical terms. It is impossible to run the internet the way these people want it to be run. I would love to watch one of the advocates try and fail to start an ISP, using this business model. It will not end well for them.

 

[Carjosse]

Without getting into all the technical terms. It is impossible to run the internet the way these people want it to be run. I would love to watch one of the advocates try and fail to start an ISP, using this business model. It will not end well for them.

All the ISPs in Canada do and have been for a long time.

 

[Carjosse]

Maybe this video will help some of you:

 

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe this video will help some of you:

Tubes!

 

[DA60]

No.

I do not support anything that gets in the way of private companies running their businesses anyway they wish (short of health/safety, environmental impacts and breaking 'basic' laws).

If big, cable companies favor one group over another...tough. Then don't use that company and find an alternative.
If they are corrupting your representatives, then don't vote for them.

I cannot see anyone dying because their cable bill is a bit higher or their download speeds are a little slower.

 

[NeverTrump]

All the ISPs in Canada do and have been for a long time.

Really? I don't live in Canada but from what I've been able to research, in a small amount of time is that they are looking into if ISPs are throttling data. So for you to suggest that they treat data equally is pretty reaching. If you were suggesting that Canada does monitor internet bandwidth just to check if ISPs are throttling data, than that is extremely different from what these advocates are saying on this site. The advocates here, seem to want an all inclusive law. The government should monitor internet traffic, to make sure ISPs are NOT throttling data purposely (some already have come to the conclusion that they are). Then, if they are, the ISPs should be punished for as of yet unwritten crimes. What those crimes are, how the ISPs are punished, and the repercussions of those acts are yet to be determined by either Canada or the US

 

[eohrnberger]

This expresses my position pretty well. I support the concept of network neutrality, but I don't support the proposed regulation and classification as a utility of the present Network Neutrality proposal.

Some are of the position that the present Network Neutrality proposal is the only way to regain network neutrality that we had before the court decision, but I'm not certain nor convinced of that, and I'm also not convinced that just because of this court ruling that the concept of network neutrality is under threat. Yeah, OK, maybe I'm naive on that, but right now, that's where I'm at.

 

[Carjosse]

Really? I don't live in Canada but from what I've been able to research, in a small amount of time is that they are looking into if ISPs are throttling data. So for you to suggest that they treat data equally is pretty reaching. If you were suggesting that Canada does monitor internet bandwidth just to check if ISPs are throttling data, than that is extremely different from what these advocates are saying on this site. The advocates here, seem to want an all inclusive law. The government should monitor internet traffic, to make sure ISPs are NOT throttling data purposely (some already have come to the conclusion that they are). Then, if they are, the ISPs should be punished for as of yet unwritten crimes. What those crimes are, how the ISPs are punished, and the repercussions of those acts are yet to be determined by either Canada or the US

Well here the internet is regulated by the CRTC, investigations into throttling are started due to complaints against the ISP either by normal consumers or companies like Netflix. The last case of throttling in Canada was committed by Rogers who throttled gaming data, people complained, Rogers was investigated, then fined.

 

[Unrepresented]

I hate my cable provider, like all good citizens should. I support net neutrality.

 

[jamesrage]

If big, cable companies favor one group over another...tough. Then don't use that company and find an alternative.
If they are corrupting your representatives, then don't vote for them.

What actual alternatives do you have in your city if you were to drop your ISP? When I say actual alternative I am not talking about setting up a AOL account so that you can get internet over your phone line.

 

[Hatuey]

Well here the internet is regulated by the CRTC, investigations into throttling are started due to complaints against the ISP either by normal consumers or companies like Netflix. The last case of throttling in Canada was committed by Rogers who throttled gaming data, people complained, Rogers was investigated, then fined.

Imagine that, a country that realized that throttling data wasn't in its best interest. I bet Canada's technological innovation has been stifled as a result.

 

[celticwar17]

It's not declaring it a public entity, it's declaring it a utility, which for various economic reasons means that it requires added protection for consumers.

I'm all game as far as that holds true... but i'm still skeptical

 

[celticwar17]

I think you misread something somewhere. The internet is not being touched. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be what's being classified as "common carriers," not public entities, and thus would be prevent from discriminating against the data they carry.

I'm concerned how the proposed law could be abused.

You mean, at the complete discretion of AT&T, Comcast, TWC and Cox Communications who are repeatedly named the worst companies in America?

At least we have the power of being a consumer, if a major carrier started to implement this at a large scale, then that would make them much less desirable amongst the competition... losing customers. If all the carriers come to a group consensus to discriminating data at the same time, than I feel like they should be held in contempt for violating anti-trust laws.
At least we have that power in this case... the other case could let the government beast in, so to say... these are just my concerns, if someone can give me the confidence that the current administration will not use net neutrality as a means to get more power over the internet... that would be great.