• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support Net Neutrality?

Do you support Net Neutrality?

  • Total voters
    68
jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is not the entirety of the bill. If it was the bill would read very similar to your sentence you just stated and just as long if not shorter. The bill for net neutrality is many pages longer therefor the devil is in the details. I don't trust the devil, therefor I am opposed to a bill unless it very specific and clear.
 
In concept it appeals to people that their portal goes anywhere equally.
The devil is in the details.
I dont trust the government to find a way to accomplish it. And I dont like govt dictating business decisions.
Just as a business can determine a need to put governors on there bandwidth so other businessrs could choose to use this as a opportunity to distinguish itself from the competition.
These sorts of things usually work themselves out. But when govt gets involved it makes things worse ala bank charges. We all got screwed with that.
 
The notion that the government can be more effective in regulating this that the market itself is mind blowing. If people aren't happy with their internet speeds and access, they make a change. They change the market. I think few people want to have specific ISPs blocked, why not force the hands of the major companies by not paying them. They want our money, we want an open internet, seems pretty easy to me.
 
iacardsfan said:
The notion that the government can be more effective in regulating this
Click to expand...

They have been. Learn the history of net neutrality, folks.

iacardsfan said:
that the market itself is mind blowing. If people aren't happy with their internet speeds and access, they make a change. They change the market. I think few people want to have specific ISPs blocked, why not force the hands of the major companies by not paying them. They want our money, we want an open internet, seems pretty easy to me.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
Corporation destruction of network neutrality isn't going to happen over night. The issue is just beginning to truly get mainstream saturation in the past year or so. There's no need to absolutely, positively, without question act now if that action is wrong....and the utility option has a lot of potential to be wrong.

I disgree with doing nothing, I also disagree with doing a utility option right now....the best realistic option is to push over the next 2 to 5 years for it being codified into law
Click to expand...

It's important to act now while there is mainstream saturation. The ISPs have clearly put in a great deal of time and energy (not to forget money) to destroy NN, and we should respond in kind while we have any degree of voice.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Besides for web hosting, I know of no legit reason to use P2P. Transferring files through P2P does slow down the rest of your internet. That's how that works. Try downloading a bunch (20 or so at a time) of 700 MB movie files from a cloud server and then watching Netflix. Can't be done on my 75/75 MB line. Usually it's the server that times out. So it's impossible to do that any other way. I've searched for alternatives to my favorite downloader Internet Download Manager, but none does what it is great at. It basically takes apart the files, and puts them back together. Scrambling the data allowing you to bypass most ISP monitoring. Most of the other software out there, downloads the file directly and then ISP can still see what you are doing. In the case of IDM, ISP only knows you are transfeering GBs of unknown data. Yet, using both methods, you can't download a bunch without timing out other applications. The Technology doesn't exist yet but we are getting there. Making any NN bill that Congress can throw together in the next four years absolutely useless. Unless if it was so restricting of the very freedom these advocates are fighting to "save."
Click to expand...

There are plenty of good reasons to run P2P. Do you want to install linux? The best way to get an ISO image is through a torrent.

Here are a bunch of others.
List of Peer-to-Peer Applications / FrontPage
 
PirateMk1 said:
That is not the entirety of the bill. If it was the bill would read very similar to your sentence you just stated and just as long if not shorter. The bill for net neutrality is many pages longer therefor the devil is in the details. I don't trust the devil, therefor I am opposed to a bill unless it very specific and clear.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that it is "many pages longer"?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4880/text

This is the entirety of the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations
that--
(1) prohibit a broadband provider from entering into an
agreement with an edge provider under which the broadband
provider agrees, for consideration, in transmitting network
traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end
user, to give preferential treatment or priority to the traffic
of such edge provider over the traffic of other edge providers;
and
(2) prohibit a broadband provider, in transmitting network
traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end
user, from giving preferential treatment or priority to the
traffic of content, applications, services, or devices that are
provided or operated by such broadband provider, or an
affiliate of such broadband provider, over the traffic of other
content, applications, services, or devices.
(b) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Certain traffic not affected.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as superseding any obligation or
authorization a broadband provider may have to address the
needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public
safety, or national security authorities, consistent with or as
permitted by applicable law, or as limiting the ability of the
provider to do so.
(2) Clarification of authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Commission
under any other provision of law, including the authority to
promulgate regulations prohibiting or limiting preferential
treatment or prioritization of the traffic of an edge provider
by a broadband provider under GN Docket No. 14-28 (relating to
the matter of protecting and promoting the open Internet).
(c) Enforcement.--For purposes of sections 503(b) and 504 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b); 504), this section shall
be considered to be a part of such Act. With respect to enforcement
under this section only, the following modifications of such section
503(b) shall apply:
(1) Paragraph (5) shall not apply.
(2) Paragraph (6) shall be applied by substituting the
following: ``No forfeiture penalty shall be determined or
imposed against any person under this subsection if the
violation charged occurred more than 3 years prior to the date
of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent
liability.''.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 153).
(2) Broadband internet access service.--The term
``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given
such term in section 8.11 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) Broadband provider.--The term ``broadband provider''
means a provider of broadband Internet access service.
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(5) Edge provider.--The term ``edge provider'' means an
individual, institution, or other entity that provides--
(A) any content, application, or service over the
Internet; or
(B) a device used for accessing any content,
application, or service over the Internet.
(6) End user.--The term ``end user'' means an individual,
institution, or other entity that uses a broadband Internet
access service.
Click to expand...
 
PirateMk1 said:
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations
that-- That is the devil.


That wasn't the bill I was thinking in any case.
Click to expand...
That bill is pretty succinct. It does exactly what everyone here has said it should do. This is the senate version. Where is the many page bill? And if you have an issue with it, what is it? It's a short bill, and pretty easy to understand.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act.pdf
 
That the net is neutral is farcical. It's prone to power struggles just like the offline world. The CIA and its EU counterparts have been acting with Interpol to shutdown websites every single day that go against international law.

It's also unfortunate that people think making a law about net neutrality will make it neutral. The best way to keep the net neutral is to do nothing. Corporate powers will do what they do, and individual actors will do what they do. The internet is a free for all as it should be. We need to stop making laws to nanny the internet. It started with child porn laws which are totally ineffective, then laws to go after piracy sites, then drug laws to bust sites like Silk Road.

None of those actions have been tenable long term, they've just given government the power to intrude on your life more than ever. Net neutrality means people taking personal responsibility, but as is the case with other laws people don't want to do that and they want nanny government to come and do it for them.
 
Mithros said:
There are plenty of good reasons to run P2P. Do you want to install linux? The best way to get an ISO image is through a torrent.

Here are a bunch of others.
List of Peer-to-Peer Applications / FrontPage
Click to expand...

True but not many people use it for solely those purposes. With Torrenting which is what that website was advocating for, there is way too much of a chance to download copyrighted material. Only web hosting p2p allows for complete abstinence from torrent sites and illegal torrents. IDC if Linux is a faster download ISO on torrent sites. You can easily get it from Linux site.

I know ISPs would prefer you not to torrent.Yet the internet savvy can always find ways around the ISP themselves.
 
Northern Light said:
The best way to keep the net neutral is to do nothing. Corporate powers will do what they do, and individual actors will do what they do. The internet is a free for all as it should be. We need to stop making laws to nanny the internet.
Click to expand...

I you do not do anything, we lost that freedom, the internet becomes controlled by the corporations.
 
Northern Light said:
That the net is neutral is farcical. It's prone to power struggles just like the offline world. The CIA and its EU counterparts have been acting with Interpol to shutdown websites every single day that go against international law.

It's also unfortunate that people think making a law about net neutrality will make it neutral. The best way to keep the net neutral is to do nothing. Corporate powers will do what they do, and individual actors will do what they do. The internet is a free for all as it should be. We need to stop making laws to nanny the internet. It started with child porn laws which are totally ineffective, then laws to go after piracy sites, then drug laws to bust sites like Silk Road.

None of those actions have been tenable long term, they've just given government the power to intrude on your life more than ever. Net neutrality means people taking personal responsibility, but as is the case with other laws people don't want to do that and they want nanny government to come and do it for them.
Click to expand...

Ya' mean people like Comcast and Time Warner? Sony pictures is taking care of their repsonibility for the movies too! When you go, and as a couple spend just about $50 before you sit down, Sony movie theaters run 30 minutes of glorious already been seen on television commericals.

That's the market taking responsible care of thing for ya.
 
ModerateGOP said:
True but not many people use it for solely those purposes. With Torrenting which is what that website was advocating for, there is way too much of a chance to download copyrighted material. Only web hosting p2p allows for complete abstinence from torrent sites and illegal torrents. IDC if Linux is a faster download ISO on torrent sites. You can easily get it from Linux site.

I know ISPs would prefer you not to torrent.Yet the internet savvy can always find ways around the ISP themselves.
Click to expand...

You really confuse me. You obviously know a lot about networking and computers, yet you oppose net neutrality and even P2P filesharing. You're even willing to squash legitimate usage and emerging business models on the grounds that someone might also use them to transfer copyrighted material. You say that you've been forced to move cities to change ISP's? Do you own an ISP?

Oh, btw.. there isn't a "linux" site, at least not in the way you're thinking. Linux is an OS with a number of different distributions. And you've never actually tried to download a full OS iso from a web page; it doesn't always work regardless of transfer speeds. Plus it is significantly faster, and much more efficient to download it through a P2P network. A single bit error doesn’t' matter for most ISO's, but will play havoc on an OS install.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Ugh. :roll: If you want to compare sites. At least compare sites that work in similar ways. A good idea is HULU VS Netflix. Not DP VS Netflix. This is a fundamental problem with people who don't understand the NN debate. They DON'T understand how Data operates. So let me explain. If you spend all day on DP that means you will only use Kilobytes of data going back and forth between pages, and texts. Since that's all this site does. No Video, and barely any pics. You will be able to browse the internet quite smoothly on 100 MB especially if you can routinely connect to wifi.

However, in Netflix's case. It uses 1 GB/Hr. Remember Cell Phone plans start at only 2GBs for data not including promotions. Family plans start at 10 or maybe 20 depending on your carrier. So you can't watch much Netflix on Phone's service. Got it? Good. Now, most ISPs have monthly data caps at around, 350 GB. That's a lot!!!! Before all of this streaming stuff. No one hit the data caps, though they did exist. You couldn't reach it! It was impossible even with illegal downloads. Now however, lets say you watch Netflix 8 hours a day for 30 days. You would use up 240 GB of data!!!! That's nearly 70% of all your data, for ONE device! If you have a family, or younger kids, or teenagers at home. You can easily break the barrier. Verizon sends out notifications when you reach your limit at 75% and 90% levels. Then they start to slow down your internet until the next cycle.

This is what happens when you create a really great website that everyone wants to use all the time. Things slow down and they clog up. So you see, Netflix isn't the Slow lane. Netflix is clogging up the pipe everyone else uses for everything else!!! They HAVE to and do pay for the fast lanes especially during peak hours. Unless you can figure out some other solution, this is the only way that will work.
Click to expand...

All of what you said is irrelevant. Again customers ranging from the home user or business user pay for a certain download and upload rate. They are not able to exceed those download and upload rates. It doesn't matter if they use all 1oo megabits per second download rate for 24 hours, several hours, an hour or even just 20 minutes. That is what they paid for. So if the system is strained it is because the ISP sold more than what they are capable of delivering, not because customers are actually using the download and upload rates they pay for. Is layman's term you pay for a certain doorway size for data to come into your computer and to leave your computer. If ISPs have a problem with their customers actually using all of that doorway they paid for then they should not have sold that doorway size.I do not know about you bust most people are not going to pay for a 100 megabit download rate just so they can visit sites like DP.That would be a huge waste of money on the consumer's part if that is all they did with that 100 megabit connection.
 
jet57 said:
Ya' mean people like Comcast and Time Warner? Sony pictures is taking care of their repsonibility for the movies too! When you go, and as a couple spend just about $50 before you sit down, Sony movie theaters run 30 minutes of glorious already been seen on television commericals.

That's the market taking responsible care of thing for ya.
Click to expand...

People still go to movies? Why? Netflix and Pirate Bay have it all.

That's my point. If the market were left alone movie theaters would go instinct, just like video stores. :shrug:

But instead we have busy bodies making laws to protect old business models that are increasingly irrelevant.

The net is not neutral. Hasn't been for a while now.
 
Northern Light said:
People still go to movies? Why? Netflix and Pirate Bay have it all.

That's my point. If the market were left alone movie theaters would go instinct, just like video stores. :shrug:

But instead we have busy bodies making laws to protect old business models that are increasingly irrelevant.

The net is not neutral. Hasn't been for a while now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The market will from time to time move to a point where businesses either have to change with the times or be left behind. It's a healthy part of the marketplace and should be allowed to happen. All you end up doing by holding up business models is hinder growth and advancement.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
People still go to movies? Why? Netflix and Pirate Bay have it all.

That's my point. If the market were left alone movie theaters would go instinct, just like video stores. :shrug:

But instead we have busy bodies making laws to protect old business models that are increasingly irrelevant.

The net is not neutral. Hasn't been for a while now.
Click to expand...

The net is not neutral because no one has been bale to enforce it and let monopolies control the American telecoms market. Net neutrality is not an outdated business model, it is the foundation of a free and open internet.
 
Northern Light said:
People still go to movies? Why? Netflix and Pirate Bay have it all.

That's my point. If the market were left alone movie theaters would go instinct, just like video stores. :shrug:

But instead we have busy bodies making laws to protect old business models that are increasingly irrelevant.

The net is not neutral. Hasn't been for a while now.
Click to expand...

Uh, the net IS neutral: what that means is - all material that can be reached through the internet travels to your computer at the same speed - everywhere. If such a law passes, ISPs will then take it upon themselves to charge more for say, Democracy now - to carry their signal, and deep pockets will pay for the fastest speeds that they can get - that is not neutral. That will mean that your viewing will be through a service filter. That will mean that web sites that don't have deep pockets will be placed in the back of the room.
 
Carjosse said:
The net is not neutral because no one has been bale to enforce it and let monopolies control the American telecoms market. Net neutrality is not an outdated business model, it is the foundation of a free and open internet.
Click to expand...

American telecoms are not the totality of the internet. The internet is global. What your domestic business laws say has little to do with how the rest of the world uses the net.
 
Mithros said:
1. You really confuse me. You obviously know a lot about networking and computers, yet you oppose net neutrality and even P2P filesharing. You're even willing to squash legitimate usage and emerging business models on the grounds that someone might also use them to transfer copyrighted material. You say that you've been forced to move cities to change ISP's? Do you own an ISP?

2. Oh, btw.. there isn't a "linux" site, at least not in the way you're thinking. Linux is an OS with a number of different distributions. And you've never actually tried to download a full OS iso from a web page; it doesn't always work regardless of transfer speeds. Plus it is significantly faster, and much more efficient to download it through a P2P network. A single bit error doesn’t' matter for most ISO's, but will play havoc on an OS install.
Click to expand...

1. I am just trying to explain the ISP reasoning behind all of this. As simple as possible. Yet, it's still not getting through to most people. Man, I wish companies like this had a better marketing platform. I'd love it if more people actually understood this stuff. Not the nonsense they read on blogs. I never said I want to ban P2P or filesharing. ISPs don't like it. IDK why they just don't. Probably so that people pay for everything and don't get in trouble using the bandwidth they provide to you.

2. Yes, Linux Distro Sites... Ugh. I am confused by your post as well. You think that I own an ISP, yet you feel the need to explain to me what Linux is and how to download it?? Do you even see the problem with what you are typing here? I have a feeling that a lot of people advocating for this on the internet are teens who don't work in the technology industry. It's one thing to be passionate about all these gadgets and softwares, it's another to work with them everyday. Luckily I get to do both.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
All of what you said is irrelevant. Again customers ranging from the home user or business user pay for a certain download and upload rate. They are not able to exceed those download and upload rates. It doesn't matter if they use all 1oo megabits per second download rate for 24 hours, several hours, an hour or even just 20 minutes. That is what they paid for. So if the system is strained it is because the ISP sold more than what they are capable of delivering, not because customers are actually using the download and upload rates they pay for. Is layman's term you pay for a certain doorway size for data to come into your computer and to leave your computer. If ISPs have a problem with their customers actually using all of that doorway they paid for then they should not have sold that doorway size.I do not know about you bust most people are not going to pay for a 100 megabit download rate just so they can visit sites like DP.That would be a huge waste of money on the consumer's part if that is all they did with that 100 megabit connection.
Click to expand...

I think you are getting confused with data caps and speeds. They aren't one and the same. You pay for 100 MB connection. You are allocated 350 Gigabytes of data. It's always worked like this. Once you go past that limit you're internet is throttled. If you download a bunch of files at once you can cut off your internet speed by using all your 100 MB connection. Most internet downloaders like filezilla specifically cut their download time and use up only 1% of your specific speed, so that you can use the internet for other things. That means that you get 1-2 Mb/s speed to download a file from a server. If you use Internet Download Manager. You can get around that limit (I've reached up to 15 MB/S hard wired), but you won't be able to do much else while downloading those large files.

If you still have questions let me know, but don't say that any of this is irrelevant just because you don't quite understand it.

Now if you want to pay for data buckets, the industry might move in that direction if all these Netflix Binge Watchers go overboard and clog the system up even more to say 50%. I bet that will happen within the next two-three years. Right now Netflix is 35% of the ENTIRE internet!!! Above all P2P services, combined!!!!
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
1. I am just trying to explain the ISP reasoning behind all of this. As simple as possible. Yet, it's still not getting through to most people. Man, I wish companies like this had a better marketing platform. I'd love it if more people actually understood this stuff. Not the nonsense they read on blogs. I never said I want to ban P2P or filesharing. ISPs don't like it. IDK why they just don't. Probably so that people pay for everything and don't get in trouble using the bandwidth they provide to you.

2. Yes, Linux Distro Sites... Ugh. I am confused by your post as well. You think that I own an ISP, yet you feel the need to explain to me what Linux is and how to download it?? Do you even see the problem with what you are typing here? I have a feeling that a lot of people advocating for this on the internet are teens who don't work in the technology industry. It's one thing to be passionate about all these gadgets and softwares, it's another to work with them everyday. Luckily I get to do both.
Click to expand...
I'm a decade long PhD in EE, and currently work as a senior research scientist developing autonomy for advanced robotic systems. And yeah, I totally get that it's sometimes hard to separate people who know what their talking about from people who don't. Especially since people who know what they're talking about on some things don't know what they're talking about on others. The Windows/Linux/OSX divide is like that. Very few people have exposure to multiple OS's on a daily basis. So please forgive any over simplistic explanations. (It's a tough balance that I seldom get right)

To continue the discussion, I'd also point out that it's pretty easy to see things from the ISP's point of view. The ISP wants to sell you as much theoretical bandwidth as possible, while at the same time discouraging you from using it. Obviously they sell far more bandwidth than they can actually provide...(which is fine, because unused capacity is wasteful) They also want to encourage you to use their partners web services instead of their competitors. So to them, any high bandwidth data uses mean less profit for them.

But understand that the way the cable companies act is a complete antithesis to the GPL/LGPL/BSD/etc underpinnings of the internet. It's very much a cooperative model: take what's there, use it to innovate, profit from that innovation, and then contribute to what's out there. If that work helps your competitor, so be it.. If you want to beat them, then have a better product. Besides, keeping the talent in house is much more of an advantage.

A good bulk of the Web Servers in the world owe their existence to these guys Apache Contributors - The Apache HTTP Server Project. Remember the shellshock bug? Well look at the commit logs for bash: bash.git - bash It's one guy... doing all of the support for bash. Compilers that turn lines of text into executables? They're all written, maintained, and improved by unpaid volunteers. Linux, Python, Perl, PHP, phpBB (ie the backend of this site), MySQL... basically the bulk of the internet runs software that no one paid for.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.. all understand the importance of open source development. They understand that they profit greatly from the work of others and thus understand the importance of paying back.

What do ISPs do? They're running software that other people wrote, using hardware that other people developed, to essentially extort money from the same people that developed the software in the first place. Yes we need them. Yes taking care of lines and connections and distributing broadband is vital to the success of the internet. But so is everything else. The idea that they should profit because they have access to a bottleneck is ridiculous. Almost all of the internet is a bottleneck. What if Chet Ramey were to implement something in ssh that exposes ISPs to malicious software attacks unless they all pay him some exorbitant fee? What if phpBB decides that it will no longer properly function to a comcast IP address? What if microsoft was to intentionally slow down java applets from sites that don't pay them money?

Do you see where this is heading?
 
Last edited:
Mithros said:
I'm a decade long PhD in EE, and currently work as a senior research scientist developing autonomy for advanced robotic systems. And yeah, I totally get that it's sometimes hard to separate people who know what their talking about from people who don't. Especially since people who know what they're talking about on some things don't know what they're talking about on others. The Windows/Linux/OSX divide is like that. Very few people have exposure to multiple OS's on a daily basis. So please forgive any over simplistic explanations. (It's a tough balance that I seldom get right)

To continue the discussion, I'd also point out that it's pretty easy to see things from the ISP's point of view. The ISP wants to sell you as much theoretical bandwidth as possible, while at the same time discouraging you from using it. Obviously they sell far more bandwidth than they can actually provide...(which is fine, because unused capacity is wasteful) They also want to encourage you to use their partners web services instead of their competitors. So to them, any high bandwidth data uses mean less profit for them.

But understand that the way the cable companies act is a complete antithesis to the GPL/LGPL/BSD/etc underpinnings of the internet. It's very much a cooperative model: take what's there, use it to innovate, profit from that innovation, and then contribute to what's out there. If that work helps your competitor, so be it.. If you want to beat them, then have a better product. Besides, keeping the talent in house is much more of an advantage.

A good bulk of the Web Servers in the world owe their existence to these guys Apache Contributors - The Apache HTTP Server Project. Remember the shellshock bug? Well look at the commit logs for bash: bash.git - bash It's one guy... doing all of the support for bash. Compilers that turn lines of text into executables? They're all written, maintained, and improved by unpaid volunteers. Linux, Python, Perl, PHP, phpBB (ie the backend of this site), MySQL... basically the bulk of the internet runs software that no one paid for.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.. all understand the importance of open source development. They understand that they profit greatly from the work of others and thus understand the importance of paying back.

What do ISPs do? They're running software that other people wrote, using hardware that other people developed, to essentially extort money from the same people that developed the software in the first place. Yes we need them. Yes taking care of lines and connections and distributing broadband is vital to the success of the internet. But so is everything else. The idea that they should profit because they have access to a bottleneck is ridiculous. Almost all of the internet is a bottleneck. What if Chet Ramey were to implement something in ssh that exposes ISPs to malicious software attacks unless they all pay him some exorbitant fee? What if phpBB decides that it will no longer properly function to a comcast IP address? What if microsoft was to intentionally slow down java applets from sites that don't pay them money?

Do you see where this is heading?
Click to expand...

I want to thank you for writing this all out, because you are clearly thinking logically and thoughtfully without just repeating what you heard on the blogs. That happens way to much in this discussion, and in the last 15 pages of this debate. I However, wouldn't call what the ISPs are doing Extortion. Sure ISPs may be stuck in the traditional business model that they are used to and may not have quite anticipated the disruption that is Netflix. Sure, there may indeed be some corporate grumblings about how much they hate the company, but they still do business with it and allow it to function. A feat they can stop, if they so wanted right now! No need for a slow conspiracy.

The Internet is HUGE with only a handful of companies delivering most of it's backbone. It's going to take time for them to catch up. It's easier to create content than it is to create infrastructure. Especially for a site that is NOT in the ISP's best interests. Just because we think it's a lot of money to pay for all this (and still occasionally get slow speeds) doesn't mean that it isn't "fair." Remember, the Internet is still technically in its infancy. In five years, people will be laughing at the theory of Net Neutrality, because the internet would be 10X faster. We'd be able to utilize 10X the space in a fraction of the time that it does now!

The political reality for Net Neutrality is a dim one at best much like the laws of gun rights, freedom of speech, and the patriot act. They are NOT absolute no matter what some constitutionalist wingnut may claim. The FCC will probably realize this soon or in the next few years. That's why, they are taking their time to analyze if the law is actually needed. People are shocked at these statements made by the FCC because they are too politically and emotionally invested in the idea. The law will become useless when something greater than Netflix comes out and the ISPs will be forced to update their infrastructure. In Fact, most ISPs, (many of which own the larger networks) are already implementing streaming options for their content. Which if proven to be Netflix-competition, will force ISPs to innovate and drive for faster stronger pipes.

I look at this Net Neutrality debate the same way I do with those Monsanto Conspiracy Theorists, who basically made up the whole GMO paranoia. Those people do not quite understand the science behind Genetically Modified Organisms and how almost every scientific study out there proves that they are better for you than regular foods. However, the scary youtube videos and fear campaigns have made it a secondary political topic in some circles. This is the same exact thing!!! Now there aren't any scary videos about NN quite yet. But it'll come if this gains any more traction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom