Do you support Net Neutrality?

I support net neutrality because I believe in a free market of content and ideas.

Do you support Net Neutrality?

Click to expand...

absolutely. i see no benefit to relegating startups and the smaller sites that i enjoy to the slow lane, where they'll languish. DP would be adversely affected as well, since we can't afford to pay for preferential data treatment. **** that.

ModerateGOP said:

So should banks not be able to charge for late charges/fees/interest rates? If the user uses a substantial amount of bandwidth they should be charged more. Therefore, since Netflix uses the MOST amount of bandwidth than any other site, besides a select few. They should get charged more. If it works on the consumer end then it should work on the business end too!

Click to expand...

You seem to have no idea how the internet works or how one's internet service works. If if someone pays for a 100 megabit per second download rate from their ISP then that individual will not be able to exceed a 100 megabits per second download rate regardless if that person connects to debatepolitis, netflix, or any other website.Netflix just like everyone else pays for a certain download and upload speed.Netflix, just like many websites pay for a higher upload and download speed than every one does so that they can handle more users.If a ISP's bandwidth is getting bogged down it is because that ISP sold more than what they are capable of delivering.

Poll too simple.

I don't know whether I support it or not cause I don't know what it is, exactly.

I DO support a neutral internet, wherein traffic is only limited by the physical infrastructure it travels on (and of course, traffic volume, but issues due to traffic volume are caused by physical infrastructure limitations).
Specifically, I do not consider it acceptable for my or anyone else's connection speed to be throttled depending on the origin or content of the traffic on said connection.

jamesrage said:

You seem to have no idea how the internet works or how one's internet service works. If if someone pays for a 100 megabit per second download rate from their ISP then that individual will not be able to exceed a 100 megabits per second download rate regardless if that person connects to debatepolitis, netflix, or any other website.Netflix just like everyone else pays for a certain download and upload speed.Netflix, just like many websites pay for a higher upload and download speed than every one does so that they can handle more users.If a ISP's bandwidth is getting bogged down it is because that ISP sold more than what they are capable of delivering.

Click to expand...

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.

sawdust said:

That's the way deregulation and markets are supposed to work. That's also why we have cell phones. When the government broke up Ma Bell's monopoly and put telephone communication out in the market, at first there was chaos. Eventually order came as well as innovation and today we have smart phones and everyone carries them around in their pocket. That will come to an end with so called net neutrality.

Cruz says that land lines are regulated by the government under title 2, what ever that is. Net neutrality wants to put cell phones under title 2, treating them like a utility, taxing them and regulating them. They make noise that it's about competition between ISP's and quality of service but those issues should be left to the market. The market took care of AOL and likewise, in an unregulated market, the best competitors win in the end.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the key in the part I bolded.

Interesting, isn't it, that everything the left pushes somehow involves money to the government, to causes the left supports and eventually to the individuals supporting the left? Greed of one type or another can be found everywhere in their ideals.

ModerateGOP said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, this is not discriminating against data.

If you paid for a 350 GB cap then whatever I choose to do to use up that 350 GP cap should happen at my paid speed except in instances of legitimate network congestion issues. if I get to 240 GB's, nearly 70% of my data cap, my speeds on something like Netflix or Hulu should remain exactly the same as it did at 40 GBs. If you break the barrier then yes, throttle my speeds or even cut it off (since it's a cap).

But while I still have data available in my cap I should maintain the same speeds whether I'm watching Hulu or Netflix, playing Xbox live, downloading large pieces of data, or any other legal activity unless there's a legitimate network congestion issue that requires those speeds to be slowed down as the only means of alleviating the congestion.

Zyphlin said:

Again, this is not discriminating against data.

If you paid for a 350 GB cap then whatever I choose to do to use up that 350 GP cap should happen at my paid speed except in instances of legitimate network congestion issues. if I get to 240 GB's, nearly 70% of my data cap, my speeds on something like Netflix or Hulu should remain exactly the same as it did at 40 GBs. If you break the barrier then yes, throttle my speeds or even cut it off (since it's a cap).

But while I still have data available in my cap I should maintain the same speeds whether I'm watching Hulu or Netflix, playing Xbox live, downloading large pieces of data, or any other legal activity unless there's a legitimate network congestion issue that requires those speeds to be slowed down as the only means of alleviating the congestion.

Click to expand...

It has not been proven to me, that the ISPs currently do this. I need to see proof that ISPs have throttled data in that case. As far as my research goes, they only do this after you hit data caps.

ModerateGOP said:

It has not been proven to me, that the ISPs currently do this. I need to see proof that ISPs have throttled data in that case. As far as my research goes, they only do this after you hit data caps.

Click to expand...

This is my understanding as well. But, it is also my understanding that these caps are nebulous, at best. Throttling is fine, but not if the plan is "unlimited". If the plan is advertised as "unlimited", then it should be unlimited. If there is a cap, that's fine too, just say so and say where the cap is.

Looking at the poll, this seems to be a political issue....why?

radcen said:

This is my understanding as well. But, it is also my understanding that these caps are nebulous, at best. Throttling is fine, but not if the plan is "unlimited". If the plan is advertised as "unlimited", then it should be unlimited. If there is a cap, that's fine too, just say so and say where the cap is.

Click to expand...

Should they have to? Why would they need to educate an unsuspecting public? Usually the people that use the internet other than surfing will know about data caps due to their own research and their own internet usage. The majority public does not even know how to do this or what a data cap is. I'm sure if you look in the fine print it's there. But I agree, somewhere other than the fine print there should be a nice message stating you only have 350 GB so use wisely or something like that. They can word it nicely so its not mean.

Meister said:

Looking at the poll, this seems to be a political issue....why?

Click to expand...

Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:

radcen said:

Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:

Click to expand...

When the President talks about it and other politicians isn't it already? Major news networks don't understand it, so I haven't heard them covering it. But in the internet world it's all over the place. This is why I believe it to be the largest secondary political topic. When the major networks begin to talk about it, then it will be a first rate one.

radcen said:

Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:

Click to expand...

agreed.....the 'fix' will definitely be political....even if it didn't need to be.

ModerateGOP said:

Should they have to? Why would they need to educate an unsuspecting public? Usually the people that use the internet other than surfing will know about data caps due to their own research and their own internet usage. The majority public does not even know how to do this or what a data cap is. I'm sure if you look in the fine print it's there. But I agree, somewhere other than the fine print there should be a nice message stating you only have 350 GB so use wisely or something like that. They can word it nicely so its not mean.

Click to expand...

I do not believe they should have to provide unlimited bandwidth if they don't want to, but yes, they should have to tell the truth, whatever that may be. Saying that "those who know know better" is weak. Telling companies to not use words like "unlimited" when that is a lie is not an unreasonable expectation.

I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.

I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.

Cardinal said:

I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.

I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.

Click to expand...

So you don't believe should have a different opinion about this topic? Why are you so emotionally invested in the idea that you need to be right?

Cardinal said:

I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.

I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.

Click to expand...

I didn't vote at all because there is no middle option. I support the concept, but I don't trust the government to pull it off without somehow sticking me with more costs and restrictions of their own. Replacing one bad for another is not necessarily progress, or proper protection.

radcen said:

I didn't vote at all because there is no middle option. I support the concept, but I don't trust the government to pull it off without somehow sticking me with more costs and restrictions of their own. Replacing one bad for another is not necessarily progress, or proper protection.

Click to expand...

Well we could have just stuck with the previous FCC regulation, but Verizon successfully sued the FCC which means another way has to be found to preserve NN. If you can think of another way to get NN back besides reclassifying internet service as a utility, I'm all ears.

ModerateGOP said:

So you don't believe should have a different opinion about this topic?

Click to expand...

I don't normally hold this kind of position, but no. Unless you have a specific stake in the profitability of an isp, there is no conceivable reason to be against NN.

ModerateGOP said:

Why are you so emotionally invested in the idea that you need to be right?

Click to expand...

If you witnessed a sizable portion of the public arguing in favor of turning everyone over thirty into mulch, you'd be emotionally wrapped up too.

ModerateGOP said:

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

If so, why?

Click to expand...

If not, Why?

Click to expand...

I like the internet the way that it's been since I started using it.

I also like free beer.

Cardinal said:

I don't normally hold this kind of position, but no. Unless you have a specific stake in the profitability of an isp, there is no conceivable reason to be against NN.

Click to expand...

I am against it because I don't believe the FCC should have that kind of power and I don't trust the current administration to use technology wisely. Nobody should after the Obamacare website debacle.

Gaius46 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. But the country does not need a brand new bureaucracy, All that's needed is one simple law, and you just wrote it.

Government intervention in net neutrality could well lead to net favoritism. A favored group decides that it is not getting enough face time, and government is suddenly into controlling content.

Cardinal said:

I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.

I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.

Click to expand...

Again, you haven't stated which "net neutrality" you are speaking of.

ModerateGOP said:

I am against it because I don't believe the FCC should have that kind of power and I don't trust the current administration to use technology wisely. Nobody should after the Obamacare website debacle.

Click to expand...

The FCC had that kind of power and we were fine. What is guaranteed is that the end of NN would be bad for you. Speaking out against government abuse while being completely cavalier about corporate abuse is illogical.