Net Neutrality: Red vs. Blue

[Jay]

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

[TobiasFunke]

"If you ask me a question on the internet you're just baiting me"

[Spirit]

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

 

 

So Jay, why are you against Net Neutrality? 

[RallyMo]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[nate]

So, maybe some of the AW members that are smarter than I am (all of you?) can clue me into what the hubbub is about.  Why are some people so wrapped around the axel on this?  Is net neutrality not good?  Is that not what we all want?  Is that not what the POTUS is advocating for?  

 

Net Neutrality is very good and very important.  Otherwise ISPs can start determining your connection speed based on the website you are visiting.  For example, you want the movie package (netflix, hbo go, hulu) you have to pay more.  Becomes like current cable providers.

[Tank]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

 

that was terrific. 

 

p.s. i could go for a nice taco right now.

[RallyMo]

So Jay, why are you against Net Neutrality?

I asked this same question like this in another thread:

Outside of your one line, snarky snipe, do you have any actual insight on the issue? Do you have a compelling reason behind your statement other than "me no likey all govermintz?" It's not like the concept of net neutrality requires some massive new tax or for a huge federal department to be created to enforce it. Everything is already in place. Why is the alternative preferable in your opinion given the nature of the Internet and its integral place in what are basic activities of 21st century life?

Jay did not answer.

[Spirit]

Net Neutrality is very good and very important.  Otherwise ISPs can start determining your connection speed based on the website you are visiting.  For example, you want the movie package (netflix, hbo go, hulu) you have to pay more.  Becomes like current cable providers.

 

That's exactly what I thought.  

 

I don't understand the "outrage." 

[gotbeer]

That's exactly what I thought.  

 

I don't understand the "outrage." 

 

We rage against what we don't know, don't care to learn, or vote for Buchanan.  In other words, 3/4 of the U.S. population.  

[gotbeer]

The real reason that US internet service providers are terrified of strong net neutrality

 

Makes cents.  

[Spirit]

Another interesting breakdown on this ...

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-net-neutrality-112759.html?cmpid=sf

[Jay]

I asked this same question like this in another thread:

Outside of your one line, snarky snipe, do you have any actual insight on the issue? Do you have a compelling reason behind your statement other than "me no likey all govermintz?" It's not like the concept of net neutrality requires some massive new tax or for a huge federal department to be created to enforce it. Everything is already in place. Why is the alternative preferable in your opinion given the nature of the Internet and its integral place in what are basic activities of 21st century life?

Jay did not answer.

 

Why would I respond to this POS.

[Jay]

So Jay, why are you against Net Neutrality? 

 

In principle I'm not against it.  I think the Federal Government is corrupt, incompetent and has a tendency to overreach.  Our laws (see Obamacare) are enacted by individuals who don't know what they are voting for.  The laws are then selectively enforced (see Obamacare) depending on what is politically advantageous to the current administration.  The government is also susceptible to political influence from special interests (see Obamacare).

[arch stanton]

In principle I'm not against it.  I think the Federal Government is corrupt, incompetent and has a tendency to overreach.  Our laws (see Obamacare) are enacted by individuals who don't know what they are voting for.  The laws are then selectively enforced (see Obamacare) depending on what is politically advantageous to the current administration.  The government is also susceptible to political influence from special interests (see Obamacare).

I see you couldn't find your way to include the Patriot Act in overreaching federal government actions.

[Jay]

I see you couldn't find your way to include the Patriot Act in overreaching federal government actions.

 

There are plenty of examples, feel free to list them here.

[halobob]

Question:  Under net neutrality will I be unable to purchase faster internet at a higher price or will everyone have the same speed of internet?

[Spirit]

In principle I'm not against it.  I think the Federal Government is corrupt, incompetent and has a tendency to overreach.  Our laws (see Obamacare) are enacted by individuals who don't know what they are voting for.  The laws are then selectively enforced (see Obamacare) depending on what is politically advantageous to the current administration.  The government is also susceptible to political influence from special interests (see Obamacare).

 

 

So in principle, you're in favor of the president's position on net neutrality and you remain against Obamacare. 

 

Got it. 

[Schildog]

In principle I'm not against it.  I think the Federal Government is corrupt, incompetent and has a tendency to overreach.  Our laws (see Obamacare) are enacted by individuals who don't know what they are voting for.  The laws are then selectively enforced (see Obamacare) depending on what is politically advantageous to the current administration.  The government is also susceptible to political influence from special interests (see Obamacare).

 

cute because the special interests in this case are the cable companies who want to change the status quo. 

 

edit: what geoff said.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Schildog

[Thomas]

Question:  Under net neutrality will I be unable to purchase faster internet at a higher price or will everyone have the same speed of internet?

 

Right now we are essentially in a state of net neutrality. There are some small examples of network bias but they are still small on scale. Things would really only change if ISPs and other data carriers really began implementing policies that contradict  the entire concept of net neutrality. 

[halobob]

Right now we are essentially in a state of net neutrality. There are some small examples of network bias but they are still small on scale. Things would really only change if ISPs and other data carriers really began implementing policies that contradict  the entire concept of net neutrality. 

If we are essentially in a state of net neutrality then why change anything?  Sorry I'm just really confused by this whole situation.  

[Tank]

If we are essentially in a state of net neutrality then why change anything?  Sorry I'm just really confused by this whole situation.  

 

my guess? $$$$$$$$

 

it's possible i may be wrong on this.

[Jay]

So in principle, you're in favor of the president's position on net neutrality and you remain against Obamacare. 

 

Got it. 

 

Now you're just being silly.

[Thomas]

If we are essentially in a state of net neutrality then why change anything?  Sorry I'm just really confused by this whole situation.  

 

Because there is little to no legal assurance that the data carriers will maintain the status quo when there is so much financial motivation for them to do otherwise.

 

[floplag]

The threat here is that making the so-called fast lanes, or priority access could easily lead to a place where the little guy has no bandwidth left.
There is no real reason for this other than profiteering as others have said the system works fine now... but you attach the whole "premium" label and you get to charge more.
For me this whole thing is very much like the drug dealer giving free samples to get you hooked then charging you a ton to fee the addiction...
There is no reason the changes are needed.

[gotbeer]

Question:  Under net neutrality will I be unable to purchase faster internet at a higher price or will everyone have the same speed of internet?

 

This is also part of the problem with net neutrality.  Right now, there is no reason for ISP's to change what they are doing now.  I believe that part of the net neutrality debate, might be wrong and it might be a totally different set of rules, is the definition of broadband.  FCC wants to change that definition from I think around 1 mbps to 10-25 mbps and even up to 1 gbps.  DSL is fighting this, since it would make them obsolete.  Cable is fighting it, because they know they are next.  And fiber is pushing for it because they get the 1 gbps.  In the end, on the consumer side, we are stuck with dinosaurs and are watching as a meteor comes closer and closer.  Most households are limited on their selection of ISP's.  I know in my area, and this is Los Angeles mind you not some rural nowhere area, the choice is DSL or cable, with only one cable company supplying.  They have fiber to the junction box, but since that box is about 150 yards away, the fiber speed is still the same as dsl.  

 

On top of that, the flip side is that the ISP's want to charge the websites for bandwidth.  So even if you have fiber, if Netflix doesn't pay say Google to keep them in the fast lane, you could still have DSL speeds to them.  Now multiply that by tens or even hundreds of ISP's that Netflix has to pay.  And imagine if you are a startup tech company, how much you have to pay just to stay competitive.  Because in games, apps, websites, if you are slow, you got to go.  

 

This situation is going to get ugly.  And the Dems might have just found the right topic to send the voters back their way in 2 years.