Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer as FCC Chief

pigwalk said:
So you're saying that ISP's having control over what content we have full access to and what we get throttled on?

W1retap, do you use Netflix or any other streaming video service? I'm sure your ISP would be glad to throttle it for you to push you towards whatever video on demand service they have.
Click to expand...

Well what he is saying is that ISPs and corporations should have the freedom to do anything they want to their customers whenever they want to without regulation.. Apparently that's the 'American Way'.
 
I am pretty much force to use either:

-TWC (Which is soon to be Comcast here)
-AT&T DSL (which is soon to be more strict with p2p)

Pretty much every city is only allow one cable company and one phoneline company. It is either these two or the overprice DirectTV internet...
 
w1retap said:
That's called a circumstance. You aren't stuck. It's just the circumstance that you are in. Nobody is forcing you to use their service, nobody is forcing you to buy from them. That isn't the case for everyone, so what you want should not effect everyone else. If I want something that differs from something you want, should I impose those differences on you as well? Should my government agenda be imposed on you, or would you rather not have the government fuck with your shit in the first place?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think that there are many people stuck in this circumstance and it's not just a select few odd ball people. I know that myself and many other friends/family are stuck on Comcast's monopolized cables. We have no other option. Believe me If I could switch ISP's I would. Comcast has already been caught red handed throttling torrents and p2p transfers. Without net neutrality this could expand into throttling 3rd party voip companies, Video on demand services (Hulu, Joost), movie streaming (Netflix). I know you are for the free market and love competition but for a lot of us there is no competition in sight. All net neutrality is proposing is the telephones "common carrier" for the new age internet. Does this not make sense?
 
IMO, the main problem isn't so much network neutrality as it is a lack of competition. If we each had 10 ISPs to choose from, none of them would even consider restricting any protocols since it would be easy for customers to switch. I think what needs to happen is the phone and cable companies should be split in two. One that is in charge of the physical last mile connections land connections and one that provides the internet service. The company providing the last mile connections should be required to lease access of the lines to any ISP at wholesale prices. This would bring down the costs for other ISPs to enter the market and drive down prices and improve service.
 
Methadras said:
The free market left to itself is a self correcting entity. Anytime a government makes intrusions, demands, and wants to regulate any aspect of commerce you start to have issues. The market is no longer free or freer. You want to play this stupid game you started? You just sound like an ass.
Click to expand...

Well lets try that with civil laws too, then.. If a completely lawless free market would give us a Utopian-style crime-free economic environment, then why wouldn't a completely lawless social environment do the same?

Or do both just lead to criminality-fueled chaos?
 
w1retap said:
Personally, I want the government to stay the fuck away from my internet. That's the last thing I want them to regulate and ruin like everything else. I don't support this decision.
Click to expand...

uhhh, isnt that what net neutrality is?
 
Rockjay420 said:
uhhh, isnt that what net neutrality is?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think what they are talking about are regulations that allow them to enforce net neutrality, so if a place like Comcast throttles they can be held accountable. It could be from merely outing offenders to fining them.. I don't think this has anything to do with regulation of the internet itself.
 
w1retap needs to recheck his definition about net neutrality...lol

"Net Neutrality" is all about undiscriminating practice on bits & bytes ---> those ISPs needs get their stinky hands out of the streaming info in the pipes ---> no throttling / restricting this type of data over that type of data. Data is data is data is bunch of 0 & 1. Period.

And yeah, this is one of few areas when Gov regulation needed...

Talkin' about Gov regulation vs. free free FREEEE everything...IMO extreme (either sides) is NEVER a good thing and compromise is the way to go
 
Just because we call Net Neutrality the idea of everyone not being able to touch your internet doesn't mean that's what the government will see it as once they start drafting up the couple-hundred page resolution on it.
W1retap is nailing it right on the head. Net Neutrality is a good thing. However, the impotent government trying to enforce it would be like having a baby write the law. In fact, I think I'd rather have the baby write the law...
 
Damn no edit button and hitting Submit instead of Preview!
Regardless, how does everyone who're pulling for Net Neutrality feel about QoS?
 
hdnut said:
I think this website better explains what net neutrality is really about.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

Most opponents of net neutrality are from Republican/conservative background who are naturally against any sort of government regulation, good or bad.
Click to expand...

This is true, well put. I have met with some of these "conservatives", they also like to call themselves "Christians" while agreeing with wars and killing. In other words, they are mostly hypocrites and bigots.

I am sure some of them are good persons, but the group in general is full of jackasses.
 
There are people who believe it was over regulation, and not a lack of regulation, which caused the current economic downturn?

lol ... wow
 
Draax said:
There are people who believe it was over regulation, and not a lack of regulation, which caused the current economic downturn?

lol ... wow
Click to expand...

Exactly, imagine having a discussion with this special people...
 
Eulogy said:
W1retap is nailing it right on the head.
Click to expand...
You think so ?...I don't know, from what i read he just happily released his BS about anti-regulation all over the place...be4 rechecking what the main topic we're discussing here

And if you think free market will be auto adjust net neutrality for everyone...heh I doubt about that. IMO, NO ISPs love net neutrality cuz it's only hurt their bottom-line (the cost to expand their pipes)

What likely gonna happen in the 100% free market is (1) they all gonna secretly handshaking on throttling the sh*t out of your pipes (and "peacefully" milking $ in their "farms" area) OR (2) one of them breaks the shady "rules" & playing hero (potential increase new costumer but also increase paying more for expanding bandwidth)

Based on how the telco in the States "seriously compete" with one another...the #2 scenario is more likely gonna happen IMO ;)
 
without a regulatory government you would have monopolies running rampant and them themselves undermining what capitalism is, more so than our government could ever do (because our government can be re-structured at the will of the people, unlike a monopolistic company's board of directors)

this is a lesson we learned in the 1930s

without our government acting quick on net neutrality companies will soon aquire the whole of the internet which will eventually lead to its own demise, when then our government would REALLY have to step in to prevent worldwide trade and communications from falling apart due to mismanagement of the internet by the corporations (not that they all will fuck up, but you only need one huge bad apple to fuck shit up)

and to those "small government" people, we are NOT a small nation, and we are now at the brink of globalization.

without government there is no civilization.
 
Terminus said:
without our government acting quick on net neutrality companies will soon aquire the whole of the internet...
Click to expand...

You DO realize that Verizon owns probably 75%+ (if not more) of the physical lines out there, yes?
 
The old AT&T (now mostly Verizon) did own most of the hard lines, and look at how that turned out. As long as modern-day Verizon stays competitive they should have no problem with the gov't.
 
and by "competitive" i mean low cost (not disgustingly massive profits) pipes and net neutrality for all!
 
@ W1retap

You may debate however wrong you are about what the causes of the downturn are from your pulpit, but I'll take the words of Greenspan and Bernanke (You know, the men put in charge of all the nation's money by both Rep and Dem presidents) over yours, when they say it was govt DE-REGULATION at the root of the lack of oversight over the mess we're in.


pigwalk said:
I'm not exactly sure how any techie in his right mind can be against Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

Because W1retap is a neo-con first and a techie second.
 
To those outside of the Telecom-funded Neo-Con Snow-Job farce that tries to place itself on the same footing as an actual debate and pretends its equally as intelligent. (like: ID vs. Evo) Net Neutrality does not curb any sort of competition, in its essence its an ANTI-MONOPOLISTIC law, in the vein of the ones we already have. It ensures that ALL ONLINE BUSINESSES compete on the same level and the telecoms cannot manufacture a monopoly on online businesses with prices that some businesses can afford and others cant.

New-Egg started small, if Net Neutrality wasnt an accepted standard then, it could have died in the wake of Ebay and Amazon, if those companies could have bought themselves better service from telecos than the rest of the net, who the hell thinks they wouldnt?

Net Neutrality SECURES equal online competition between all businesses, irrelevant of providers.

We already have Anti-Monopoly laws on the books, this is just another one. Those who say this would CURB online business competition, have their heads up their deriers.
 
lol, I need a clue?

I think the majority of people on this forum need a clue. It seems NOBODY knows even what net neutrality is besides the definition blogs have fed them. It isn't the "descrimination between 1's and 0's" or "nobody owns the internet". It's the GOVERNMENT has the final say so in the internet. Fuck that. Why the hell do you want THEM controlling your content/speed/isp's/etc? I swear, you guys are on crack. Might as well just give away your freedoms and choice as a consumer right now. Net neutrality isn't anything more than allowing the government to get it's foot further in the door to regulate YOU the consumer. They would then be able to say this region needs something because the other region has it or doesn't have it, and who is responsible for footing the bill? It's the same thing that keeps driving companies under because of government regulation. It forces them to make non-business decisions which they don't have the money for at the current rates people are willing to pay for their service.

And no, I don't work for Commiecast, I hate the company with a passion, and I'd never use their service.

But thanks TheRedCommunist.. thank you for the insightful commentary on how we need more government controlling every aspect of our lives. "Net Neutrality SECURES equal online competition between all businesses, irrelevant of providers." .... ahahaha, that "equal competition" is a clue to death of companies right there. Do you know what that means? It means the smaller companies have to pay up BIGTIME in order to meet every specification that the largest ISP meets, or else they tank. Then you're stuck with one mega corporation like COMCAST, and they set the standard. Then the government also tells them what other standards they have to meet and basically controls them "for the good of the people". Read a little more Karl Marx for us and vomit some ideas through the keyboard. Communist.
 
Net neutrality is nothing more in this case of the government picking the economic winners. In it's original form, it is good, however the fomr we will end up getting, will end up benefiting content providers such as google, and youtube, over infrastructure owners and builders such as AT&T.

A true free market in the cable/dsl providers would mean that you would have a variety of choices, reguardless of where you live, and if someone starts to deny you bandwidth or content, switching providers would be easy enough.

However due to government regulations, many of us in the USA are tied to whatever monopoly provider is offering cable or dsl where we live. Whenever the government sticks it's hands into markets, we are more likely to get closer to monopolies, where well connected people and industries are rewarded with money and anti-competive laws that prevent new business's from entering a market. A large business does not fear regulation, they are often for it, simply because they can just charge more money from customers, as the market becomes safer, as the costs to entering it for startups go higher due to compliance issues.

An example of this is the seemingly inevitable global warming legislation. The law as it first appeared last year was written by... ENRON. The whole idea of it, was to use the permits generated by the cap and trade, make income from selling the permits, and pass higher energy costs to consumers. They would profit by selling the permits to other industries, and lowering there own consumption by shutting down older coal fired plants. They would also keep consuming coal, simply by using slighly lower coal prices internationally, in the developing world where there is no envirormental regulation, to further pad their profits. That is a simple case of rent seeking.

It is a simple fact, in a true free market, older more established companies do not fear each other, but they fear the hungry startup that will shatter the current business model. In the tech world, IBM was at the top before the 80's, and was displaced when microsoft out-innovated/marketed them in the OS market, by changing the business model from hardware/software packages to just software/support. In the same way as microsoft got fat and happy, google everything in the internet era, by switching from simply a software model (browser) to a largely search and advertising diven model.

Whenever the government tries to regulate the market, the laws end up being written by the industry lawyers, or other lobbyists, who are more interesting in stifling innovation, and competition, and while meeting whatever goal the regulators want to implement. In most of those cases, it involves picking a winner, and then a transfer of funds towards the companies/groups in question and money away from normal working, middle class tax payers.

What we need is not more regulation, but instead transparency. We don't need the goverment picking winners and losers, for example, establishing quota's for making loans to people that may not be able to afford them, and basically punishing banks for following safe lending practices. (community lending act) The importance of transparency is that it would allow interested parties to actually find the fraud, instead of relying on press hungry attornies. Government is more of a top down solution, while allowing the people to make the decisions is a bottom up. If you want it is open source(the people) vs a monolithic entity(government).
 
Did I miss some one here actually saying that NN would curb on line competition?
While I agree, with some parts of the NN ideal, I do think their should be exceptions.
VOIP, business, and government traffic should get priority over e-mail and regular people just browsing the web, and torrents/downloads imho. Of course, ideally, the low priority stuff would only be delayed or throttled when the infrastructure has nearly reached it's capacity.

If we involve the Federal Government in this right now, 5 years from now, the people that clamored for NN laws will be wondering WTF happened. The lobbyists, the politicians and their pork filled, ulterior motivated riders will turn NN into something else entirely. It will not be the NN we are currently talking about today when they get done with it. And I don't think it would be for the better.

I still say break the monopoly/duopoly strangleholds many providers have in many places, and then let the market decide. Until the ISP's actually start throttling or blocking competitors content, or start extorting monies from websites to prevent being blocked/throttled. At that point we would already have legal grounds for civil and criminal actions. And passing something meaningful on a fast track (fast track bills tend to be a bit shorter and to the point and usually have less pork tossed in on the side), would be a greater possibility. It's just my opinion, but our cavalcade of idiots in the House and Senate are incapable of doing this right with out huge amounts of public scrutiny being turned towards the problem. And right now the problem is just not big enough to draw much attention from big media or the common man.
 
w1retap said:
I think the majority of people on this forum need a clue. It seems NOBODY knows even what net neutrality is besides the definition blogs have fed them. It isn't the "descrimination between 1's and 0's" or "nobody owns the internet". It's the GOVERNMENT has the final say so in the internet. Fuck that. Why the hell do you want THEM controlling your content/speed/isp's/etc? I swear, you guys are on crack. Might as well just give away your freedoms and choice as a consumer right now. Net neutrality isn't anything more than allowing the government to get it's foot further in the door to regulate YOU the consumer. They would then be able to say this region needs something because the other region has it or doesn't have it, and who is responsible for footing the bill? It's the same thing that keeps driving companies under because of government regulation. It forces them to make non-business decisions which they don't have the money for at the current rates people are willing to pay for their service.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality in it's current form has been largely perverted, in how the law is going to be written, from having no one being able to touch or TAX the internet, to having the government make the rules on how transactions behave on the internet. I don't want some nameless bureaucrat deciding what does and what does not belong on the internet, and I don't want the provider deciding what sites I can access also. I don't mind paying for more bandwidth, or for access, as long as I can see what I am getting into before-hand.

Once you give the government the power to GIVE something to you, you also cede the power for them to TAKE it away.
 
kioras said:
Net neutrality in it's current form has been largely perverted, in how the law is going to be written, from having no one being able to touch or TAX the internet, to having the government make the rules on how transactions behave on the internet. I don't want some nameless bureaucrat deciding what does and what does not belong on the internet, and I don't want the provider deciding what sites I can access also. I don't mind paying for more bandwidth, or for access, as long as I can see what I am getting into before-hand.

Once you give the government the power to GIVE something to you, you also cede the power for them to TAKE it away.
Click to expand...
Precisely why I don't want the government being the final say in my internet access. I'd rather it be the ISP, because that would be a merely circumstantial situation which I could have more than one option in.
 
GORANKAR said:
I am not sure where I stand on it totally myself. I do think VOIP, government, and business traffic should get a higher priority than little Johny Warez's torrents or Grandma's e-mails
Click to expand...

If you want priority buy a buisness line, which most places above have, i pay my bill, what makes someone's VOIP more important then my email to someone...or my lInux torrent i am downloading to use for say a work project..
 
Last time I checked, it's governments that have destroyed civilizations. :p
 
I wonder how all his entertainment industry goons like Biden and those he appointed in DOJ and other departments feel about this?
 
NKDietrich said:
I wonder how all his entertainment industry goons like Biden and those he appointed in DOJ and other departments feel about this?
Click to expand...
They'll put extra provisions, earmarks, and pork on sticky notes like they did with the bailout/stimulus packages.
 
w1retap said:
They'll put extra provisions, earmarks, and pork on sticky notes like they did with the bailout/stimulus packages.
Click to expand...

They will be closely involved in writing the resulting bill, along with the california and silicon valley congressional reps who would go to their constituents lawyers for advice.
 
This thread shows a prime example why you never talk politics with family/friends. It only gets worse when you add anything tech related into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top