Best Net Neutrality Explanation Ever

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The next time one of your clueless friends / family members want you to explain net neutrality, show them this. If they can't understand this explanation, something is definitely wrong with them.
 
They want to make it like cell phones where you have to pay for every little thing you do. The internet is a series of tubes y'know.
 
niconx said:
They want to make it like cell phones where you have to pay for every little thing you do. The internet is a series of tubes y'know.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But the big picture is if they can "segment" what you do on the internet then they can track it and TAX it. That is what it is all about.
 
I think that is a wonderful picture for the family to get the concept. Will they do anything about it, probably not.
 
Not the "best" explanation but a "good" one. It would be better to show all of those sources, like youtube, coming INTO the Big ISP and once they go to the consumer they have the turn valves on them. This would illustrate that the ISP is charging for things that are coming to them but that they are not responsible for...
 
ISPs aren't doing this now, so why call in the government before it's needed (as if the government really has our interests in mind)?

Competition is what prevents ISPs from doing as they wish.

There is no Net Neutrality law. There is a law that gives the FCC power to control information flow on the internet, to achieve what it sees as "fair" ("fairness" not "neutrality" is congressional mandate to the FCC).

The government has no competition, and so can do as it wishes.

This also puts us another step closer to the government imposing taxes on the internet.
 
Stone Cold said:
ISPs aren't doing this now, so why call in the government before it's needed (as if the government really has our interests in mind)?
Click to expand...

You mean when comcast wasn't throttling bittorrent, or when comcast was fudging with L3 and Netflix.

Competition is what prevents ISPs from doing as they wish.
Click to expand...
There is no competition, at MOST it's a duopoly. Protip: 56k and satellite don't count as competition, neither does wireless from cell companies. Also, DSL is slowly turning into a non-viable option when cable is approaching 10-20-50-100mbps.
 
I wouldn't want the government involved in managing private internet networks. These networks are not like phone lines, individuals can't really flood phone lines like they can flood ISP infrastructure. If I work at a datacenter and block all of Detroit's Comcast customers from accessing my datacenter's network, could the government hassle me due to "disparity of impact"?
 
Hold on a second, I'm confused here. I see a lot of government bashing here but the Net Neutrality law is to prevent ISP's from doing this, but yet people still bash the government?

So without the laws, ISP's could do this, like how Comcast already has started doing it. Who's next?

I think people just like bashing the government without actually knowing what they are talking about.
 
PersonalJ said:
I wouldn't want the government involved in managing private internet networks.
Click to expand...

That's a grand idea, but only works if there is competition among ISPs. If we had true competition, it wouldn't be an issue since attempting to charge À la carte would be suicide for an ISP when their competitors are not. But there isn't competition. And just to head you off, dialup/DSL/wireless are not competitors to broadband.

In the lack of a competitive market, there is no choice other than government regulation. Monopoly abuse is far worse than the common-sense regulation passed earlier this week that basically said "you can't charge $5/month extra for Facebook."
 
Spot on, thanks for the picture.... I can't believe they are going to "monitor" everything and know what traffic goes where. The people of [H] and the smart internet dudes worldwide will easily bypass this crap I bet. What a fucking joke, seriously... a huge pathetic money grab is all this is about. The rest who aren't in the money (99% of the world, 5.9 billion people or more) do not want this to happen with the internet.

Will the law makers realize that? No, they will take handouts and free lap dances from the Comcast lobbyists who want them to pass the deal..... all while telling them its good for the people :rolleyes:
 
Blakestr said:
Not the "best" explanation but a "good" one. It would be better to show all of those sources, like youtube, coming INTO the Big ISP and once they go to the consumer they have the turn valves on them. This would illustrate that the ISP is charging for things that are coming to them but that they are not responsible for...
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point, however this would be a good talking point, once they get the idea of why net neutrality is something important.
 
bigdogchris said:
I think people just like bashing the government without actually knowing what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

It's the complaint de jour. I can see bashing the government for not going far enough in saying "hold on a minute you aholes, you can't do that" but just bashing for the sake of bashing the goverment in this instance is way off base.
 
bigdogchris said:
Hold on a second, I'm confused here. I see a lot of government bashing here but the Net Neutrality law is to prevent ISP's from doing this, but yet people still bash the government?

So without the laws, ISP's could do this, like how Comcast already has started doing it. Who's next?

I think people just like bashing the government without actually knowing what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

The FCC has said that they have nothing against turning the internet into a "pay per use" service.
 
Saw the picture and I have no clue what it means. The page on the other hand makes a lot of sense.
 
I want government OUT of the internet. And roads, and the electricity grid.

Deregulation did wonders for California electricity in 2000.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Exactly. But the big picture is if they can "segment" what you do on the internet then they can track it and TAX it. That is what it is all about.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha, nice job talking out your ass. The government wants to segment the internet so they can tax it more - by making it illegal to segment the internet?

FCC is trying to make net neutrality a requirement. ISPs don't want it to be a requirement. The govt is fighting the ISPs on this one, they want two different things.

Aka, for all you blind haters out there, in this case govt == good guys, IPSs == bad guys.
 
always liked this one better

Net_Neutrality.png
 
Derangel said:
The FCC has said that they have nothing against turning the internet into a "pay per use" service.
Click to expand...

You are confusing pay-per-use with the segregation of content delivery. One is charging per-megabyte, one is per-website. This was discussed in General Mayhem and it was worded nicely by one of the members there, so I'll just quote his response:

HOCP4ME said:
I have zero problem with usage-based pricing. Carriers can charge per megabit or per megabyte; whatever fits their business model. In fact, if they are charging per megabit I can see how one could justify charging extra for certain services. But that leaked marketing slide shows that companies want to charge more for a megabyte of one site than for a megabyte of another site. That's complete bullshit. Your electric company can charge for quantity (kilowatt hours) and quality (clean energy vs. coal), but they cannot send an inspector to your home and charge you less when they discover you're using their brand of appliances. The USPS can charge for quantity (size, weight, distance) and quality (speed of delivery), but they cannot open your letters and charge you extra when they discover you're sending a check to a Republican candidate. The "some services should cost more because they use more network capacity" argument is complete bullshit if you're already paying for each unit of capacity you use.

That type of behavior is anti-competetive and should fall under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, if not Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
 
Hey, I've been cross-quoted. Neat! :D

I like this picture but there needs to be a note at the top explaining, "this is what ISPs want to do and what the government is trying to prevent." A lot of people seem to think this picture is the goal of Net Neutrality, while it is actually what Net Neutrality aims to prevent.
 
bigdogchris said:
Hold on a second, I'm confused here. I see a lot of government bashing here but the Net Neutrality law is to prevent ISP's from doing this, but yet people still bash the government?

So without the laws, ISP's could do this, like how Comcast already has started doing it. Who's next?

I think people just like bashing the government without actually knowing what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Most people have no idea WTF they are talking about. ANGRY rant to follow:

Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with the government taking over or taxing anything. What it is supposed to be about is having the government actually protect the little guy for a change by telling predatory telecom giants that they can't tier the internet and charge extra for services that they don't even fucking provide in the first place. What the telecoms want is to OWN and CONTROL the internet. They want to charge you to access the internet and then they want to charge you more to access certain parts of the internet. They have been buying politicians for ages to ensure this. Net Neutrality is about trying to stop the telecom giants from raping us.

Now, the government IS about to screw us but it ISN'T because they are becoming TOO involved. It is because they will sell out to the telecom giants, yet again. If people want to be pissed at the government then be pissed for the right reasons FFS.

One thing that most people do not realize is that, back in the 90s and early 00s the major telecoms all got huge annual tax breaks with the understanding that they would use that money to upgrade their infrastructure so that this bandwidth problem wouldn't become a freaking problem. And guess what they did? They screwed us coming and going. They took their tax breaks and sat on them while raising their rates constantly for cable tv and internet access whenever they felt like they could get away with it. They didn't reinvest that money in ways that would be truly beneficial. They dragged their god-damned feet and didn't upgrade significantly and now they have the god-damned gall to want to bitch and moan about how they can't possibly service all their customers without limiting bandwidth and tiering access. It all a fucking scam. They didn't do what they were given the money for in the first place and now they want to use that as the excuse to own and control. It is unbelievable and only in a country where the majority of the people are so fucking ignorant and propagandized could that possibly fly. They see this as their way to own the internet. And they are going to get it too. They are going to get all of it because the American people are fucking sheep who stand by and watch their government be bought off by corporate interests.

FFS this pisses me off. Do people know that we pay Comcast and AT&T and every telecom provider with the exception of Quest to spy on us and then hand over our private communications to government spy agencies? If you have internet access and/or a phone you are doing that right now. You are paying them to spy on you. The telecom giants are fucking EVIL. Literally. There have been several instances where smaller communities have decided to install their own fiber-optic grid and run their own community based internet and TV company. You know what corporations like Comcast et al. do when that happens? They sue! They sue the township. They go to court to get injunctions and they go to the state regulatory commissions and attempt to get them to force the communities to stop building their own network. It is OUTRAGEOUS.

People in this country had better wake the hell up. We are being literally ROBBED by these corporations. Everyone with a brain should want the government to declare the internet free. To declare it neutral.
 
beto said:
Most people have no idea WTF they are talking about. ANGRY rant to follow:

Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with the government taking over or taxing anything. What it is supposed to be about is having the government actually protect the little guy for a change by telling predatory telecom giants that they can't tier the internet and charge extra for services that they don't even fucking provide in the first place. What the telecoms want is to OWN and CONTROL the internet. They want to charge you to access the internet and then they want to charge you more to access certain parts of the internet. They have been buying politicians for ages to ensure this. Net Neutrality is about trying to stop the telecom giants from raping us.

Now, the government IS about to screw us but it ISN'T because they are becoming TOO involved. It is because they will sell out to the telecom giants, yet again. If people want to be pissed at the government then be pissed for the right reasons FFS.

One thing that most people do not realize is that, back in the 90s and early 00s the major telecoms all got huge annual tax breaks with the understanding that they would use that money to upgrade their infrastructure so that this bandwidth problem wouldn't become a freaking problem. And guess what they did? They screwed us coming and going. They took their tax breaks and sat on them while raising their rates constantly for cable tv and internet access whenever they felt like they could get away with it. They didn't reinvest that money in ways that would be truly beneficial. They dragged their god-damned feet and didn't upgrade significantly and now they have the god-damned gall to want to bitch and moan about how they can't possibly service all their customers without limiting bandwidth and tiering access. It all a fucking scam. They didn't do what they were given the money for in the first place and now they want to use that as the excuse to own and control. It is unbelievable and only in a country where the majority of the people are so fucking ignorant and propagandized could that possibly fly. They see this as their way to own the internet. And they are going to get it too. They are going to get all of it because the American people are fucking sheep who stand by and watch their government be bought off by corporate interests.

FFS this pisses me off. Do people know that we pay Comcast and AT&T and every telecom provider with the exception of Quest to spy on us and then hand over our private communications to government spy agencies? If you have internet access and/or a phone you are doing that right now. You are paying them to spy on you. The telecom giants are fucking EVIL. Literally. There have been several instances where smaller communities have decided to install their own fiber-optic grid and run their own community based internet and TV company. You know what corporations like Comcast et al. do when that happens? They sue! They sue the township. They go to court to get injunctions and they go to the state regulatory commissions and attempt to get them to force the communities to stop building their own network. It is OUTRAGEOUS.

People in this country had better wake the hell up. We are being literally ROBBED by these corporations. Everyone with a brain should want the government to declare the internet free. To declare it neutral.
Click to expand...

Damn right all the way. Case in point: Comcast should be using its cash to upgrade its network instead of buying out NBC. To me that is the only reason needed to reject the Comcast/NBC deal. If Boeing purchased American Airlines and then had no money to make new airplanes wouldn't that be a bit retarded? Same deal with Comcast. These telecoms are smart fast and greedy, the only way to keep them in line is with fair government regulation. This isn't 1930, an advanced telecom infrastructure is vital and we can't let the telecoms jack it up.
 
This matter isn't just affecting the USA. As ICANN and various other services core to the internet are central to the USA this jurisdiction affects the globe.

I can't say I trust the government with new regulations, considering all the crap that has been going on around the TSA, BP Oil Spill, and all the other shit like police busting legal marijuana consumers.

What has worked, for a long time so far, is a truely Free Market. The USA government (and other governments) should be working harder to protect the Free Market instead of handing out bailouts, which recent Cables have shown to be a planned execution anyways.

As the networks expand in the USA a Free Market is superior as people will naturally take their dollars to the service that is cheaper and serves them better. If monopolies occur, you can legally lobby together and get companies split, or force injunctions. This has happened to Microsoft repeatedly in the past.



I recently took a look at the cellular bundles I have up here in Alberta Canada. I saw these "preferential plans" to certain services, tb/twitt/myspc. What I saw though, was that if those are the services yuo're going to use on your mobile device, then it's a good idea to get that package, because the bandwidth you use does not count towards your regular mobile browsing bandwidth. This does not provide you with a better delivery of service over just surfing there with your normal data package beyond that you can spend more data on that site and not be charged extra for it. Furthermore this is cross promotion for those sites, which if you know anything about business is something every company tries to do to increase their market, which is not a bad thing.


Everyone is getting hysterical about this, and they keep not realizing that their dollar ACTUALLY matters. So does your political voice.
 
bigdogchris said:
Hold on a second, I'm confused here. I see a lot of government bashing here but the Net Neutrality law is to prevent ISP's from doing this, but yet people still bash the government?

So without the laws, ISP's could do this, like how Comcast already has started doing it. Who's next?

I think people just like bashing the government without actually knowing what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Yep. The braindead teabagger mentality is seeping into this forum. It's bad enough I had to explain to a custom power box builder why Intel would sell lower grade CPUs. (As if he never heard about downbinning)
 
The page is misleading, it can make the argument that the content providers get to use the service for free, which they don't because they pay for bandwidth too.
 
Does the FCC want to kill Hulu?

Eventually we'll look back to the good ol' days when the worst thing might have been Comcast throttling bit-torrent a bit, an "evil deed" to prevent a handful of users from degrading the internet experience for the majority of users (because of the massive amount of bandwidth used by bit-torrent, which isn't real-time critical).

There is more than a duopoly. DSL and cable are both real choices now. But, cell towers are starting to provide real alternatives. But, government is a monopoly.
 
Stone Cold said:
Does the FCC want to kill Hulu?

Eventually we'll look back to the good ol' days when the worst thing might have been Comcast throttling bit-torrent a bit, an "evil deed" to prevent a handful of users from degrading the internet experience for the majority of users (because of the massive amount of bandwidth used by bit-torrent, which isn't real-time critical).

There is more than a duopoly. DSL and cable are both real choices now. But, cell towers are starting to provide real alternatives. But, government is a monopoly.
Click to expand...

You're in favor of competition, right?

The FCC is telling NBC that it has to offer its shows directly to other Web sites. That’s potentially devastating news for Hulu. If, say, Yahoo can license “The Office” directly from NBC, it may not want to bother cutting a deal with the joint venture site. And to be clear: The overwhelming majority of Hulu’s traffic comes from people watching shows from its big three partners.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the FCC is too. If facing real competition is enough to kill Hulu, Hulu deserves to die. That's how the free market works, right?
 
singe_101 said:
I want government OUT of the internet. And roads, and the electricity grid.

Deregulation did wonders for California electricity in 2000.
Click to expand...

Um, no. During that same time frame, natural gas prices increased stratospherically by 1000% (which these plants need to generate electricity) along with a drought running into 2000, which reduced generating capacity at hydroelectrical plants. Add to that California's nitrogen oxide credit costs increased by 2000% which these plants had to trade in (California suspended this in following years but the damage was done). Couple that with an unexpected spike in demand due to unusually hot weather, it's no wonder electric prices skyrocketed. Little really to do with deregulation. Just like any business, when your input costs spike uncontrollably, your product prices spike accordingly.
 
The Red said:
Like it did for the financial and housing markets...
Click to expand...

Goverment backed and incentivized adjustable sub-prime loans started it all. In order to push banks into allowing more home ownership among a broader income sector, they allowed normally conservative (e.g. fixed rate loans) banks to make highly unstable subprime loans with often little to no income verification. HUD wanted about half of Freddie and Fannie purchased mortgages to belong to those whose income fell below the median income. Problem is the banks couldn't write conventional loans (30 year fixed) because the borrower couldn't afford the payments. Sub-prime to the rescue. You know the rest of the story...
 
Correction. This is what the ISPs allegedly want to do
HOCP4ME said:
Hey, I've been cross-quoted. Neat! :D

I like this picture but there needs to be a note at the top explaining, "this is what ISPs want to do and what the government is trying to prevent." A lot of people seem to think this picture is the goal of Net Neutrality, while it is actually what Net Neutrality aims to prevent.
Click to expand...
 
techrat said:
Yep. The braindead teabagger mentality is seeping into this forum. It's bad enough I had to explain to a custom power box builder why Intel would sell lower grade CPUs. (As if he never heard about downbinning)
Click to expand...

Ahh, blissful ignorance. If you think pure market forces created problems such as the housing crisis, you're in deep deep denial. Never underestimate the damage done by those with good intentions. In otherwise, the last words you ever want to hear: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
 
Nice with the slur there. You really come across like a brainiac calling people who have a different opinion than you "teabaggers". I deal with plenty of self-righteous fools like you all the time.

Instead of the government being evil, to you and your pals, corporations are evil. Like Comcast with their 10% profit margin. Or maybe we should talk about Verizon and their DECLINING profit margin that sits currently at 3.3%. And I definitely think you guys should bash Qwest and their negative profit margin some more.

We definitely should not talk about that awesome corporation Apple and their 22% profit margin or Microsoft and their 33% profit margin. Nah. Its all those OTHER evil corporations.


techrat said:
Yep. The braindead teabagger mentality is seeping into this forum. It's bad enough I had to explain to a custom power box builder why Intel would sell lower grade CPUs. (As if he never heard about downbinning)
Click to expand...
 
The really sad thing is I was actually hoping there would be some intelligent discussion of "Net Neutrality" on [H]. Sadly, I was wrong.
 
beto said:
People in this country had better wake the hell up. We are being literally ROBBED by these corporations. Everyone with a brain should want the government to declare the internet free. To declare it neutral.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting observation I've made. People will usually latch on to cute catchphrases/strawmen like "deregulation" and "corporations" without ever considering possible negative outcomes of government intervention. For example, helping the poor sounds like a great idea, so we'll create a wellfare system for unmarried women with children. The more children you have, the more money we'll provide. Guess what the unintended consequence will be? More women will have more children out of marriage. Lower income nuclear families are destroyed. Children are born en mass without fathers and fathers have no incentive to stay because the wellfare stops with marriage.

Same goes for government mandated net neutrality. Telcos and cable companies have costs to consider when providing internet access. Bandwidth costs money. Goverment comes in and lays down the law. No descrimination of content no matter how bandwidth intensive and how costly such access is to the provider. What's the unintended consequence? Providers will either charge per MB of access or simply raise monthly rates to much higher levels to cover increased costs.

Of course, I'm sure some would then call for government mandated pricing caps for these providers. Sounds good right? They come in force the providers to charge a certain rate and everyone's happy. Unintended consequence? Providers scrap improvements to their infrastructure. Available bandwidth plummets, and everyone loses.

There are consequences to every action. I teach my kids all the time to not get caught up in cute catchphrases but think about every possible outcome.
 
deadrody said:
The really sad thing is I was actually hoping there would be some intelligent discussion of "Net Neutrality" on [H]. Sadly, I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, if you would stay out of the discussion then that might be possible.
 
The sad thing is these people will believe what they want and the telcos will start doing all this anyways. Then all these same people will come on here and repeat all the BS that came from the telcos on why they did this, like the telcos had no other choice. Just like that BS about the deregulation in CA electric. You can spout the BS those companies provide as a reason for fucking over the consumer but its still BS and they still fucked over the consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top