Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Net Neutrality.....


Murph

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'll readily admit that I don't understand all aspects of the concept of net neutrality, and after reading the Wikipedia explanation, I'm still not much better off. I do not understand why net neutrality is a bad thing, and it seems to me, from what I've read, that it should be a good thing. Can anyone explain to me in unbiased layman's terms, the pros and cons of net neutrality and make an argument for either based on facts and not conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the government has done is keep equal access to all instead of the Internet bandwidth going to the highest bidder.

 

It means Comcast, Verizon and others can't sell faster speeds to giant corporations and slow down everything else. It's net equality.

 

That's pretty good IMHO.

 

Notes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1425052430[/url]' post='1634046']

What the government has done is keep equal access to all instead of the Internet bandwidth going to the highest bidder.

 

It means Comcast, Verizon and others can't sell faster speeds to giant corporations and slow down everything else. It's net equality.

 

That's pretty good IMHO.

 

Notes

 

If that is all it means why does the law have over 300 pages of rules and regulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1425056794[/url]' post='1634071']

I guess it's all about exceptions :unsure:

 

More likely power grabs, tax breaks for Big O's cronies, and taxs and fees to others that will run up the cost of services to us.Wake up people, The Affordable Health Care Act raises health care cost. The FCC does not have the right to rewrite law, that is the right and responsibility of Congress. It's called Constitutional law, something that we should all be aware of.This sets a precedent, even if you support the idea behind the law, even if you are a supporter of Obama, keep in mind, you may not like the next president, and he or she will point to this manuver and do what ever they damn well want and by pass congress, which is illegal. But if you support the idea that a president has ultimate power then so be it...Richard Nixon would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The internet is race car fast, super wide bandwidth, high powereds hit. We use it every day for work, it kills.

 

2. Between your house and the internet is where it gets crappy. The big guys use the big internet, the backbone we'll call it, so they don't care about from the backbone to your house, only you do.

 

3. They wanted to start charging extra for clogging it all up between the backbone and your house, because you want to watch porn and post on the Gibson forum at the same time.

 

4. "net neutrality" keeps them from overtly charging you for clogging up between your house and the backbone.

 

5. "net neutrality" will allow almost unlimited pure straight off the top profit in the form of vague and mysterious fees you will start being charged probably next month.

 

6. Like any other utility, consider today the best it is ever going to be, because "net neutrality" will excuse the companies that make profits that are at the as srape level from having to improve their very own profit making infrastructure, eventually your local tax base will pick up the tab. Like, oh, everything else.

 

7. I'm not a world class pessimist, crank, or grouchy guy. Just old enough and experienced enough to be realistic, and lucky enough to be a computer guy at the end of his career that has had a good long look at how it works.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am mostly for the idea of net neutrality but not for 300 pages of 'secret' legislation.

 

OTOH, I can understand why someone using more internet should be charged for using more internet. Kinda like your electricity or water bill. If you use a ton of electricity, your bill is (and rightly should be) higher than someone who doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OTOH, I can understand why someone using more internet should be charged for using more internet. Kinda like your electricity or water bill. If you use a ton of electricity, your bill is (and rightly should be) higher than someone who doesn't.

 

 

Sorry, that is not what this is about. It is not exclusively about your neighbor paying the same as you when he is streaming movies and gaming online all day. It is about access. What this ruling means is that the ISPs cannot choke off or slow access to sites because they either do not like the content or that site will not pony up a "fast lane" fee. If this is truly about bandwidth usage on the user end, then the ISPs should start to meter bandwidth usage and charge based on that. I have not read this ruling by the FCC, but I would think regulating the internet like a public utility should clear the way for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet works great.

 

 

It actually doesn't. Go to Japan or South Korea or Europe and then tell me about how great internet in the States is. We are years behind with both speed and access. On top of that, in a lot of markets it is a monopoly. Know what my options in the city of Chicago are for high speed internet? Comcast. Outside of that I can get something substandard from another company, but I need fast access for my job so I am stuck. I cannot wait for Google to start laying fiber. At least I will have an option B.

 

I can comment more if you like, but who wants to hear me talk? Some of this is fall out from the Communications act of '96.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what bothers me - and in theory I keep up on this stuff more than most.

 

1. Nobody really knows what's gonna happen, although in general I tend toward the opinion that when government runs stuff in the U.S. at least, since the 1970s it ends up costing more or bringing poorer service or both.

 

2. The security factors I have to put up with at work slow the theoretical access at my work location by at least 35 percent compared to a straight-through connection.

 

3. "Next door," a coop of ranchers has direct fiber to farms and ranches in an area where it's not uncommon to have perhaps 10 customers or less in a 100 square mile area. They're paying about the same as I do in town. Their overhead for "bureaucracy" is awfully low.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This essentially makes the internet a utility modeled on the telecommunications industry. Still a utility. Look on your electric bill next time and see all the miscellenous charges and different tier ratings. There are a ton of line item charges.

 

Camel's has it nose into the tent.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let me put to rest some of the rumors and misconceptions that are floating around the internet regarding Net Neutrality. First, if you like your internet provider, you can keep your internet provider. The government does not want to come between you and your internet provider. Secondly, the amount you pay for internet will not go up at all. In fact, as more and more people buy into the internet, whether it be broadband, wifi, or DSL, the cost will actually go down. Finally, the speed will actually increase exponentially as more Americans are able to tap into the vast, uncharted recesses of the world wide web."

 

Snapshot2010-11-0216-45-57.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all paid Ma Bell to run Fiber Optics in the '80s for better phone service.

 

If that had been done as proposed, we wouldn't need net regulation, we wouldn't need broadband cable or satellite modems.

 

Our speeds would be on par with any other country as long as there was no bottleneck at the junctions and adequate servers to handle it.

 

And one thing nobody talks about concerning the Affordable Health Care Act: people who were unable to get coverage because of "pre-existing conditions" can now obtain coverage.

If you had survived cancer prior to having to obtain coverage this would mean a decent chance for a reasonable life expectancy where none existed before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like your internet you can keep your internet.

 

Net neutrality is just a catchy name. Like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.

 

Heaven forbid the people who spent the money to lay the cable should be able to decide how to profit from it. If you don't like how they use it, lay some cable. Instead of trying to profit from someone else's infrastructure (ie. netflicks and other broadband choking companies).

 

Or maybe just confiscate it like Venezuela.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A drunken chimpanzee missing 9 fingers is a more logical choice than the American FCC.

 

Amen!!!

 

Neutrality is a smoke-show, the reality is "cash-cow" to tax out of the affordability range of the little guy after the big boys find a way around the wealth redistribution scheme to fund the social engineering desires of the elitists that infest the legislative branch of government...

 

When the Gov. overlooks the fact that the penalties and taxes they will soon impose on the big providers get passed onto the consumer; it will be those of us that don't get rich on the insider-trading, malfeasance, and corruption requisite for a career in politics, who have a problem paying exorbitant fees and prices for access...

 

This is a very bad thing!

 

These people need to be stopped! It is a gluttonous insatiable appetite for power and money that drive the current congress! We are in deep trouble until these folks are tossed out on their heads and replaced by no-name little guys like us, period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all paid Ma Bell to run Fiber Optics in the '80s for better phone service.

 

If that had been done as proposed, we wouldn't need net regulation, we wouldn't need broadband cable or satellite modems.

 

Our speeds would be on par with any other country as long as there was no bottleneck at the junctions and adequate servers to handle it.

 

And one thing nobody talks about concerning the Affordable Health Care Act: people who were unable to get coverage because of "pre-existing conditions" can now obtain coverage.

If you had survived cancer prior to having to obtain coverage this would mean a decent chance for a reasonable life expectancy where none existed before!

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...