Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asherian Command**

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

What is net neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.

Net Neutrality means that the cable/telecom companies must provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company cannot decide who you could call and what you say on that call, your ISP should not be concerned with what content you view or post online.

Net Neutrality is what enables the Internet to be such a hotbed for innovation. If you bring a new service online, the cable/telecom companies should deliver it just like they’d deliver content from a corporate behemoth like Google or NBC.

Net Neutrality is what gives every startup the same chance to reach customers and users as any existing company. Simply, without Net Neutrality, startups and small business will be subject to discrimination based on a pay-to-play Internet, and the open Internet and the economic growth it has represented will be at risk.

What are we fighting against?

On May 15, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules that would permit rampant discrimination online, undermining Net Neutrality. The FCC’s proposal would be a huge boon for the cable companies and would undermine the Internet as we know it.

Under the proposed rules, cable giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon would be able to create a two-tiered Internet, with slow lanes (for most of us) and fast lanes (for wealthy corporations that are willing pay fees in exchange for fast service).

Cable companies would have the power to discriminate against online content and applications — they could pick winners and losers, shake sites down for fees, block content for political reasons, and make it easier for Internet users to view cable content. (For instance, Comcast owns NBC, and so has incentives to make it easier to view NBC content than that of other providers.)

What are we fighting for?

After public outcry, the FCC left the door open for the only proposal that can preserve Net Neutrality: reclassifying Internet access as a "common carrier" under Title II of the Communications Act.

Anything other than Title II is an attack on our rights to connect and communicate.

The FCC has opened up a comment period for us to weigh in on its proposal, but it ends on Sept. 15. After that, the FCC will deliberate and decide what, if any, new rules to issue — likely before the end of the year.

What does the other side say?

The other side — mostly, the cable companies — wants the right to control how you access content, and they’ll say and do just about anything to try to make sure they can pick and choose which sites will get preferential treatment.

To enforce their will, they’re employing every trick in the book: They’ve bought armies of lobbyists, set up fake grassroots groups, and donated millions of dollars to politicians. And they make things up.

First, they wrongly claim that Title II will reduce investment in infrastructure, but they have no evidence. They also claim that the FCC can ensure Net Neutrality without using Title II. That’s also false. In fact, Title II is the only way to ensure real net neutrality.

How will we win?

We’ll win by making sure that those in power understand that the American people overwhelmingly support Net Neutrality and that America’s growing Internet economy requires Net Neutrality to thrive.

More than 4 million people have already spoken out in support of Net Neutrality — more than have ever weighed in on an issue in front of the FCC — and upwards of 99% of us are on the same side!

While more elected officials are taking up our cause, including President Obama, we need to keep up the pressure through the fall if we’re going to win.

The cable companies are powerful and vicious and they won’t back down. Neither can we. Join the Internet Slowdown on Sept. 10 and click here for more things you can do to fight back.

*Adapted in part from posts by Free Press Action Fund and others. Please click here for more comprehensive information:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

Okay so I will not be apart of this discussion.

You guys can talk about the issue as I am more consumed currently with lobbying for the Gamergate and Gaming corruption. I have already done my part by discussing with my senator and sent mail to them about the issue.

Just contact your senator about the issue. Unless your on the opposing side. But I ask you to just look at the issue and think about it. From the consumer side.

**Asherian Command**

mega_bassist wrote:
So, what's wrong with them being "common carriers"?

Because other wise there would only be dominant companies in position. They control certain areas, and while other companies control other areas. Instead of allowing for competition it destroys that idea entirely.

**Asherian Command**

Easy E wrote:
Pay-to-Play is evil, but nearly inevitable.

Look at the example of Radio to guide you.

I don't know. Countries oppose that idea for the internet completely.

Radio is completely free, I don't have to pay for radio.

**Asherian Command**

I would also ask the question would you think video games would be a utility?

The internet can more than just help with work, it can be used for multiple things.

It can be classified as just as a utility. Its a category all its own.

**Asherian Command**

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/08/12/339710293/a-fascinating-look-inside-those-1-1-million-open-internet-comments

Thought you might all want to hear about this O.o

1.1 Million open internet comments.

Apparently FCC is sorting through the emails

**Asherian Command**

Breotan wrote:
I don't mind the concept of a "fast lane" being made available for a fee. What would bother me is a) inequality of access to that "fast lane" - everyone that wants to pay should be allowed to. b) providers using their power to block competition - Comcast shouldn't impede YouTube while boosting Netflix. Or c) (my big fear) a multi-tiered speed system where small fish get pushed to the internet backwaters - two speeds is more than enough.

This 'fast' lane would be more like a normal speed, and everyone else's lanes would be slower, so only companies associated with these major companies would get this 'fast' lane.

This fast lane would not be faster.

Its impossible to increase the speed, we are currently at the point where there are too many users on the internet and all the space is being used by smart phones and various other types of devices.

I still favor the companies over increased government regulation (as currently proposed).

Well that makes sense considering your beliefs.

Government bad,

Companies good,

**Asherian Command**

whembly wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
whembly wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I don't mind the concept of a "fast lane" being made available for a fee. What would bother me is a) inequality of access to that "fast lane" - everyone that wants to pay should be allowed to. b) providers using their power to block competition - Comcast shouldn't impede YouTube while boosting Netflix. Or c) (my big fear) a multi-tiered speed system where small fish get pushed to the internet backwaters - two speeds is more than enough.

This 'fast' lane would be more like a normal speed, and everyone else's lanes would be slower, so only companies associated with these major companies would get this 'fast' lane.

This fast lane would not be faster.

Its impossible to increase the speed, we are currently at the point where there are too many users on the internet and all the space is being used by smart phones and various other types of devices.

That's not how it works...

Actually that is exactly how it works.

Transmission speeds are constrained by the available bandwidth. With the strains that internet networks already have, for something to be faster, everything else would have to be slower.

That's only TRUE if you believe technologies are static.

Yes, bandwidth is a discrete finite "resource"... but, these companies invest billions every year in the infrastructure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

These days, net neutrality is trying to push the reclassification of ISPs to Title II utilities... that's where it'll stifle innovation.

In the free market that you seem to like so much, innovation should be incentivized through competition, but since these companies in the US operate in virtual monopolies that competition doesn't exist. Do you wan't better internet service? Break the monopolies in which these companies operate.

Net Neutrality doesn't stifle innovation in any way shape or form, what it does do is stifle the ability of these companies to charge twice for the same service.

I can't even begin to understand how someone that isn't a majority shareholder in one of these companies can be against such a thing!

What's broken now?

*note, the competition is pretty intense between cable/baby-bell/wirless companies.

Additionally, it's only a monopoly by region, not in the industry.

Bandwidth is not infinite, is finite. There is only so much Bandwidth in the AIR

**Asherian Command**

LordofHats wrote:
I think you're confusing signal bandwidth with networking bandwidth. Networking bandwidth for all practical reasons, is limited only by how many cables you have to carry the data.

Except there is also the issue that there is currently too many users using bandwidth in the air.

They call it the Bandwidth Crunch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_allocation

or the Spectrum Crunch

Accordingly the issue has been becoming a larger issue over the years.

Have you ever noticed how the internet is spotty during the night but in the morning its fantastic? The main reasoning is that there are tons of people using the internet at the same time. That its taking up the bandwidth.

Considering that most devices that connect to the internet are wireless nowadays.

**Asherian Command**

daedalus wrote:
I think you're still conflating signal bandwidth overutilization with networking bandwidth overutilization.

In your given situation, they're both potentially happening, but they're caused by different things and resolved in different ways.

But there is the problem that this illusion of a fast lane won't happen.

There is no faster lane currently. And I am willing to bet the companies are not going to be reasonable in dealing with other competition.

And are willing to hold up websites and make them pay more to get faster services, by I.E. making someone pay more money.

Now what I do support is more competition, and more of a global effort to protect net neutrality.

Currrently the way it is set up right now there are territories between different companies. They control certain regions and do not allow other companies around.