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.
2014/09/10 15:00:11
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:00:58
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/09/10 15:09:21
Subject: Re:Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
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.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
0013/03/01 10:36:28
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
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.
Nah... it's all about $$$.
Common carrier regulation discourages infrastructure investment and network enhancements. When a company’s ROI is dictated by the government, there’s little incentive to re-invent or improve the system.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:41:17
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 15:39:58
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
I don't care about common carrier or whatever. All I know is that the internet service sucks enough as is. Comcast, Verizon, and their ilk don't need more ways to gouge us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:47:05
LordofHats wrote: I don't care about common carrier or whatever. All I know is that the internet service sucks enough as is. Comcast, Verizon, and their ilk don't need more ways to gouge us.
And as weird as it sounds, Net Neutrality may give them more power and stifle competition.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 15:51:34
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
And as weird as it sounds, Net Neutrality may give them more power and stifle competition.
No. Net Neutrality maintains the status quo (actually fixing the problem with those companies would require tackling the cable providers directly).
Also, lol at the idea that net neutrality stifles competition. The internet has been able to be so Laissez-faire (probably the most laissez-faire market in the US) because of net neutrality.
And as weird as it sounds, Net Neutrality may give them more power and stifle competition.
No. Net Neutrality maintains the status quo (actually fixing the problem with those companies would require tackling the cable providers directly).
No...
Title II clearly states that common carriers can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.” That's why you see advocates to use Title II to enforce net neutrality.
“Under Title II, the FCC would be free to create blanket rules that prohibit problematic discrimination”
Also, lol at the idea that net neutrality stifles competition. The internet has been able to be so Laissez-faire (probably the most laissez-faire market in the US) because of net neutrality.
Wait... before we go down this path... what do you mean by "Net Neutrality"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/10 15:59:03
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 16:05:55
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
whembly wrote: Title II clearly states that common carriers can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.” That's why you see advocates to use Title II to enforce net neutrality.
“Under Title II, the FCC would be free to create blanket rules that prohibit problematic discrimination”
I already stated I don't care about the common carrier thing. Net Neutrality is an extension of the concept but it's not dependent on Title II to exist as it's own legal standard. Title II might define 'Common Carrier' in US Law, but it's not the same thing as the general concept of Common Carrier on which Net Neutrality is based. (I'm saying a legal standard != a political concept).
EDIT: Granted, the larger issue may be that Title II needs to be rewritten and replaced, as treating internet providers as not common carriers (under the concept, not the law) is a little bizarre. But then we've probably needed to reevaluate all our laws on telecommunications for years now.
"Net Neutrality"?
This makes me question what you mean by net neutrality. I'm unaware of any definition other than "all data on the internet is equal."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:08:24
So you don't know what net neutrality is but are arguing against it?
If data is on the internet is is being transmitted. That's what the internet is. A network of computer systems transmitting data. A network exists to transmit data. There's no other purpose to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:15:10
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.
I'm not quite sure I follow you here...
Yes, it can be classifed as a utility (via Title II), but imo it'd be a mistake.
Keep in mind that the recent brouhaha was largely inflamed by Netflix.
Essentially, what happened was that Netflix was using Comcast's network/bandwidth for non-Comcast netflix users. That's where the term "toll bridge access" started to popup.
Now, if you want to gripe about Comcast potentially favoring NBC streaming (owned by Comcast) over Netflix streaming... that's cause for some investigation because of how incestuous that looks.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 16:24:52
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
whembly wrote: Do you believe internet access should be regulated in the same vein as utility companies?
I don't care about the way utility companies are regulated, I care how the internet is regulated. The loss of net neutrality would be horribly detrimental to the internet and would only make terrible companies even worse.
I've already said that how common carrier is defined under US Law isn't the same thing as the concept of a common carrier. A separate law can be written to govern internet providers (but again, a reevaluation of all our telecommunication practices may be called for, given that we might not even have this problem looming over our heads if regulation of the cable providers wasn't so piss poor).
This makes me question what you mean by net neutrality. I'm unaware of any definition other than "all data on the internet is equal."
That's correct.
Data on the internet is equal.
Transmission/access is not.
That doesn't throw out the idea that all information should be treated equally. One company may be better, but their should not be classes of data within one company.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/09/10 16:27:39
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
mega_bassist wrote: So, the main issue with "Net Neutrality" is getting transmission/access on an equal base, if it goes under Title II?
That's how the proponents of using Title II to enforce Neutrality is framing it.
The issue, is that it'll stifle innovation/competition if it's reclassed under Title II. Besides, do you really think that the big carriers will all of the sudden drop out of the lobbying business?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 16:28:21
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
whembly wrote: Yes, it can be classifed as a utility (via Title II), but imo it'd be a mistake.
Why assume this is the only way to achieve net neutrality? A separate law concerning internet service can be written (and would probably be more useful in general than treating the internet like an electric power line).
Keep in mind that the recent brouhaha was largely inflamed by Netflix.
Except it wasn't.
Essentially, what happened was that Netflix was using Comcast's network/bandwidth for non-Comcast netflix users. That's where the term "toll bridge access" started to popup.
Let me laugh harder.
No. It was inflamed by Comcast. They created that situation themselves, as smaller cable companies like Charter are forced to use Comcasts cables to transmit anything. That's not Netflix's fault. It's Comcast's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:29:17
This makes me question what you mean by net neutrality. I'm unaware of any definition other than "all data on the internet is equal."
That's correct.
Data on the internet is equal.
Transmission/access is not.
That doesn't throw out the idea that all information should be treated equally. One company may be better, but their should not be classes of data within one company.
Not really.
Keep in mind, the carriers own their infrustructure (the highway so to speak).
Essentially, what happened was that Netflix was using Comcast's network/bandwidth for non-Comcast netflix users. That's where the term "toll bridge access" started to popup.
Let me laugh harder.
No. It was inflamed by Comcast. They created that situation themselves, as smaller cable companies like Charter are forced to use Comcasts cables to transmit anything. That's not Netflix's fault. It's Comcast's.
Let me laugh even harder...
You have no clue how the cable industry works... eh?
Charter and Comcast actually has a "peer" agreement. As do other ISP providers.
Netflix at the time did NOT have any agreement with Comcast.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:31:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 16:32:46
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
This makes me question what you mean by net neutrality. I'm unaware of any definition other than "all data on the internet is equal."
That's correct.
Data on the internet is equal.
Transmission/access is not.
That doesn't throw out the idea that all information should be treated equally. One company may be better, but their should not be classes of data within one company.
Not really.
Keep in mind, the carriers own their infrustructure (the highway so to speak).
Why shouldn't it be. They own the infrastructure, that doesn't matter. If I own a house, that doesn't give me the right to burn it down (which could start more fires. When information is not treated equally censorship happens. I would recommend you read The Master Switch, by Tim Wu. It will give you a good idea of where I am coming from (and it's a very interesting read).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/09/10 16:34:34
Subject: Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
You have no clue how the cable industry works... eh?
You've shown rather well you don't know how the cable industry works (every time this subject has come up even).
Charter and Comcast actually has a "peer" agreement. As do other ISP providers.
Yeah. It's an arrangement where Charter can't afford coast to coast cable lines and has to use Comcast's. Netflix has no control over this arrangement. They inflammed nothing. They simply did what every website does; transmit data when a client requests it.
Netflix doesn't need an arrangement with Comcast to transmit data to Charter over the lines. Charter bought the rights to transmit over Comcast's lines so they could get data through them. Charter has already paid Comcast to transmit Netflix's data. You're simply advocating Comcast's right to charge the farmer to sell his corn and the consumer to buy it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/10 16:37:43
You have no clue how the cable industry works... eh?
You've shown rather well you don't know how the cable industry works (every time this subject has come up even).
Charter and Comcast actually has a "peer" agreement. As do other ISP providers.
Yeah. It's an arrangement where Charter can't afford coast to coast cable lines and has to use Comcast's. Netflix has no control over this arrangement. They inflammed nothing. They simply did what every website does; transmit data when a client requests it.
Netflix doesn't need an arrangement with Comcast to transmit data to Charter over the lines. Charter bought the rights to transmit over Comcast's lines so they could get data through them. Charter has already paid Comcast to transmit Netflix's data. You're simply advocating Comcast's right to charge the farmer to sell his corn and the consumer to buy it.
It's more complicated that.
But, you go ahead believe in what you want.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/09/10 16:44:36
Subject: Re:Net Neutrality - Brings out its Ugly head once again!
And if you're drinkin' well, you know that you're my friend and I say "I think I'll have myself a beer" 
