Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2010, 07:59 PM  
healthpellets healthpellets is offline
Long Live John Galt
 
healthpellets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: On the edge of reason
Casino cash: $5000
Net Neutrality: Let's have a discussion

Taco John brought us THIS THREAD earlier today, and I don't want clutter a 5th Amendment thread with a general discussion.

So let's discuss net neutrality.

What is it?

Quote:
When dealing with any form of network, be it telephone service, cable television or the Internet, there is often a business philosophy called network neutrality at work. When dealing specifically with Internet issues, the term is usually shortened to net neutrality, but the basic principles are still the same. Net neutrality refers to the non-discriminatory nature of essential Internet components such as servers, ISPs and transmission lines. In the eyes of an idealized Internet, all users have the right to send and receive packets of information equally. The principle of net neutrality makes this possible. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-net-neutrality.htm
Basically, it comes down to one evil or the other. On one hand, we have the government step in to regulate and "enforce" net neutrality via the FCC. While the FCC currently doesn't have the authority to do so, they are working with legislators to introduce a bill to expand their authority.

On the other hand, we have the current situation which is where the Telecommunications industry has control of the product they supply, and they theoretically allow open and unfettered access to all web traffic.

So far, we've had a few instances of Telcos shaping traffic of heavy bit torrent users, which was only found out after subscribers became suspicious and investigated it for themselves. Most ISPs, in their user agreements, state their right to limit access or shape traffic should they deem your use derogatory to their network.

So where do you come down on this? Government involvement or status quo?

IMO, thus far we're talking about solving yet to be seen problem with preemptive government intervention. While i'm not a fan of the theoretical restrictions that could be placed on internet traffic by ISPs, it thus far seems to be the lesser of two evils for a couple reasons. 1) most people have at least two choices for internet access (yes, i realize that not everyone does, even in metropolitan areas), and that number should continue to expand with technological development; 2) there are a couple of ways to get to sites should your ISP decide that you don't need to visit those sites (TOR and Haystack are a couple currently available options).

Discuss.
Posts: 1,869
healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:56 PM   #2
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $12075
I look at this way hp, I am for Net Neutrality because I want to maintain the status quo. I don't want govt intervention but I also don't want the ISP's to start ****ing with the Internet and redirecting or blocking traffic just because they don't like the content or because a company paid them a bunch of money to funnel traffic to them or slow\block traffic to the competitors.

Keep it free from rules and regulations and open that is why it has succeeded.
Posts: 49,070
dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:10 PM   #3
healthpellets healthpellets is offline
Long Live John Galt
 
healthpellets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: On the edge of reason
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk digler View Post
I look at this way hp, I am for Net Neutrality because I want to maintain the status quo. I don't want govt intervention but I also don't want the ISP's to start ****ing with the Internet and redirecting or blocking traffic just because they don't like the content or because a company paid them a bunch of money to funnel traffic to them or slow\block traffic to the competitors.

Keep it free from rules and regulations and open that is why it has succeeded.
my concern with the FCC maintaining the status quo is simply that the FCC can be dominated with Telco reps. so maybe it doesn't matter. Telcos are going to regulate the internet either via the government or through the market.

now, if the legislation stated something like "for a minimum of twenty years following the enactment of this bill, the FCC is prohibited from enacting any rules or regulations that would in any way alter or expand the powers granted in this bill..." i might be able to get behind it, assuming of course that it was an absolute minimalist bill to begin with.

i just have a problem believing that government involvement will make any thing "free-er".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsshrink View Post
If you think the 2010 elections where you Marxist Dems got shellacked was bad, get ready for the American civilians version of our D-day at the polls to save this country come this Nov of 2012 !!

Romney will win in a landslide 6-10pt victory. Count on it !!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Do you live here? Nope.

Mind your own business.
Posts: 1,869
healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.healthpellets must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:46 PM   #4
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $12075
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthpellets View Post
my concern with the FCC maintaining the status quo is simply that the FCC can be dominated with Telco reps. so maybe it doesn't matter. Telcos are going to regulate the internet either via the government or through the market.

now, if the legislation stated something like "for a minimum of twenty years following the enactment of this bill, the FCC is prohibited from enacting any rules or regulations that would in any way alter or expand the powers granted in this bill..." i might be able to get behind it, assuming of course that it was an absolute minimalist bill to begin with.

i just have a problem believing that government involvement will make any thing "free-er".
That is an interesting point in regards to who is on the FCC board. I hadn't considered that.

The thing is though the FCC has come out and said they don't want to regulate the internet but their hand has already been forced a few times already by the ISP's especially Comcast.

I also understand your point about government getting involved but if it Net Neutrality is passed and allows me to keep visiting Chiefsplanet instead of being redirected to the Orange Drain I am all for it.
Posts: 49,070
dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 09:08 PM   #5
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $12075
Google and Verizon announce their version of Net Neutrality. They couldn't get other ISP's (AT&T mainly) to join in because they want to prioritize traffic via a pay model. I know people call that tin foil but that is the way it is shaping up just like alot of people predicted.

Quote:
1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.
Posts: 49,070
dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:03 PM   #6
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5125
Feds May Be Looking To Bail On Net Neutrality
Quote:
Net neutrality is not dead. But it may be about to take a big blow to the head.

The Wall Street Journal has a foreboding scoop that provides details on an early draft of the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules. And to put it mildly, Internet activists will not be thrilled.

According to the WSJ's sources, the FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting Internet service providers the ability to give some websites "preferential treatment" -- i.e. faster traffic -- in exchange for money.
Why cant the FCC just treat ISP's like utilities?
Posts: 1,994
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:06 PM   #7
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is offline
Country Santa Year Around
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $16810
Regulation has been such a success of liberalism in so many areas of life, why would it be bad in this case?
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home.
Posts: 29,916
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:15 PM   #8
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
Regulation has been such a success of liberalism in so many areas of life, why would it be bad in this case?
1. because ISP's are a monopoly in much of the country

2. because the US gave ISP's 200 billion to upgrade infrastructure and they didnt.

The whole point of regulating utility companies is that it is inefficient and cost-prohibitive to have duplicate gas, electricity, water, sewage lines to every home. Same can be said with copper/DSL/fiber. Wireless (such as cellular) has bandwith limitations that prevent it from legitametily competing with "wired" providers.

Once again, why cant they be treated like a utility company?

Last edited by planetdoc; 04-23-2014 at 06:24 PM..
Posts: 1,994
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:03 PM   #9
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $10248
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc View Post
1. because ISP's are a monopoly in much of the country

2. because the US gave ISP's 200 billion to upgrade infrastructure and they didnt.

The whole point of regulating utility companies is that it is inefficient and cost-prohibitive to have duplicate gas, electricity, water, sewage lines to every home. Same can be said with copper/DSL/fiber. Wireless (such as cellular) has bandwith limitations that prevent it from legitametily competing with "wired" providers.

Once again, why cant they be treated like a utility company?
The reason why ISPs are a monopoly in much of the country is because they INVESTED their dollars to extend services to places where they would LOSE MONEY. We're now entering a world where satellite wifi will be a reality. We need to keep government away from this arena so we don't bog down the innovation happening the way we've bogged it down everywhere else.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 51,271
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:11 PM   #10
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
The reason why ISPs are a monopoly in much of the country is because they INVESTED their dollars to extend services to places where they would LOSE MONEY.
1. their initial investment must be made up by now, and if not...the US gave ISP's $200 billion...which isnt far off from what all the ISPs are worth. Comcast has $158 billion in total assets and it agreed to purchase time warner for $45 billion. Collectively they control 60% of the broadband internet market.

2. its no different than the "intial investment" that other utility companies made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
TWe're now entering a world where satellite wifi will be a reality.
your post must be a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcworld
Speeds will be low—about 20 kilobits per second, according to the company. The hotspot will cost about US$800 and data rates will vary depending on the Iridium airtime plan. They will be sold as regional or seasonal packages with prices of around $1 per minute on prepaid plans.
once again, "wireless" doesnt have the bandwith to compete against "wired" ISPs.
Posts: 1,994
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:16 PM   #11
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $10248
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc View Post
1. their initial investment must be made up by now
Says who? And who cares if it is. They own the service. They invested in it. It belongs to them.



Quote:
, and if not...the US gave ISP's $200 billion...
So what? What a dumb idea. Just because someone gave them free money doesn't mean they now have any claim on them. If I give you $10k, do I now have a claim on you car if I want to use it?
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 51,271
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:18 PM   #12
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $10248
"Hey you guys stuck your neck out and invested in internet infrastructure and provided a service that people wanted. We think you've made enough money on it now, though. We're going to go ahead and take it from you, thanks."


What a bad idea.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 51,271
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:35 PM   #13
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
Says who? And who cares if it is. They own the service. They invested in it. It belongs to them.

So what? What a dumb idea. Just because someone gave them free money doesn't mean they now have any claim on them. If I give you $10k, do I now have a claim on you car if I want to use it?
true, but that becomes a moot point if the FCC treats them as a utility...which they have the ability to do. Too bad the new head of the FCC is a former cable company lobbyist.
Posts: 1,994
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:40 PM   #14
planetdoc planetdoc is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Casino cash: $5125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
"Hey you guys stuck your neck out and invested in internet infrastructure and provided a service that people wanted. We think you've made enough money on it now, though. We're going to go ahead and take it from you, thanks."
they didnt stick their kneck out when they have a guaranteed monopoly thanks to contracts with municipalities. Do you believe that those contracts should not have a limit or sunset clause?

Government created the problem by creating monopolies instead of competition. They have every right to fix the problem too. How is this any different than telecom providers?
Posts: 1,994
planetdoc has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:47 PM   #15
dirk digler dirk digler is offline
Please squeeze
 
dirk digler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clinton, MO
Casino cash: $12075
I have yet to understand why any tech savvy person would be against net neutraility.

As far as why they aren't treated as utilities, they tried and the courts said they couldn't.
Quote:
The F.C.C.'s previous rules governing net neutrality were thrown out by a federal appeals court this year. The court said those rules had essentially treated Internet service providers as public utilities, which violated a previous F.C.C. ruling that Internet links were not to be governed by the same strict regulation as telephone or electric service.
Posts: 49,070
dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.dirk digler has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.