Net Neutrality
- Started
- Last post
- 100 Responses
- ukit
This term has been thrown around a lot over the years, but the FFC is on the verge of actually making it official policy.
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/0…
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/0…
What do you think, should the web be neutral?
- ribit0
why not?
- DrBombay1
Yes, big corps shouldn't get the upper hand. Let's keep it a level playing field for as long as possible. This is another one of those inevitabilities though. Like The Public option in America. The big media conglomerates will take it.
- deathboy0
im actually for a neutral net. goes against my capitalistic ways, but i believe the telecoms lost their rights since most were started and ran on tax payer dollars. and also its like a virtual road, there is more positive gain to have open access to such roads to travel vs having different priced tolls everywhere u go. however the feeling are still mixed just leaning more towards net neutrality.
- 8 years and i've seen the errors in the logic. it should not be treated as title II. i was just afraid about some "what-ifs". The same type of irrationaldeathboy
- what ifs that make others shun capitalism and hope for some sort of benevolent and all-wise gov control. its funny news hardly covers ajit's reasons whydeathboy
- airey0
this is a nice idea but let's be real, it can't be enforced across countries and in fact would be pretty damn hard to support internally within the US. it'll be a toothless tiger.
- ukit0
I'll admit, it's a complex issue, I've been reading up a bit today and it hurts my brain a little;)
There are arguments on the other side, which I think have some validity, that if you want to grow the internet, you need to find a way to manage the increasing bandwidth.
At the same time, I trust the ISPs about as far as I can throw them. Allowing them the power to arbitrarily speed up or slow down certain sites sounds like a recipe for abuse.
- hell yea info control is like killing the first amendment. but i agree its a tough issue.deathboy
- the 1st amendment is US only. the net is world wide. even .com sites are hosted outside mainland US so point is moot.airey
- obviously this doesn't apply to the whole world, just to U.S. service providersukit
- which becomes kind of useless in itself no?airey
- well, there's no world dictatorship, so what are you gonna do? anyway these companies serve markets in the U.S.ukit
- U.S., you got a whole nother group of ISPs over in Europe and elsewhereukit
- ismith0
I imagine it won't be long until two things happen: the FCC reverses their policy because of pressure from corporations, but the technology is developed to a point where all moderately savvy computer users will not need an ISP.
- randommail0
I wonder what TV would be like today if we had made TV 'neutral' back in the 50's.
- utopian0
I am sure that the god fearing, hate mongering Republican's will have another "TeaBaggin Party" to fight Net Neutrality.
- Oh, don't worry...they've already started
http://www.redstate.…ukit - The way they describe it is completely ludicrousukit
- And I was only only taking an educated guess, the proof is in the pudding!utopian
- horse shit biden is hella against net neutrality its not a party issuedeathboy
- Oh, don't worry...they've already started
- ukit0
I can't speak to the technicalities involved (the cost of producing and transmitting your own TV channel is obviously much higher than creating a website). But cable TV is a great example of what happens when you doesn't have an open format. The same boring shit, run by a few people, no innovation or new ideas.
- and no budget to change it cause every cunt pirated the stuff that made them the budget. irony be thy name.airey
- airey0
anyone else up for a teabaggin' night or just utopian and ukit? (let's face it, if anyone's up for a good ol' teabaggin' it's ukit)
- http://www.freakingn…utopian
- http://farm2.static.…utopian
- i love that 2nd one hahaha. you think it's 'shopped?airey
- Not shopped, LOLutopian
- ukit0
Anyway, pretty good synopsis here (from the guy who coined the term)
- FredMcWoozy-1
It is clear none of you know what net neutrality is.
One thing it means is no more blogs. No more expressing an alternate opinion. It means 'channel' like website packages like your cable provider now, their will be no domain names, everything will go through a 'myspace' type set up. I can understand if you have fallen for the health care propaganda but you can't even see through the net netruality bill there is something wrong. More then half of you can't even argue on the facts.
What a sad day when the people who design propaganda for a living can't even see through the own propaganda being put into their living rooms.
Then no more stand alone website.
how would you like your portfolio site to be
www.usgovernment.com/YourDesignC…...
Because that is where net neutrality goes.
is that something you're cool with?
- utopian0
Where are all the fear & war mongering neocon these days?
- monNom0
I like it the way it is. I like that I can pay a premium price and get a premium service. I totally support throttling peer to peer file sharing, and keeping a clamp on spam volume (mostly coming from infected pcs, not large server installations). It makes my internet faster.
Net neutrality sounds like a nice idea, but it would cut out the incentive for innovation in service. All that would be left is a race to the bottom in price/service and a slowly decaying of infrastructure.
- randommail0
It's REALLY simple.
Do you want free porn?
If you answered "Yes", then you want Net Neutrality.Best ad campaign for Net Neutrality ever.
- ukit0
@monNom
That's why this is a kind of difficult issue to understand. No one is proposing doing away with different tiers of service. You will still have your dial up, broadband, premium broadband etc.
The only thing they are saying is that ISPs should not be able to do the second part, slowing down or speeding up services at will, within the same tier of service.
Which is basically how the internet has always worked, it was actually a 2006 action by the Bush FCC that laid the ground for throttling type behavior by changing the definition of an ISP.
- So it's not really a change as much as making the way the web has always worked the standardukit
- monNom0
well isn't my face red.
This issue is a bit different up north, I didn't realize there was such a difference in law and the behaviour of ISPs in the US. Sounds like a raw deal.- You folks are getting a awful lot of raw deals recently.monNom
- Actually it's super confusing...I need to learn more too but that's the basic outline of what the U.S. wants to doukit
- yea lots of different policies suggested. one thign is at&t worked with gov for tapping illegallydeathboy
- i thought it was a deal to get net neutrality killed, lots of action during that timedeathboy
- but that type of gov abuse with private sector help is the reason why i am against it, not in principle but in actiondeathboy
- ukit0
Cmon man, Tim Berners Lee supports it, it must be good!