- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,595
- Reaction score
- 1,259
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It is a double edged sword just as Baralis says. What I would add is that Companies should be able to make the choice if they block something or not. They are not getting rid of the site they are blocking...they are just keeping it off of their servers. Since it is thier servers and they are the ones providing the service I have no problem with them dictating what is allowed or not. It is much like renting a house, the owners should be able to say weather or not smoking or dogs are allowed. Not the renters.
It is a double edged sword just as Baralis says. What I would add is that Companies should be able to make the choice if they block something or not. They are not getting rid of the site they are blocking...they are just keeping it off of their servers. Since it is thier servers and they are the ones providing the service I have no problem with them dictating what is allowed or not. It is much like renting a house, the owners should be able to say weather or not smoking or dogs are allowed. Not the renters.
I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where there needs to be legislation to change the status quo.
Even should we reach that point, I'd be very hesitant about relying on government regulations to solve the problem.
Even though were getting closer and closer to a controlled internet?
I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where there needs to be legislation to change the status quo.
Even should we reach that point, I'd be very hesitant about relying on government regulations to solve the problem.
I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where there needs to be legislation to change the status quo.
Even should we reach that point, I'd be very hesitant about relying on government regulations to solve the problem.
On the other hand, such limitations would likely spawn multiple hacks/workarounds that people would use to bypass any restrictions (if they had the required tech skills).I thought exactly the same thing until about six months ago, when the issue became important as ISPs started restricting their traffic. If the Google/Verizon deal doesn't take us to the point where there needs to be legislation, I don't know what possibly could. It's best to nip this problem in the bud while it's still small, instead of waiting until it becomes a problem and there are corporate lobbyists throwing millions of dollars at politicians to protect their interests.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for net neutrality: 1) It will keep the cost of using the internet as low as possible in the long term, which I think will be very important to our nation's long-term competitive advantage, and 2) It will prevent the internet from becoming a splinternet, with each ISP becoming its own little fiefdom with its own rules as to what you can and can't do.
Who else has the ability to do it? I'm not saying I trust the government, but there's just no other body who can police such things. At present, Google and Verizon are attempting to control how you see things and what you can see, they want to sell companies the right to send you ads faster and restrict access, or significantly slow access to content that isn't paying them a kick-back. That means YouTube might come down quickly to the end-user, but other video-provider sites may be throttled to the point of being useless.
That decision making is going on TODAY. What do you mean we're nowhere close to that point?
I thought exactly the same thing until about six months ago, when I first noticed ISPs starting to restrict their traffic. If the Google/Verizon deal doesn't take us to the point where there needs to be legislation, I don't know what possibly could. It's best to nip this problem in the bud while it's still small, instead of waiting until it becomes a major political issue and there are corporate lobbyists throwing millions of dollars at politicians to protect their interests
I'm looking at this from a long-term perspective. As I see it, there are two main reasons for net neutrality: 1) It will keep the cost of using the internet as low as possible in the long term, which I think will be very important to our nation's long-term competitive advantage, and 2) It will prevent the internet from becoming a splinternet, with each ISP becoming its own little fiefdom with its own rules as to what you can and can't do.
I would agree with you if these companies had used their own capital to build the infastructure but in most cases they were subsidized by the government to place infustructure along with government promises to restrict competition for many years. This gave many companies a monopoly over large districts. Where I live we only have 1 cable provider so the consumer is left with no alternatives.
The problem is that, with bars/restaurants, you could simply go to another if you didn't like their non/pro-smoking policy (before the laws against smoking in em’, at least)You have only one cable provider but what about for dial up? Or satellite? DSL? Sure dial up may be slower than all out but it is still useable...especially with the right programs running in conjunction with it.
There are always options. It's weather or not the options are desirable to you.
And I firmly believe in the right of the company to restrict or allow anything that they want. It is one of the reasons that I was so pissed at the recent push to make smoking in bars and restaurants illegal. It should be left up to the owner. Not the user. The user doesn't have to give them business.
You have only one cable provider but what about for dial up? Or satellite? DSL? Sure dial up may be slower than all out but it is still useable..especially with the right programs running in conjunction with it.
There are always options. It's weather or not the options are desireable to you.
And I firmly believe in the right of the company to restrict or allow anything that they want. It is one of the reasons that I was so pissed at the recent push to make smoking in bars and restaraunts illegal. It should be left up to the owner. Not the user. The user doesn't have to give them business.
Wow that anaology doesn't work at all. This is essenitally restricting information from you. You are ok with that?
The problem is that, with bars/restaurants, you could simply go to another if you didn't like their non/pro-smoking policy (before the laws against smoking in em’, at least)
----------------
With ISP's, in most cases only a few are available - and in some cases, only one per type of available service (cable, DSL, Dial-up, Sat.).
Sure, in an urban area there may be more options, but if you live in a rural area, your options are very limited.
I know that for a lengthy period the only available options at my location were dial-up or satellite - sat was a bit costly, and we were holding for the cable install (at the time, it was expected to take less time than it did).
No DSL available, as I live too far from the nearest hub.
No Cable, as the cable lines were never installed at the house I live in.
After much maneuvering (and ~1-2 years), cable lines were extended to our residence - as a direct result of new construction next door.
But still, the only cable ISP I'm aware of for our area is Comcast, so if they were to put restrictions on the traffic, well...
And while basic browsing/email is possible via dial-up, online gaming (especially FPS and similar) is nearly impossible.
----------------
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?