Is net neutrality very important?

[Gabriel]

Is net neutrality very important?

For people who don’t understand what I mean by net neutrality watch this video.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

In my opinion crap like that already happens - all the time. . .maybe it already is host-interference?
How can anyone prove that, anyway?

All too often I access a page via a search engine - and it doesn't load, loads slow or loads improperly. I presume this is due to crappy search-engines and nothing more. I've taken to habit of directly clicking in the address rather than using an engine as a middle man.

I'm sure, though, that this guy's point is that it doesn't matter if you go direct or not - what matters is that your host is in the pocket of said website.

 

[Gabriel]

In my opinion crap like that already happens - all the time. . .maybe it already is host-interference?
How can anyone prove that, anyway?

All too often I access a page via a search engine - and it doesn't load, loads slow or loads improperly. I presume this is due to crappy search-engines and nothing more. I've taken to habit of directly clicking in the address rather than using an engine as a middle man.

I'm sure, though, that this guy's point is that it doesn't matter if you go direct or not - what matters is that your host is in the pocket of said website.

Yeah I can't say one way or another there are number of causes of slow internet connection. Your computer, your ISP, other ISPs that your ISP works with and the source/site. But ISPs do have the ability to guide traffic if they are allowed to do that. Fact is these ISP corperations had nothing to do with the creation of the internet.

I found this video on net neutrality interesting.

PS: Not related and is only coincidental. Is it me or is this site really really slow sometimes? Seems other sites are very fast compared.

 

[jamesrage]

I say it is very important. I pay my cable company for certain amount speed and that this what I expect, the only time it should be slower is because of the person on the other end not because my cable company is restricting access or speed to that site.

 

[Gabriel]

I say it is very important. I pay my cable company for certain amount speed and that this what I expect, the only time it should be slower is because of the person on the other end not because my cable company is restricting access or speed to that site.

Yeah the government needs to regulate them so that doesn't happen I figure.

 

[jamesrage]

Yeah the government needs to regulate them so that doesn't happen I figure.

When it comes to monopolies or businesses that are practically monopolies it should be regulated. Just because I am a conservative does not mean I have to support no regulations and totally unrestricted capitalism and I am sure most conservatives are that way too. Plus there is the danger that allowing a internet company to restrict certain sites as a means to get the consumer to cough up more cash for access to those other sites could interfere with free speech.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

As long as the taxpayer subsidizes the cable lines, net neutrality should continue to exist.

 

[Orion]

Yes it's important. Access to the internet should not be throttled or watered down for any reason, and content should not be censored nor the servers controlled. Humans are at a critical point in their development. We have access to so much information at our finger tips and it's already affecting our social evolution. Cutting off the flow of development that it brings would be a big mistake right now. It's why I don't particularly care for intellectual property laws or throttling download speeds. The information is out there and humanity is benefiting from accessing it.

 

[Hoplite]

Net neutrality is, to me, one of the single biggest issues we currently face, topped only by poverty and universal healthcare.

The internet is the single biggest exchange medium of information and knowledge in human history and it benefits us as a species to have it remain open. Private interests have no business controlling it to make money

 

[reefedjib]

I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.

We don't have ISP competition though.

I have two choices for my ISP, cable and telephone.
Both of which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

As long as they derive some of their revenue from us (via subsidy), they must follow the net neutrality rules because they do not truly own the established lines.

 

[BCR]

I meant to choose yes.

 

[Orion]

I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.

It might not happen that way, especially if there is a profit incentive to do so. For example... offering internet packages based on what kind of sites you view, such as youtube, facebook, etc., and then charging people more for unlimited viewing of the web. The telecom industry is already trying to push this kind of business practice through government regulation right now in Canada and the U.S. If we start getting charged based on the kind of content we view, then all ISPs will do it because it will rake in profits for them.

 

[Hoplite]

I seem to stand alone in saying that no, it is not important. The reason why is that we have ISP competition in the local markets. If one of the ISPs started playing this crap, everyone would drop them for the open network provider.

Except when the ISPs that do filter start muscling and buying out the ISPs that do not

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Net Neutrality is anti-free market. The tele-communications market should not be even more anti-free market than it already is by law and not by market decisions. What we need is more telecom. infrastructure provided by the free market and less coercion from the state that sponsors corporate monopoly. More competition makes more choice. Net Neutrality perceives a skewed and exaggerated present that creates a bleak future if more government intervention isn't made. Net Neutrality creates a class struggle in this hypothetical future.

Companies can make a whole lot of money from fiber optics but they don't want to be the ones that pay for it's development or be the ones to manage risk. They want the tax payer (victims of extortion) to pay for it. So they create this fraudulent "save the internet" campaign and most people buy into it crook, slime and stinker. Why is it do we always go on this reflexive crusade against corporations like Microsoft and Google for everything they do but then when they propose that the tax payer pay for infrastructure and endorse campaigns that fear people into it by making up hypothetical scenarios, we all of a sudden support them? I thought we all hated Corporations for all of the aggression they cause, lies they make, their irresponsibility and influence on public policy yet here we have net neutrality that is all of these things and more and we're supporting it? Probably because we think that it's going to hurt (other )corporations and make us, the proletarian mass, have more voice and control.

We don't need net neutrality, we need government and justice neutrality by getting the government out of our lives and out of our business and by making corporations reliant on the voluntary contributions of consumers, not the extortion of taxes and aggressive "contracts".

 

[MaggieD]

I say it is very important. I pay my cable company for certain amount speed and that this what I expect, the only time it should be slower is because of the person on the other end not because my cable company is restricting access or speed to that site.

It was my understanding that our searches and clicks-to-go send us on a routing pattern through various channels that may be slow themselves. Like, I click on a link here in Chicago and tell my ISP to take me there. I beliee it's true that the path I take to get there varies by the amount of traffic on the chosen path. And that if I click on the same link tomorrow, I'm probably going to be routed another way.

 

[Jucon]

PS: Not related and is only coincidental. Is it me or is this site really really slow sometimes? Seems other sites are very fast compared.

I've had this happen to me too. Sometimes the site doesn't load at all. But I am under the assumption that the site is just busy with too many people accessing it at one time.

 

[American]

It is unnecessary regulation. Someone prove to me that there is a problem.

 

[American]

We don't have ISP competition though.

I have two choices for my ISP, cable and telephone.
Both of which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

As long as they derive some of their revenue from us (via subsidy), they must follow the net neutrality rules because they do not truly own the established lines.

That would make sense since taxpayers are the customers.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That would make sense since taxpayers are the customers.

Yea well we pay for both the service and we pay them extra through government subsidy to install the cable and telephone lines.

As long as we do that, they should have no say.

 

[Middleground]

It is unnecessary regulation. Someone prove to me that there is a problem.

Let's say that your IP decides to not allow you to connect to DP. Would you be okay with that?

Or, say your IP decides that DP gets slower service than companies that they sponsor. Would you be a regular here if it took minutes for a single page to upload?

 

[The Mark]

Something of the sort may be necessary in some areas.

As there is not complete and total competition among ISP's...

For example, in my current location, we had the following options for ISP a couple years ago...

Our (then) current dial-up ISP, the only provider in the area.
Satellite connection (a few ISP's, I think, but never seriously checked into it, as due to the limitations of the system, was not very interested.)
DSL - Not available, outside DSL hub range.
Cable - Not available, as no cable line to the building - after many phone calls and mostly as a direct result of new residence construction next door, cable line installed, allowing current service from Comcast, which leads to my point.

Comcast is the only cable provider available in the area.

Competition? Hah!

--------------

Edit: That said, I think laws enforcing "net neutrality" could be far to easily abused, so...

Instead, I would rather efforts to promote more competing ISPs in all areas would be better.

Of course, a few protections for free speech via the internetz might be necessary.

But if you take them too far, infringement on other rights might occur.

 

[Gabriel]

Net Neutrality is anti-free market. The tele-communications market should not be even more anti-free market than it already is by law and not by market decisions. What we need is more telecom. infrastructure provided by the free market and less coercion from the state that sponsors corporate monopoly. More competition makes more choice. Net Neutrality perceives a skewed and exaggerated present that creates a bleak future if more government intervention isn't made. Net Neutrality creates a class struggle in this hypothetical future.

Companies can make a whole lot of money from fiber optics but they don't want to be the ones that pay for it's development or be the ones to manage risk. They want the tax payer (victims of extortion) to pay for it. So they create this fraudulent "save the internet" campaign and most people buy into it crook, slime and stinker. Why is it do we always go on this reflexive crusade against corporations like Microsoft and Google for everything they do but then when they propose that the tax payer pay for infrastructure and endorse campaigns that fear people into it by making up hypothetical scenarios, we all of a sudden support them? I thought we all hated Corporations for all of the aggression they cause, lies they make, their irresponsibility and influence on public policy yet here we have net neutrality that is all of these things and more and we're supporting it? Probably because we think that it's going to hurt (other )corporations and make us, the proletarian mass, have more voice and control.

We don't need net neutrality, we need government and justice neutrality by getting the government out of our lives and out of our business and by making corporations reliant on the voluntary contributions of consumers, not the extortion of taxes and aggressive "contracts".

Yes it is anti free market and for good reason. Firstly they never paid for the roads they are using. (the internet) The equivalent would be something similar to companies taking over large portions of paved highway they never paid for.. saying which roads you can go on .. or paying more if you drive a lot .. or paying more for going off their roads.. etc. An unrestricted ISP market is ridiculous.

So much for free market meaning an extension of individual liberty.. that is a flat out lie. In this case it is clearly a reduction of liberty and an extension of corporate liberty. One doesn’t have to wonder why DC is full of corporate cronies when you consider they run your government and libertarian fiscal policy is their dominate priority.