Net Neutrality
Sort:
This sounds like a pretty bad problem
There is no other side. As stated, the only reason for this is more profits for big cable companies.
If you understand exactly what net neutrality is you will realize there is no counter argument. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of it other than greed.
Copied from a website:
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.
Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.
If you understand exactly what net neutrality is you will realize there is no counter argument. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of it other than greed.
Copied from a website:
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.
Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.
Jul 13, 2017
0
#4
the decision makers wipe their posteriors on petitions mate , there was one recent where a person said they would stand for election if enough asked for it , (millions did) it got ignored or flushed in the sewer after they used it
i will sign but i have no hope in it changing the decision makers attitude to our opinion
1818-1828271 wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to get rid of it other than greed.
Maybe it's somewhere in your text, didn't read all but greed and companys business is not the only problem. There are quite a few major drawbacks people are not aware of. Not only priorizing data packets over the common traffic or security issues when it comes to categorizing things. Traffic becomes more and more transparent and negotiable between players. Also it would have huge impact on the way information is dealed with. The granularity of categorizing and differentiating things will get smaller and smaller to have impact on every single thing people do on the internet. It wouldn't stop on Paid-Streaming and common internet-surfing, it would be more and more refined.
A few stock-exchanges already do things like this and I'm not talking about co-locations of server in the next house to the NYSE. HFT-Systems are able to catch information a fraction of a second earlier than the common crowd due to a built-in delay of the Dataproviders. This is all under the hood and companys taking advantage of it. Hence they have big interest of such things to evolve and in best case with politics help.
Yeah anok, I'm not sure if there's a lot of hope to fight against this, but we have to try right? Apparently there is a rather large and unyielding group of activists on our side that have been fighting for net neutrality for years (and have been winning until recently).
@Cooked
To be honest I'm pretty ignorant about the technical aspects of how this all works and I didn't understand 100% of what you said. But I think you are saying that ALL the content we access online will become more and more micromanaged by our internet providers, which will turn the internet into more of a tv platform instead of an egalitarian information sharing platform. This absolutely scares the crap out of me. The one thing driving humanity's social progress faster than anything else, the internet, is in jeopardy, and the paranoid side of me is screaming "conspiracy." Keep everyone watching tv instead of talking to each other and learning.
@Cooked
To be honest I'm pretty ignorant about the technical aspects of how this all works and I didn't understand 100% of what you said. But I think you are saying that ALL the content we access online will become more and more micromanaged by our internet providers, which will turn the internet into more of a tv platform instead of an egalitarian information sharing platform. This absolutely scares the crap out of me. The one thing driving humanity's social progress faster than anything else, the internet, is in jeopardy, and the paranoid side of me is screaming "conspiracy." Keep everyone watching tv instead of talking to each other and learning.
1818-1828271 wrote:
...
The one thing driving humanity's social progress faster than anything else, the internet, is in jeopardy, and the paranoid side of me is screaming "conspiracy."
...
Maybe not the best place discussing things like this. I was just laying out that there are quite a few major drawbacks when it comes to "getting rid" of the net neutrality and my example with the HighFrequencyTrader (HFT) who have way different access to some access-points of dataprovider of a stockexchange like the NYSE is exactly like this --> missing net neutrality, while the common crowd is watching their futures chart or some stocks things already have changed. I can't recapitulate this entirely from scratch, one guy is steadily unveiling such things like the delay of dataproviders I was talking about. I'm following on twitter @nanexllc
Well, more profits for the companies that own the Internet do, in theory, mean a better internet with more money invested.
I will try find the counter arguments. I don't see many cons.
-big companies get priority on web pages
And is that it? Not such a terrible issue, if it will put more money into economies and give better jobs to IT workers, as the companies can now employ more people?
I'm not in favour, but like all sides getting a good argument for them.
-big companies get priority on web pages
And is that it? Not such a terrible issue, if it will put more money into economies and give better jobs to IT workers, as the companies can now employ more people?
I'm not in favour, but like all sides getting a good argument for them.
It's not a good argument for the other side. New jobs/better jobs aren't created simply due to increased profits. All the profit goes to the people at the very top. The economy will not be helped by this unless you consider profits for the big business owners to be the only marker of a strong economy.
And the drawback is more than just higher priority for paying sites... as previously stated, this will essentially give these internet providers total control over the content we see. They could create their own official gaming portal and block all others. They could block YouTube channels or blogs they disagree with. They could make the internet what THEY want it to be, crushing everything about the way it is currently run.
And the drawback is more than just higher priority for paying sites... as previously stated, this will essentially give these internet providers total control over the content we see. They could create their own official gaming portal and block all others. They could block YouTube channels or blogs they disagree with. They could make the internet what THEY want it to be, crushing everything about the way it is currently run.
Ok, but I was just saying about advantages.
Yes, they could do this...
But why would they?
Block YouTube channels from existence?
Wow! That's a lot of bad PR right there! A court case could even be brought against you!
They want to block a blog...but that might pay them....of COURSE they will take the money, rather then block.
Ask yourself this- COULD they do that? WOULD they be bothered to do that? WHY would they do that?
Yes, they could do this...
But why would they?
Block YouTube channels from existence?
Wow! That's a lot of bad PR right there! A court case could even be brought against you!
They want to block a blog...but that might pay them....of COURSE they will take the money, rather then block.
Ask yourself this- COULD they do that? WOULD they be bothered to do that? WHY would they do that?
I think they'll do whatever will earn them the most profits. Anything that can drive up profits and is legal, they will do, even if it is dirty. That's my premise.
This could mean they block YouTube so that people have only the option to use their own platform. Or they could charge YouTube an exorbitant amount of money for that to not happen (which is really what this is about). Think about other services: what if they decided they ought to block all online gaming services so that only their own can be used? Chess.com could be affected by this personally with a fee/bribe/tax/whatever you want to call it.
Think about how cable television is run: It's a pre-packaged, polished up one-way platform for information distribution. Things that get put on there are decided by the cable company. That is exactly what the internet would become.
The removal of net neutrality will allow cable companies to bully websites into paying pretty much anything to stay listed and independent.
This could mean they block YouTube so that people have only the option to use their own platform. Or they could charge YouTube an exorbitant amount of money for that to not happen (which is really what this is about). Think about other services: what if they decided they ought to block all online gaming services so that only their own can be used? Chess.com could be affected by this personally with a fee/bribe/tax/whatever you want to call it.
Think about how cable television is run: It's a pre-packaged, polished up one-way platform for information distribution. Things that get put on there are decided by the cable company. That is exactly what the internet would become.
The removal of net neutrality will allow cable companies to bully websites into paying pretty much anything to stay listed and independent.
They won't block YouTube right away 
...they will avoid touching "general public" stuff...they will severely hamper and later on block paid subscription services like Netflix first in favor of their own inferior streaming alternatives...they were already doing this kind of throttling (and worse, hiding that they were doing it) when net neutrality rules blocked them in the first place.
Imagine your smartphone had shitty voice quality and dropped calls for all your personal calls, but crystal clear sound and no dropped calls for telemarketers...yeah, it's like that. Interstate highways and railroads tracks are physical infrastructure...imagine for a moment that you in your car were not even allowed on the freeway, and had to use surface streets to drive everywhere, while big rigs filled every freeway. The internet is communication infrastructure, like phone lines. It requires that all traffic be treated as equal in order to work for the public good.
Try to keep this thread going 18. I'll read it later, its going to effect all of us. And block people like Will_n if that's all he has to offer.
Really good analogies btickler, thanks.
Thanks Ron, yeah, I plan to keep this going. We're at a critical decision point right now and we'll see how this plays out... I urge anyone reading to look into this and send a letter or email to your relevant representative.
The url provided at the end of the 1st post gives you easy access to sending an email, and was simply the top hit in google when I searched this up, and it seems to be the most organized group, having countless big-name websites backing up their cause. They seem really legit. I am in no way a representative for them however. Just trying to steer people towards the right tools to make small nudges in the right direction that will add up and make a real difference.
Cheers all, please take this seriously.
Thanks Ron, yeah, I plan to keep this going. We're at a critical decision point right now and we'll see how this plays out... I urge anyone reading to look into this and send a letter or email to your relevant representative.
The url provided at the end of the 1st post gives you easy access to sending an email, and was simply the top hit in google when I searched this up, and it seems to be the most organized group, having countless big-name websites backing up their cause. They seem really legit. I am in no way a representative for them however. Just trying to steer people towards the right tools to make small nudges in the right direction that will add up and make a real difference.
Cheers all, please take this seriously.
This is a very interesting issue.
Net neutrality should be upheld.
Yes, it should be upheld.
