Net Neutrality your thoughts

[captain]

So today it looks like the FCC is going to be controlling the Internet to a degree... If you know what Net Neutrality is lets discuss it, if you don't know what it is then just listen and become educated and then once you have some information you can tell us your thoughts...

Are you for it or against it?

Do you see any issues in the future with the FCC regulating the Internet?

As always on these discussions please don't make this personal between people, no need to call someone ignorant or tell them they don't have a clue just post the facts and your opinions about those facts....

cap

 

[Twobrothersbusa]

I can't help but think that anytime a government agency is involved...things don't improve.

 

[Twobrothersbusa]

Cap,
Since we all share this little website you created, do you feel this will improve your operation or have a tendancy to impede your business?

 

[captain]

Here is a somewhat one sided view of net neutrality for those that are learning...

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

When you watch the bread analogy just remember it for this discussion... Is it wrong that a company has been offering 9 types of bread and has decided to sell their own to raise the prices on the other brands? Just because it doesn't seem fair it shouldn't be regulated, let the people not shop there when the selection is gone and see what happens then. Doesn't it make sense that they should not have to carry the other bread makers products, if they want to incent people to buy their own brand they would have it cheaper...

What kills me on these discussions is that people (The FCC) see that now the Internet is a right.

Personally let the providers start locking things down and let the consumers revolt. The last thing we need is the government involved trying to make things fair....

cap

 

[flynlow]

Not fully aware of it, but the FCC always feels some sort of censorship is needed. I'm fully against any group judging what is appropriate for me to hear, see, or read. I feel everyone deserves the right to choose, after all, we're living in a free country. Right? ???

 

[captain]

One other point... I don't see the govt stepping in to help us with satellite rates or cable bills....

I don't see the govt stepping in and making Wal Mart sell my wood products because I am the little guy and can't compete with the large wood furniture companies...

Let the ISP's charge what they want and let the consumers decide if they want to use them or not... I think the govt spends too much time dealing with problems that arent there...

 

[skydivr]

I'm not sure how this one ought to play out. The internet has completely changed the world we live in, nothing in the last 60 years except maybe the atomic bomb has had as big an impact. It's driving a lot of learning and business innovation and creating weath and jobs. I really would hate to see it become an unequal playground.

 

[kml]

In Canada this happened
CBC News - Canada - Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website

cheers
ken

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

The net is a vast base of tax free commerce right now that the govt wants to regulate. They have been pushing for tax based sales online for a while and this is just another step closer.

 

[captain]

The net is a vast base of tax free commerce right now that the govt wants to regulate. They have been pushing for tax based sales online for a while and this is just another step closer.

Exactly

While I can easily see an ISP slowing down your access or limiting competitors data through their systems it is really not acceptable BUT I don't think that it's the place of the Govt to step in to deal with this. Where is the govt when we need someone to deal with SPAM or all the criminal activity on the net, they really don't want to get too involved with all that but they do want to get their foot in the door so they can start to charge taxes, can you see all the sin taxes now... Sales tax, shipping tax, **** taxes, usage taxes, too much time on the internet taxes, heck we were very close as a country a few years ago when we had congressmen that were wanting to charge a tax on every email that an ISP sent for customers... Can you imagine how much money the govt would get from GMail or from notifications from this site.... How would I pay a tax for all of the PM notifications and post updates, these things have been brought up over and over again......

I would rather deal with an ISP and take my business elswhere than to deal with the govt telling me what is good for me and then tax me on it..

 

[EarlyBird]

Exactly

While I can easily see an ISP slowing down your access or limiting competitors data through their systems it is really not acceptable BUT I don't think that it's the place of the Govt to step in to deal with this. Where is the govt when we need someone to deal with SPAM or all the criminal activity on the net, they really don't want to get too involved with all that but they do want to get their foot in the door so they can start to charge taxes, can you see all the sin taxes now... Sales tax, shipping tax, **** taxes, usage taxes, too much time on the internet taxes, heck we were very close as a country a few years ago when we had congressmen that were wanting to charge a tax on every email that an ISP sent for customers... Can you imagine how much money the govt would get from GMail or from notifications from this site.... How would I pay a tax for all of the PM notifications and post updates, these things have been brought up over and over again......

I would rather deal with an ISP and take my business elswhere than to deal with the govt telling me what is good for me and then tax me on it..

Like Charlie said! I am afraid what will happen if the Govt gets involved! And as you stated above more of our freedoms are now taking away, and they charge you for it!

 

[lavinrac]

Well here is my thoughts on this.

1. This could be a good thing given the ISPs decide to be greedy.

2. This could be a bad thing since the Government always messes things up when they get involved.

3. If more companies would move away from the G.983 and move to the G.984, which is both APON and BPON combined they would benefit from the higher speeds, security and layer protocols.

4. FTTN like most companies have can also be causing most the issues. In which can cause a "bottle neck" in the network due to the service area for each node. If they would move more towards FTTH they would in fact come closer to resolving the "Last Mile" issue.

5. It would be nice to see everyone using WDM to its fullest potential or heck even half its potential and there would be no need to throttle anything. Not sure on the number of fibers in a bundle but at a possible 160 channels per fiber and 111Gbps having been reached per channel. Its the greed of men that is causing this ruckus.

I am sure there are more things I can think about but that is my list. If 3 and 4 were done then neither 1 nor 2 would be needed and maybe not even brought up.

Sorry about the sorta long writeup. I may be mistaken on some of my info but I believe its pretty darn accurate.

 

[aussiekeeper]

In its infancy, the FCC was developed to divide the bandwidth among TV and radio broadcasters, period. Roll up 20 years and it began to police WHAT was to be broadcast on those airwaves. Today, it believes it can regulate the entire function of those airwaves AND regulate and tax the internet. There will be plenty of congeressional hearings on this idea and others. They (FCC) just may have stepped in the proverbial dung. The Conservatives will be holding the hearings and congress will decide exactly what they may do. The congress can overide any FCC ruling, they do not make their own laws. The Liberals want to police and run the entire world, but the people are telling the government (remember the last election?) that we are fed up with the government telling us what to do and how much of OUR money and OUR freedoms they will mandate...........Stay tuned.

 

[kml]

So I honestly don't have a single problem with this... If the customer base is so upset about it then when they have an exodus from the ISP they might think differently next time about blocking content...

Using this same analogy when does it stop, discrimination because a company blocked content? Is it discrimination when the admins delete content here? What's the difference....

Most likely, you and I sir stand diametrically opposed on every social, political and religious debate, so I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree on darn near everything.

cheers
Your liberal, atheist, feminist, net neutrality favoring, socialist Canadian Internet northern friend.



ken

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Well here is my thoughts on this.

1. This could be a good thing given the ISPs decide to be greedy.

2. This could be a bad thing since the Government always messes things up when they get involved.

3. If more companies would move away from the G.983 and move to the G.984, which is both APON and BPON combined they would benefit from the higher speeds, security and layer protocols.

4. FTTN like most companies have can also be causing most the issues. In which can cause a "bottle neck" in the network due to the service area for each node. If they would move more towards FTTH they would in fact come closer to resolving the "Last Mile" issue.

5. It would be nice to see everyone using WDM to its fullest potential or heck even half its potential and there would be no need to throttle anything. Not sure on the number of fibers in a bundle but at a possible 160 channels per fiber and 111Gbps having been reached per channel. Its the greed of men that is causing this ruckus.

I am sure there are more things I can think about but that is my list. If 3 and 4 were done then neither 1 nor 2 would be needed and maybe not even brought up.

Sorry about the sorta long writeup. I may be mistaken on some of my info but I believe its pretty darn accurate.

WTF did you just say ?

 

[StromBusa]

The government needs trimmed in half, I don't think they get it. Too many lawyers too. We need to quit feeding them, this is what happens..

 

[Vonderbach]

If I run an ISP and I want to limit my users to nothing but www.jellybeans.com, then I should have the right to do so. It's that simple. This is the same debacle that the government nosed in about with Microsoft and the Internet Explorer bundling. If you don't want that service, don't buy it.

There is one caveat, and that's in situations like mine, where I have absolutely no choice when it comes to my ISP. (except for Hughesnet.) So in some regards, Net Neutrality will likely help me in the short run. However, in the long run it's going to be the proverbial camel nose under the tent.

 

[shortBoarder]

It's a terrible idea, pushed by media lobbyists in the interest of ultimately controlling bandwidth and turning the internet into a virtual toll-road.

Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) has a great essay regarding this.

Unimpeded, we're headed toward this:

 

[Vonderbach]

I really don't see a problem with the graphic above. If you don't like the idea, don't pay for it. Consumers hold the power until the government says otherwise.

It's a terrible idea, pushed by media lobbyists in the interest of ultimately controlling bandwidth and turning the internet into a virtual toll-road.

What exactly is a bad idea? You seem to favor net neutrality. Are you saying the status quo is a bad idea?

 

[shortBoarder]

The idea that if you don't like it, don't pay for it works beautifully when there's competition+choice in the marketplace, and for much of the country, there isn't an honest competitive choice. I live in Los Angeles and have essentially one choice (Time Warner) for internet service that doesn't involve getting a T1 line or a microwave antenna. If TW wants to raise my rates by 50% tomorrow or introduce a tiered system that will limit my usage of the internet unless I pay more, I really have no choice but to pay, or simply disconnect. That's not an efficient market - it's pretty much a monopoly.

I'm all for net neutrality, for the simple reason that I think that that all data should be of equal importance on the network.

The FCC order is mixed. It ultimately doesn't protect a free and open internet, doesn't protect neutrality over mobile broadband, and doesn't ban bandwidth prioritization. As with everything the gov't deals with, it's gonna be a long slog.