bodhi
Sophomore
Grow The Game
Posts: 226
|
Post by bodhi on Dec 14, 2017 13:13:21 GMT -5
The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. Everything is based on what people want to consume, and not what people need to see. Who decides what people 'need' to see? We should always have choice. Choice is what provides checks and balances. If an ISP charges too much, competition to that ISP will provide alternative choices for service. ISP's are in the business of making money. If anything, there should be deregulation to allow new ISP's to be formed to provide additional competition, additional choice for consumers. The people in power that are pushing net neutrality, are the same people that back bigger and bigger government, which takes choice away from average American's. The internet hasn't been broken...not sure why it needs fixing.
|
|
|
Post by hoosierdraft on Dec 14, 2017 13:21:55 GMT -5
Counting the hours to the demise of Volleytalk, Mr. Odin.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Dec 14, 2017 13:32:20 GMT -5
Lawsuits pending................maybe a couple of years before it really kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by hustleslowly on Dec 14, 2017 13:59:18 GMT -5
I'm not completely versed in this, but at some point, sites that use a vast majority of internet traffic should probably be somewhat responsible for the traffic they cause. There may already be agreements in place for this though.
What I foresee is more data caps and ISPs teaming up with or starting their own streaming services, etc that won't count against data caps or be threatened with lower speed /quality.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 14, 2017 14:00:59 GMT -5
Everything is based on what people want to consume, and not what people need to see. Who decides what people 'need' to see? We should always have choice. Choice is what provides checks and balances. If an ISP charges too much, competition to that ISP will provide alternative choices for service. ISP's are in the business of making money. If anything, there should be deregulation to allow new ISP's to be formed to provide additional competition, additional choice for consumers. The people in power that are pushing net neutrality, are the same people that back bigger and bigger government, which takes choice away from average American's. The internet hasn't been broken...not sure why it needs fixing. What you need to see is reality. What you want to see are your opinions. We need media to show reality. Right now all you see are talking heads that echo your own biases regardless of reality. Which I’m not saying sensor these people, but what I’m saying is that the commercialization of it has NOT been good for the country’s democracy. Imagine if CNN’s owner also owned your ISP. And decided you could only access Fox News via the internet very, very slowly. Would that be good? Stop classifying everyone has left or right in making an argument about specific legislation. It is a matter of time before ISP’s go this route if given the time. And historically they did start dabbling in this, it just didn’t effect you at that point. This isn’t rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by big10volleyballfan on Dec 14, 2017 15:12:27 GMT -5
The doom and gloom are wildly overstated. And there's no reason that if things go sour, that politicians would not change directions and go back to net neutrality in order to calm down their constituents. If we really wanted to open up the internet, there would be a focus not on national policy and major corporations, but on local regulatory regimes that restrict the building of new broadband networks.
|
|
|
Post by kellerowl on Dec 14, 2017 16:21:03 GMT -5
Yes that is a great service but it loses over $5 billion dollars each year that must be subsidized by tax payers. So that is not the "real cost" to send a letter. So again not efficient. The USPS losses money each year because Republicans passed a law stating they had to fund their pensions 75 years into the future. Net Neutrality simply states ISP's cannot control internet content. There is NOTHING that states the government will control content Thats a little overstated. They required it to run more like a business but they still subsidize it. State of California is going to run into the same issue in just a few years as they are operating like all the California employees will never retire. The state is grossly unfunded. Novel concept to ask government entities to operate within their revenue parameters. All of the sky is falling, doom and gloom on the subject will never come about. Competition, if allowed to compete, will always find openings.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 14, 2017 17:14:53 GMT -5
The USPS losses money each year because Republicans passed a law stating they had to fund their pensions 75 years into the future. Net Neutrality simply states ISP's cannot control internet content. There is NOTHING that states the government will control content Thats a little overstated. They required it to run more like a business but they still subsidize it. State of California is going to run into the same issue in just a few years as they are operating like all the California employees will never retire. The state is grossly unfunded. Novel concept to ask government entities to operate within their revenue parameters. All of the sky is falling, doom and gloom on the subject will never come about. Competition, if allowed to compete, will always find openings. Really? Is there currently open competition among MSOs? Are consumers fairly treated in this sector?
|
|
|
Post by maplespear on Dec 14, 2017 18:07:52 GMT -5
This bill got nixed.. we are good.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 14, 2017 18:10:40 GMT -5
This bill got nixed.. we are good. No. They repealed what was protecting us.
|
|
|
Post by bighurt on Dec 14, 2017 19:20:22 GMT -5
Sorry Odin, Net neutrality is not neutral. The effect of this Washington based law basically puts politicians in charge of the net rather than the participants. If you're going to make claims such as this, please cite them. Since the internet was "invented" it's growth and adoption have been amazing. The internet has spawned the two largest companies in the history of the world- Amazon and Alibaba. The internet has changed the way we work, shop, interact, entertain, as well as the political situations throughout the world. Because of the internet people have more ways to stay informed, communicate, and drive social change. All of this took place with very little, if any, government regulation. For most of us, the issue with the internet has not been the blocking of content or freedom of expression- though some on the far left and right political spectrum might disagree- instead the issue has been the lack of choice regarding internet providers and the fees they charge. In my view this lack of choice is not the result of too little regulation, instead there simply are too many barriers to start-up competitors. These barriers are primarily regulations set up by state and local governments that prevent competitors from building their own networks. The answer to ensuring the freedom of the internet is not government rules or government agency regulations. The answer is maintaining a marketplace where competitors are free to enter the space to compete and fill customer demands. Should Xfinity choke back speed or access that is their absolute right, since they own the hardware. What should and will happen without government interference is the entrance of a competitor that will offer lower rates and more choice.
|
|
bodhi
Sophomore
Grow The Game
Posts: 226
|
Post by bodhi on Dec 14, 2017 19:22:48 GMT -5
Who decides what people 'need' to see? We should always have choice. Choice is what provides checks and balances. If an ISP charges too much, competition to that ISP will provide alternative choices for service. ISP's are in the business of making money. If anything, there should be deregulation to allow new ISP's to be formed to provide additional competition, additional choice for consumers. The people in power that are pushing net neutrality, are the same people that back bigger and bigger government, which takes choice away from average American's. The internet hasn't been broken...not sure why it needs fixing. What you need to see is reality. What you want to see are your opinions. We need media to show reality. Right now all you see are talking heads that echo your own biases regardless of reality. Which I’m not saying sensor these people, but what I’m saying is that the commercialization of it has NOT been good for the country’s democracy. Imagine if CNN’s owner also owned your ISP. And decided you could only access Fox News via the internet very, very slowly. Would that be good? Stop classifying everyone has left or right in making an argument about specific legislation. It is a matter of time before ISP’s go this route if given the time. And historically they did start dabbling in this, it just didn’t effect you at that point. This isn’t rocket science. There is a lot here to unpack. First off, what reality are you talking about? The news has always dictated what you see, how you view it, what slants on a story they will take. You act like this is a recent phenomenon. It's not. This has always been the case since one person could tell someone else about something. You and I can agree that we just want the straight facts on a story...and some are better at delivering that then others and leaving as much of their biases out of a particular story as they can. Others are horrible at it. But I think I have a good view of who slants in which direction and when I watch it, I watch it knowing a head of time that they are hitting a particular angle. I believe I am smart enough to know the difference and I trust you are too. Secondly, if CNN owned my ISP and didn't provide me the service that I expect...I'll switch ISP's. You are completely making my argument for me regarding competition and choice. And if CNN (as my ISP) values my business, they will be competitive. Lastly, you say it is just a matter of time before we see a problem. Translation, there is no problem now, but there might be in the future? The internet works fine just the way it is. Let's not try and fix something that isn't broken.
|
|
bodhi
Sophomore
Grow The Game
Posts: 226
|
Post by bodhi on Dec 14, 2017 19:24:49 GMT -5
If you're going to make claims such as this, please cite them. the internet has not been the blocking of content or freedom of expression instead the issue has been the lack of choice regarding internet providers and the fees they charge. In my view this lack of choice is not the result of too little regulation, instead there simply are too many barriers to start-up competitors. These barriers are primarily regulations set up by state and local governments that prevent competitors from building their own networks. Perfectly said.
|
|
|
Post by bighurt on Dec 14, 2017 19:26:20 GMT -5
The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. And to take it one step further look at how the commercialization of our news, information and media has absolutely destroyed our country. Everything is based on what people want to consume, and not what people need to see. The internet needs to be open, not at the mercy of ISP’s who will dictate who can see what based on money. Mark my words, this will have the potential to exponentially create more problems within the fabric of our democracy. Not saying it definitively will, but it’s easy to see it going down that path. You have made a key point when you said "not what people need to see". Who exactly will be the arbiters of what people need to see? The next step are the things people are "forced" to see. It is one thing to argue government regulations versus laissez-faire; the most dangerous argument of all is when free people are told what they must or need to see. It is not too extreme to say that that philosophy has been tried and millions of people literally died as a result.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 14, 2017 19:29:04 GMT -5
What you need to see is reality. What you want to see are your opinions. We need media to show reality. Right now all you see are talking heads that echo your own biases regardless of reality. Which I’m not saying sensor these people, but what I’m saying is that the commercialization of it has NOT been good for the country’s democracy. Imagine if CNN’s owner also owned your ISP. And decided you could only access Fox News via the internet very, very slowly. Would that be good? Stop classifying everyone has left or right in making an argument about specific legislation. It is a matter of time before ISP’s go this route if given the time. And historically they did start dabbling in this, it just didn’t effect you at that point. This isn’t rocket science. There is a lot here to unpack. First off, what reality are you talking about? The news has always dictated what you see, how you view it, what slants on a story they will take. You act like this is a recent phenomenon. It's not. This has always been the case since one person could tell someone else about something. You and I can agree that we just want the straight facts on a story...and some are better at delivering that then others and leaving as much of their biases out of a particular story as they can. Others are horrible at it. But I think I have a good view of who slants in which direction and when I watch it, I watch it knowing a head of time that they are hitting a particular angle. I believe I am smart enough to know the difference and I trust you are too. Secondly, if CNN owned my ISP and didn't provide me the service that I expect...I'll switch ISP's. You are completely making my argument for me regarding competition and choice. And if CNN (as my ISP) values my business, they will be competitive. Lastly, you say it is just a matter of time before we see a problem. Translation, there is no problem now, but there might be in the future? The internet works fine just the way it is. Let's not try and fix something that isn't broken. But can you actually switch ISPs? I cannot currently. Nor can a large number of Americans.
|
|