|
Post by d3coach on Dec 14, 2017 22:20:02 GMT -5
But can you actually switch ISPs? I cannot currently. Nor can a large number of Americans. I can. We have a couple of choices. Not enough frankly. What I said far earlier in the thread, which has been echo'd by others is the need for deregulation's that would assist new ISP's into forming. Competition is what will keep the checks and balances in place. I want multiple ISP's fighting for my business. Read this and understand those Tier 1 providers control everything, and that won’t change with this policy change. icaruswept.com/2016/06/28/who-owns-the-internet/
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 14, 2017 22:33:22 GMT -5
IMHO, competition is always a good thing.
|
|
bodhi
Sophomore
Grow The Game
Posts: 226
|
Post by bodhi on Dec 14, 2017 22:36:04 GMT -5
For the question of whether a federal agency should grab power to which it has no claim, which is what happened and what was just reversed. If this is good policy, it must go through Congress.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 14, 2017 22:38:32 GMT -5
For the question of whether a federal agency should grab power to which it has no claim, which is what happened and what was just reversed. If this is good policy, it must go through Congress. Very few good ideas come out of Congress. What a bunch on blow hards on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 14, 2017 22:52:52 GMT -5
I'm not terribly surprised by how many people seem to not understand this.
The question of "net neutrality" has nothing to do with competition. It's about "common carrier" status.
Telecom "common carriers" have to treat every request to be connected the same way. This law was last rewritten during the breakup of the Bell monopoly to ensure that it would still be possible to make calls from one "Baby Bell" to another. All the companies would have to accept and pass through calls from the others.
It was good policy for the phone companies and it worked.
ISPs were not mentioned in the law, so it was not clear whether they should be counted as common carriers or not. Under "net neutrality" they are counted as common carriers. So if you ask your ISP to send a packet to some IP address somewhere, they have to treat your request the same way no matter what IP address you ask to be connected to.
This does not limit competition of ISPs. It is not a huge regulatory burden. It does not add cost for the ISPs. In fact, it's really the default.
But under the proposed new rules, ISPs are no longer common carriers. They can now tell you that they will only connect you to certain IP addresses if they want. They can say, for instance, "Bing pays us for exclusive rights, so we won't connect you through to Google". Or they can say "we'll connect you to Google, but only slowly".
Another thing they could do now is sell you "bundles" like cable TV companies do. The could say that your basic ISP subscription only covers a limited number of destinations. If you want access to shopping sites, you pay another $5 fee. Access to forums like this one, another $5 fee. Access to ESPN.com or NCAA.com? $10 for the "sports bundle". Etc. Or they could even be like DirecTV and the PAC-12 Network and simply not offer to connect you at any price.
That is currently illegal for ISPs under "net neutrality", but if the new rules get put through it will be allowed.
Some people say the ISPs would never do this, but a) THEY ARE THE SAME COMPANIES ALREADY DOING IT WITH TV, and b) if they don't want to do this, then why the hell are they so damn keen on getting the new rules?
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 14, 2017 22:56:18 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. Amtrak DDT usage asbestos faulty brake lines in cars I know it's cool and trendy to rail on the government, and I'll certainly agree that politicians are self-serving and do some absolutely idiotic things at times, but to say they have never done anything good is foolishness. Like any private citizen, organization, business, and so on, they do a mixture of good things and bad things. While I don't hate on government, I do hate on certain party's that take away from people rather than serve them. Can you tell us which Administration did the items you mentioned above? Right now, this Administration is about "steal" money from you and me to give corporations a huge tax break that it in no way will trickle down to you and me (unless you are a moderate to heavy investor in the stock market, everybody else not so much). What American people want is employment here, in America. Of course, I digress a bit, but our current Administration is not anybody's friend unless you are making a hell of lot of money already.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 14, 2017 23:02:28 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. How long will it stay below $1? and the post office is an independent agency. You can Google it. I'm not going to pay $1,000 for a phone that will further cost me monthly for data usage, phone calls and now access to internet sites. I just won't. Better break that to Apple stock holders.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 14, 2017 23:03:40 GMT -5
Lawsuits pending................maybe a couple of years before it really kicks in. They are eliminating that option. You can't even sue them.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 14, 2017 23:07:52 GMT -5
Rather than getting too involved in this silly debate, allow me to point out that the US government CREATED the internet in the first place. Trying to argue that they should have no role in regulating the infrastructure is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of. Kind of like a loss leader advertisement....hey you get this for free now, but if it starts getting popular will start charging you and keep you from going to websites you like cause they are not the websites we want you to go to. You must have a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 14, 2017 23:12:15 GMT -5
I'm not terribly surprised by how many people seem to not understand this. The question of "net neutrality" has nothing to do with competition. It's about "common carrier" status. Telecom "common carriers" have to treat every request to be connected the same way. This law was last rewritten during the breakup of the Bell monopoly to ensure that it would still be possible to make calls from one "Baby Bell" to another. All the companies would have to accept and pass through calls from the others. It was good policy for the phone companies and it worked. ISPs were not mentioned in the law, so it was not clear whether they should be counted as common carriers or not. Under "net neutrality" they are counted as common carriers. So if you ask your ISP to send a packet to some IP address somewhere, they have to treat your request the same way no matter what IP address you ask to be connected to. This does not limit competition of ISPs. It is not a huge regulatory burden. It does not add cost for the ISPs. In fact, it's really the default. But under the proposed new rules, ISPs are no longer common carriers. They can now tell you that they will only connect you to certain IP addresses if they want. They can say, for instance, "Bing pays us for exclusive rights, so we won't connect you through to Google". Or they can say "we'll connect you to Google, but only slowly". Another thing they could do now is sell you "bundles" like cable TV companies do. The could say that your basic ISP subscription only covers a limited number of destinations. If you want access to shopping sites, you pay another $5 fee. Access to forums like this one, another $5 fee. Access to ESPN.com or NCAA.com? $10 for the "sports bundle". Etc. Or they could even be like DirecTV and the PAC-12 Network and simply not offer to connect you at any price. That is currently illegal for ISPs under "net neutrality", but if the new rules get put through it will be allowed. Some people say the ISPs would never do this, but a) THEY ARE THE SAME COMPANIES ALREADY DOING IT WITH TV, and b) if they don't want to do this, then why the hell are they so damn keen on getting the new rules?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:31:35 GMT -5
Maybe we should all wait to see how this shakes out before some of us run out the front door screaming.
|
|
|
Post by gigibear on Dec 15, 2017 0:42:27 GMT -5
Everything is based on what people want to consume, and not what people need to see. Who decides what pe The people in power that are pushing net neutrality, are the same people that back corporationsa, which takes choice away from average American's. The people in power are ________________. The people who are benefiting from this "proposal" are _______________. You gain _____________. The internet hasn't been broken...not sure why it needs fixing. Exactly. Just some businesses/corporations want to get paid so they want to push out the mom and pop entities. Repubs talking out both sides of their mouths...yet again
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Dec 15, 2017 1:00:31 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. sure tell us just what private corporations fund their retirements for the next 75 years.
|
|
|
Post by bighurt on Dec 15, 2017 3:12:35 GMT -5
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. My point is not in government regulating what we see. At all. I don’t believe that. My point is that when you let capitalism run unchecked profits beat out everything else. So the media shows you want you want to see, aka an echo chamber, and not reality. Government regulators would never do that...
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 15, 2017 7:37:31 GMT -5
My point is not in government regulating what we see. At all. I don’t believe that. My point is that when you let capitalism run unchecked profits beat out everything else. So the media shows you want you want to see, aka an echo chamber, and not reality. Government regulators would never do that... The current rules didn’t have anything to do with that. If that was proposed I’d be against it.
|
|