What the Net Neutrality Rollback Means for Netflix Users

[Millhouse]

I am all for net neutrality. ISPs should not be the ones to decide what I can and cant do on the internet, or limit what sites I want to use.

At least for now.

In 10-20 years when bandwidth usage wont even be an issue when ISPs like Google is doing now are offering over a gigabyte/second speeds, and net neutrality wont matter nearly as much.

[BoomerFan]

(03-26-2017, 07:38 PM)Millhouse Wrote: In 10-20 years when bandwidth usage wont even be an issue when ISPs like Google is doing now are offering over a gigabyte/second speeds, and net neutrality wont matter nearly as much.

Perhaps, though we've always found new things to do with more bandwidth in the past. 


Private Internet Access, a VPN provider, takes out an ad in The New York Time calling out 50 senators:

[CageTheBengal]

(03-26-2017, 07:38 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I am all for net neutrality. ISPs should not be the ones to decide what I can and cant do on the internet, or limit what sites I want to use.

At least for now.

In 10-20 years when bandwidth usage wont even be an issue when ISPs like Google is doing now are offering over a gigabyte/second speeds, and net neutrality wont matter nearly as much.

Part of the problem is AT&T and other big ISPs own the infrastructure and are doing all they can to prevent Google from hooking up fiber optics while refusing to upgrade the infrastructure themselves.

[Belsnickel]

I am not too familiar with the whole issue, but it seems to me like internet access may be better served being treated like a public utility and hand it off to public enterprises. It's getting to the point in our society where internet access should be considered a public good, and it is obvious that the free market will not be able (read: willing) to provide this in an equitable way.

[Goalpost]

(03-27-2017, 01:20 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Part of the problem is AT&T and other big ISPs own the infrastructure and are doing all they can to prevent Google from hooking up fiber optics while refusing to upgrade the infrastructure themselves.

Money is a big issue here between the infrastructure group and those that seek access.  It is expensive to build the infrastructure and there is a cost to maintain it as well.  And let's face it, there is competition in the content delivered.  If you owned a cake company, would you let your competition use your equipment and then sell at a lower price because they don't have your equipment costs?

[CKwi88]

(03-27-2017, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not too familiar with the whole issue, but it seems to me like internet access may be better served being treated like a public utility and hand it off to public enterprises. It's getting to the point in our society where internet access should be considered a public good, and it is obvious that the free market will not be able (read: willing) to provide this in an equitable way.

Get outta here you commy!

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2017, 02:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Get outta here you commy!

Socialist. There is a difference.

[CageTheBengal]

(03-27-2017, 01:44 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Money is a big issue here between the infrastructure group and those that seek access.  It is expensive to build the infrastructure and there is a cost to maintain it as well.  And let's face it, there is competition in the content delivered.  If you owned a cake company, would you let your competition use your equipment and then sell at a lower price because they don't have your equipment costs?

  I don't see a point in comparing a cake company to an internet provider because I believe the internet should be looked at as a utility. Most places don't even have paper job applications to handout anymore and it's tool that can help uplift citizens through various methods of education.

 The reason why cable companies and other ISPs need to be regulated is because they abused their power in the first place with shady marketing techniques and lies about the service they were providing the consumer. Which isn't surprising considering the reputation the big players in the internet game have. They refuse to let Google upgrade their infrastructure and meanwhile they refuse to upgrade themselves, there is still a lot of rural areas blacked out that have to rely on satellite internet companies who charge more or the same for a fraction of the service or no coverage at all and they are playing the consumer while actively seeking new ways to do so. They've had their chance and look what they've done with it.

 

[samhain]

(03-26-2017, 08:39 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: Perhaps, though we've always found new things to do with more bandwidth in the past. 


Private Internet Access, a VPN provider, takes out an ad in The New York Time calling out 50 senators:

LOL.  There's actually a United States senator named Crapo.  

[Belsnickel]

http://resistancereport.com/news/cards-humanity-creator-just-pledged-buy-publish-congresss-browser-history/

Quote:Creator of popular card game “Cards Against Humanity” Max Temkin vowed that if Congress voted to attack net neutrality, that he would purchase Congress’ browser history and publish it.

The last bit is a gem:

Quote:But the actions of Mr. Temkin lend credence to the dire warning given by the campaign director of activist group Fight for the Future: “Congress should know by now that when you come for the Internet, the Internet comes for you.”

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Net neutrality, censorship, tomato, tomahto....

[GMDino]

This popped up in my memories on FB from six years ago:

http://www.rawstory.com/2011/04/conservative-activist-bible-ben-franklin-pilgrims-all-opposed-to-net-neutrality/

Quote:Conservative activist: Bible, Ben Franklin, Pilgrims all opposed to net neutrality

The idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally is against the teachings of the Bible and America’s Founding Fathers, according to evangelical Christian minister and political activist David Barton.



During his radio show on Tuesday, he said that net neutrality violated the Biblical principle of free markets, a principle upheld by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.


“That is part of the reason we have prosperity,” Barton said. “This is what the Pilgrims brought in, the Puritans brought in, this is free market mentality. Net neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet.”


“This is really, I’m going to use the word wicked stuff, and I don’t use that word very often, but this is wicked stuff,” he added.


Barton was a co-chair of the Texas Republican Party for eight years, is the founder of WallBuilders, an organization dedicated to “America’s forgotten history,” and a lecturer for Glenn Beck’s online Beck University. TIME magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the United States.

As TalkingPointMemo noted, Barton has also appeared as an expert witness in Texas Board of Education textbook hearings and argued that homosexuality should be regulated by the government.


“This is the Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet, and I’ll go back to what I believed for a long time is: fair is a word no Christian should ever use in their vocabulary,” Barton continued. “Fair has nothing to do with anything. What you want is justice, you don’t want fairness. Fairness is subjective, what I think is fair, what you think, what happened to Jesus wasn’t fair. That’s right, but we needed justice so God did that for us.”


New net neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in December banned Internet service providers from blocking lawful Internet traffic, but allowed them to “reasonably” manage their networks and charge consumers based on usage.
The regulations are meant prevent corporations that own the physical infrastructure of the Internet from acting as “gatekeepers” by allowing faster access to certain content and slower access to other content.

“I mean, this is crazy stuff,” Barton said. “This is redistribution of wealth through the Internet and it really is redistribution. This is socialism on the Internet.”