net neutrality passed...
- Thread starter ruffryder
- Start date
why? Do you think it is correct for carriers to limit traffic from sites not associated with them?
because we aren't a democracy...
What do you guys think is in this law?
Why don't I just form a new group that makes law? That's what a lot of this BS is about. They do what they want without going through the proper channels in place. And when they do go through them and get DENIED, they go ahead and do what they want anyway. That IS wrong!!
No, I don't agree with limiting traffic. I also think that the companies that try to do this will be weeded out rather quickly. My ISP decides to do that, I'm dropping them and going elsewhere. I believe that most that tried this would find a HUGE decline in users.
No, I don't agree with limiting traffic. I also think that the companies that try to do this will be weeded out rather quickly. My ISP decides to do that, I'm dropping them and going elsewhere. I believe that most that tried this would find a HUGE decline in users.
OK, I'm lost.... What the heck are you talking about???????
Net Neutrality 101
When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.
What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.
The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.
The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane.
What's the Problem Here?
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.
Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.
Stifling innovation: Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Unless we preserve Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. On a tiered Internet controlled by the phone and cable companies, only their own content and services -- or those offered by corporate partners that pony up enough "protection money" -- will enjoy life in the fast lane.
The End of the Internet?
Make no mistake: The free-flowing Internet as we know it could very well become history.
What does that mean? It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger. The next generation of inventions will be shut out of the top-tier service level. Meanwhile, the network owners will rake in even greater profits.
The FCC is the proper channel, and is made up of democratic and republican congressmen. They are the group that regulate communications..
I would bet the same was said about tiered pricing... and now most of them do it.. Sometimes cut throat competition is less profitable then happenstance collusion..
I think you forget that when it comes to internet connection, many people don't have as much of a choice.
Last edited:
Thanks for that.... sounds like Net Neutrality is a very good thing then if it helps to guarantee that the internet in its present usable form stays largely the same.
Thats what it looks like... The looming NBC-Comcast deal looks to be part of the reason for this passing...
Similar threads
