Posted on 11/11/2014 11:50:38 AM PST by Usagi_yo
Net Neutrality Net neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally—is a principle that EFF strongly supports.
Unfortunately, the FCC is considering a plan that would allow some Internet providers to provide better access to some websites that pay a fee to reach users faster. This kind of “pay-to-play” Internet stifles innovation. New websites that can’t afford expensive fees for better service will face new barriers to success, leaving users with ever fewer options and a less diverse Internet.
There are many ways ISPs may discriminate against how we access websites, and we stand firm in our opposition to this kind of behavior:
In 2007, Comcast was caught interfering with their customers’ use of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file sharing. We’ve seen discriminatory traffic shaping that prioritizes some protocols over others, like when a Canadian ISP slowed down all encrypted file transfers for five years. The FCC fined Verizon in 2012 for charging consumers for using their phone as a mobile hotspot. Individually and collectively, these practices pose a dire threat to the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today.
The FCC has a poor track record of getting net neutrality right. In January 2014, a federal court rejected the bulk of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet order. The rules that the court threw out, however, were deeply flawed.
Protecting net neutrality is a hard problem, with no easy solutions. It’s going to take a variety of actions and ongoing vigilance.
There is one thing we can all do right now, though: call a halt to the dangerous proposals the FCC has floated to far. That’s why we are asking folks to contact both the FCC and Congress and send a clear message: It’s our internet, we won’t let you damage it, and we won't let you help others damage it.
The last thing I want is for this regime to decide what is NEUTRAL. If TRANSPARENCY of the administration is any example, I’ll take my chances with the system as it is without government screwing with it.
Every single time the government gets involved with private business and industry, it turns it to crap and makes misery - like a king Midas in reverse.
No thanks. Keep the government OUT of even LOOKING at the internet.
Yeah....”Equal Access” means bait and switch....and YOU get to pay for the freebies of the CHOSEN ones, ie losers.
Your “base internet package” under BaraqqiNet:
1) CNN
2) The Huffington Post
3) Time
4) NPR
5) Slate
6) Newsweek
7) U.S. News & World Report
8) Politico
9) Salon
10) Indy Media
11) Democratic Underground
12) The Atlantic
13) The Village Voice
14) Daily Kos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
“Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.”
Essentially, “net-neutrality” is a highly anti-competitive measure preventing innovation such as offering premium Internet services, with the result that all Internet traffic is reduced to the lowest common denominator, that is, all Internet traffic remains equally as slow, which of course is the heart of all socialistic schemes.
If “net-neutrality” were to be applied to the telephone system, then unlimited calls to anywhere in the world would all cost the same as a call to your next door neighbor. Of course, the quality of all those calls would suddenly become equally as bad. Likewise, cell phones would never have been allowed to be utilized under “net-neutrality”, since these represent a premium calling mechanism for which people pay a premium price.
So-called net neutrality amounts to nothing more than applying Marxist principles to the Internet: “To each Internet user according to his need, from each Internet provider according to their ability to pay”.
It’s no wonder Obama whole-heartedly endorses “net-neutrality”(assuming he even understands what it means in the first place, and isn’t endorsing it just because it sounds “fair”.)
Don’t forget ABC/NBC/CBS, Al Jazeera, ISIS, CAIR, Greenpeace, Nation of Islam, Earth Liberation Front, NYT, marxists.org...
God help us....
Libs love to pick names that are the opposite of what the proposed law is supposed to do.
My marketing professor always said "advertise your weakest point". If your restaurant's food tastes bad, then advertise "Great tasting food!". If service is slow, then advertise "Speedy service!".
I always look at a company's advertising, and using this rule I can determine their bad points by what they're trying to advertise as their strong points. 99% of the time it seems to always be true.
Indy Media is still around?
They used to have a radio show here in town.
Got canceled when they could not scare up four
volunteers to continue producing it.
I think you are overstating it, the essence of net neutrality is toward data types, not classes of premium services. It means the ISP can’t pick and choose which types of data are treated preferentially.
Many comments I’ve seen reflect a flawed understanding. Without neutrality, there’ll be nothing to stop a service provider like Comcast from deciding that traffic with left-leaning websites should have priority over traffic to Free Republic or Brietbart. Is that what you want?
But Comcast should be free to charge more for greater usage, just like any other regulated industry. The power company can’t give Democrats lower rates than Republicans, but it can surely charge more if you use more electricity.
Neutrality alllows consumers have choices in an open marketplace, not be at the whim of service providers who might like to tilt the playing field one way or another.
The White House Gets It Right On Net Neutrality. Will the FCC?
Wow, really?
And yet almost no one has been complaining about blocked, slowed, unequal, or censored access via the ISPs, so Obama’s demand is simply a raw power grab to regulate the Internet as if it was a 1934 telephone utility under the 1934 Telecommuniations Act. So, “unequal” access is simply an excuse to regulate the Internet like the feds currently regulate the dying hard-wire telephone system.
If the feds were REALLY concerned about Internet abuse, they’d go after Google, which has an almost total monopoly on digital advertising and almost complete control on how they choose to present available information to each person who uses the Internet.
Exactly. Why anybody wants government involved in a vibrant adaptive technology is one of life’s great mysteries.
They are denizens of the Progressive Left...ala ACLU.
Sure, they support civil liberties as long as you are not the enemy. And the enemy to them is anyone making a buck for providing a product or service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.