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.
NN will ENSURE, WITH CERTAINTY, that the internet is never a suitable replacement for Cable TV or Phone service.
It condemns the USA to a "Service Backwater" where we have to maintain 3 different types of networks for the 3 services.
It a cryin' damn shame to see even Freepers dumb enough to fall for this.
With Comcast and TimeWarner as regime affiliates, it’s safe to assume no proposals from Baraq are going to impact them negatively, right?
That's a lie of the highest order.
Comcast is ALREADY REGULATED and subject to administrative discipline.
What NN DOES is prevent the backbone providers from recovering their costs to implement a technical feature called Quality of Service(QOS) to make the internet suitable for widespread, general delivery of Voice and Video services.
It prevents the consolidation of all services onto one network.
And, it prevents the owner of the resource from extracting a PROFIT from their investment, thus KILLING INNOVATION from both ends at the same time.
Only a statist commie could support this.
Don't' buy Obama's bull$h_t! There is no problem and it doesn't need to be regulated.
“It a cryin’ damn shame to see even Freepers dumb enough to fall for this. “
Time mag just published an article crowing that conservatives overwhelmingly support “net neutrality”. Of course the questions were rigged by the “pro-net-neutrality” group that did the poll:
https://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/
In point of fact, the questions in the poll were unrelated to what Obama’s so-called “net-neutrality” actually would do. That poll was like having a poll asking people if they’d like health care to be more affordable and then claiming that means they support the obamacare “Affordable Care Act”.
I agree. This is a liberal "solution" in search of a problem.
No. You've got it ass-backwards.
Are you a troll or just an incredibly-stupid person?
Only the free market can give you the opportunity to decide what Internet service you want. When government controls it, you'll have one flavor.
What are you doing on FR anyway?
Thrown out in a court challenge.
Boy do you have a misconception of the EFF.
They don’t have to. But okay. The courts frown upon prior restraint.
But that's where you are wrong.
How can there be consumer options without the "whims" of service providers? So-called net neutrality replaces the "whims" of service providers with the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.
Don't fall for it.
Without NN what’s to stop the Net from becoming like cable? With one ISP offering you amazon, Netflix etc...if they are taking payoffs from the big sites that could also include blocking competition couldn’t it?
It would be like giving the biggest retail store on the block the ability to pay more for the maintenance of the local sidewalks. All of a sudden the sidewalks that lead to their front door are very well maintained but those that lead to their competitors...
Architecture. The internet is specifically built to get data from point A to point B regardless of impediment. You can put up blocks, but they can be circumnavigated. Also basic business, no ISP has a local monopoly, if my cable company (also my ISP) suddenly say “no Netflix for you” I go the phone company, verizon, etc etc etc.
I’m for NN, but the predicted disaster will not happen. Heck it hasn’t resulted in a disaster yet.
The concept of Net Neutrality is that an ISP cannot arbitrarily impede competing services. It's not saying that one can't use QoS for cost recovery, just that it can't be used to artificially make your competitors look bad.
It prevents the consolidation of all services onto one network.
No, it only challenges the ISP to provide a better set of consolidated services. Consumers are free to seek out competing services from other providers without artificial burdens in their way. Consumers seeking to use the ISP's consolidated services end up receiving higher quality service due to competitive pressure.
And, it prevents the owner of the resource from extracting a PROFIT from their investment, thus KILLING INNOVATION from both ends at the same time.
If the ISP has to compete and cannot use technical measures to artificially make their competitors look bad, how is that bad for the consumer? In order to profit in a Net Neutrality environment, they have to provide services that are superior on their own merits - something that enhances profit and innovation.
You're essentially arguing that the walled garden model of Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL should return. Net Neutrality, absent any political attempts to alter it, seeks to make the Internet a more competitive and innovative place.
So-called “net neutrality” is a scam, just like obamacare is a scam. It’s an excuse to regulate the internet as if it was a telephone system built in 1934, under the 1934 Telecommunications act that has no applicability to the Internet.
The Internet is not broken. The things you mention are not occurring. If they ever do occur, then time to take a look, but right now, so-called “net neutrality” is simply an excuse for the “Progressives” to take total control of the internet like they’ve done with the medical system. And any time “Progressives” take control of anything, they turn that control to their own advantage and make sure innovation and free-market principles are destroyed in favor of the lowest common denominator “equality”.
Apparently you forget what actually happened to Netflix. Comcast deliberately slowed down their experience until they managed to get Netflix to cave.
Unlike obamacare(which is indeed a scam from any angle), Net Neutrality is not the "scam" you think it is. The only threat that it provides is towards business models that depend on sub-par service and the ability to degrade competitors.
No, that's not my argument and it's a truly grand leap of disingenuous logic to suggest that it is.
However, your argument is that government should decide, through regulation, what a property owner can do with his property, how the services derived from that property can be packaged and sold...who he can sell it to...AND force him to allow his distribution network to be used by his competitors to deliver THEIR product.
Additionally, when that property owner looks at whether he wants to improve the property, he must ask: Will I be able to derive the benefit of MY capital investment, or will somebody else?
No, your advocacy is an advocacy for communism.
Even Obama’s hand-picked FCC chair campaign blunder is refusing Obama’s call for “net neutrality”:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/12/fcc-chair-distances-himself-from-obama-on-net-neutrality/
Well, that’s saying that Wheeler knows what hand is feeding him and which one he can bite. That’s simple self interest.
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.