Posted on 11/25/2017 6:25:22 AM PST by tired&retired
Everyone agrees that the Internet should be free and open. How it’s achieved? Well, that’s the issue After signaling that it would for months, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday revealed its plan to dismantle regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet, a concept known as “net neutrality.”
The regulations classify broadband access as a telecommunications service, which subjects it to “common carrier” provisions that bar Internet service providers from discriminating against how broadband is used. The regulations were passed in February 2015 by the FCC, then led by chairman Tom Wheeler. Wheeler’s successor Ajit Pai, a vocal critic of that move even while serving under Wheeler, has vowed to revisit the issue.
Pai’s position is that the common carrier provisions used to ensure net neutrality is “last-century, utility-style regulation” that injects uncertainty into a market now dominated by broadband. Pai, who says he supports an “open Internet,” believes that less regulation in this area is more beneficial to market growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
I've been arguing against net neutrality - largely on the basis of who is for it. Both at an individual level and corporate level. Liberals are for it right out of the box even though it seems as though its a solution looking for a problem.
Some of the larges companies in the world are for it and telling me they looking out for my interests - yeah right.
It seems as though it gives more government regulatory control to those who can access(lobby) those regulators.
It has a good sounding name like the "Fairness Doctrine" on the radio this gets the spider sense firing.
We have gotten along fine without it seems as a cure to a problem that isn't happening and a potential block from communities and individuals building their own networks and hooking them up to the existing Internets.
Application Packet Filtering seems to be a recipe for having all sorts of customer service issues, I know it can be done but I imagine its a big headache and leads to the conclusion of just provide the pipe and throttle based on bandwidth.
There doesn't seem to be much discussion of the actual facts and text of the proposal which leads me to wonder if this is another we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it - that didn't work out so well.
Big city here. My family are high web users. Gaming, streaming, etc. We have lived in 4 nice areas around the Los Angeles basin in the last 6 years. None rural or remote. In each place there was only ONE isp at the top possible speed. That is the only speed we are interested in (and it’s rarely achieved anyway, even when you pay for it). There has NEVER been a choice.
(For the first two places we lived, it was Verizon FIOS. The second two, we have Spectrum, formerly Time Warner Cable)
Clearly you don't know, monopolies of which we're speaking aren't private infrastructures - they're public utilities therefore public infrastructure.
They're heavily regulated for a reason, first and foremost is to "protect" consumers --- which almost never happens, btw.
You speak as if grabbing pitchforks and torches and marching on my local municipality is the answer here. Perhaps in another time (decades ago ....) I'd agree with you and toss you a torch and pitchfork to march with me. The corruption is deep, and not just in Washington DC I might add.
I'm all for "de-meddling" and getting through the short-medium term damage that'll do to the economy in favor of a much better future, let's just not stick our heads in .............. the sand (whew!) and pretend that everything will be hunky dory for everyone and there'll be enough rainbows and unicorns to go around. There won't.
You're not confused at all. You've gotten it perfectly.
“”a philosophical contest that’s being fought under the banner of “net neutrality,” a slogan that inspires rhetorical devotion but eludes precise definition. Broadly, it means everything on the Internet should be equally accessible—that the Internet should be a place where great ideas compete on equal terms with big money””
Thank you. Now THAT I can understand - I think - at least the part about “eludes precise definition” which is what I’ve been looking for since I got here. If someone can tell me or give me a SIMPLE example of where “equal access” is not happening, then I will be content and bow out of this thread. I know when it’s time to draw back! Usually!
I'd like to know what parts of the country those are. I'd really like to move to one, preferably in a much warmer climate than what I'm about to go through living here on the SW Side of Chicago.
Where we have only ONE CHOICE for high speed internet, I might add. That's largely true for the 9.4 MILLION people who live here too.
Bookmark
Let's define "treated equally" under Net Neutrality.
In your mind, does that mean email traffic and VOIP traffic for example are treated exactly the same?
I erased part of my last post to eliminate the comparison of email traffic and VOIP not being the same, not being able to be treated the same, nor would they ever be able to be treated the same and have both still function.
Net Neutrality incorporated traffic shaping and prioritization, that makes it part of the discussion, it doesn't make them the same thing.
As I wrote earlier in this thread. Comcast used "Traffic Shaping" to impact Netflix customers and literally blackmail Netflix into paying Comcast to prioritize the service.
Where's the neutrality?
I think this is probably where you and I are going to part ways on a few concepts so here goes:
Equally Accessible -- let's define that while we're at it because this is where the rubber hits the road. What does "equally accessible" mean to you? Does it mean treating every packet the exact same way? Does it mean you have to treat your competitors packets the same way as your own?
Was it right for Comcast to impair Netflix's delivery over their networks because Comcast had/has a competing product and was trying to steer their customers away from Netflix and towards their own service by impairing Netflix's user experience?
To me, that right there is the crux of "net neutrality."
Why should Comcast be forced to have anyone selling on top of their service. In my town I can get broadband, phone company, wireless, and satellite internet.
Why should anyone build a for profit service and then have the government give it away for free.
Are you only a capitalist when is good for you?
It’s not that I don’t understand monopolies or otherwise; it’s just that I see your solution as part of the problem.
I’m hardly a rainbow and skittles guy. I firmly believe that no one—corporate or government—has the public interest in mind. The government gives license to create monopolies. The higher up you regulate, the larger the monopoly, and the less freedom for all.
I’m conservative inasmuch that it gives us the pitchforks to a degree. Just don’t cover me in gasoline, then try to call a match a pitchfork.
You don’t get satellite? You don’t get cellular? You don’t have a phone line coming into your house?
No, there is usually one cable company in town. But that is not what we are talking about.
Clearly you haven't read a word I've posted.
This is *exactly* where we are now and eliminating net neutrality will only make it worse.
Rock meet Hard Place.
There's no easy answer here. There just isn't. Those who advocate just tearing away any regulations on the "big five" in the name of spurring competition truly don't understand what Oligopolies do, how they stifle competition amongst themselves and create a race to the bottom to charge the most amount for a product or service while providing the least service.
Communism did much the same thing, and it's laughable that some on this thread are claiming I'm not a Capitalist.
Of course I have.
And I don’t mean to come across as argumentative.
I haven’t worked in the cable business for twenty years, but it still gets my goat up when people pull the monopoly card on me. There are plenty of places to get access and content. Some cost more, others less and there are quality issues across the board.
There is no need to regulate something that was built with private funds.
Is this the result of only one ISP being interested in providing service to your area or the local government granting an exclusive franchise to a single provider?
I would wager it's the latter. In which case, one must ask if the problem is with the service provider or if the problem is with the local government?
What does "plenty" mean? I live in a large metropolitan area with about 9.4 million other people.
If I want "Cable TV" I have two choices: Comcast or Satellite TV. That's not plenty of choices and both frankly speaking, suck...
If I want content, my choices are Over-The-Air TV (which is what I use, I watch very little TV) or I have to purchase a high speed Internet package to stream content from something like Netflix, Hulu, etc..
I live in a fairly financially affluent area, there are no video stores, no Red Box's or anything else. It's not like I live in poor part of rural America with few to no choices, I live in a pretty affluent area and still have few choices. I honestly would like more choices - the debate is on how to get them.
I'm far from a fan of regulation (I believe the Government's role is to provide for the common defense and get the hell out of the way otherwise) and I damn' sure do recognize Government created this problem --- which a handful of very large corporations are now exploiting for their own benefit at the expense of the consumer.
I don't know the answer here, I just don't like the two answers that keep coming up as both put we the consumers between a rock and a hard place. Of the two bad choices, net neutrality seems (to me .... ) to be the least offensive of the two. Not to say I like that choice.
There is no need to regulate something that was built with private funds.
Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and the rest get more tax subsidies than you and I can probably shake a stick at. They didn't build that infrastructure entirely with private funds.
I almost want to say the following is tongue in cheek however I'm not sure sure it isn't and I'm not so sure it isn't far from the truth so here goes .....
Who's to say the problem isn't BOTH? Corruption, pay-offs, bribes ...........
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.