Having trouble with Google Chrome blocking my access to Wikipedia so I'm researching the topic.
Love to hear Freeper's thoughts as I trust conservative opinions more than the Lib rags.
Proponents of the 2015 regulations say Pai is merely clearing the way for Internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites—a “fast lane” and “slow lane” for the Internet. It’s not an unfounded concern. In 2007 the FCC sued Comcast for interfering with traffic from BitTorrent, the file transfer service. The commission lost, owing to a lack of legal basis for the complaint—basis it later achieved with the 2015 reclassification.
They suggest that it is a given that access to the internet should be free and fast.
The premise is simply not true. The world doesn’t owe anyone internet access.
I’m not troubled by most things about having no neutrality, aside from the idea that Google, or some other entity, might make sites that they object to hard to find.
It only makes sense that the more you use the internet the more you should pay for it. People who download nothing but movies should not be subsidized by those who just do a bit of email and facebooking or Freeping.
Need it explained in plain English before I can even make sense of it....Does it exist anymore??
Have you tried a DNS flush? if not google it.
I once had a virus that was blocking access to all anti-virus sites. It did that by creating DNS entries that redirected the browsers.
Net neutrality is nothing more than a defense by big tech (google, Netflix and Facebook, etc) to prevent ISPs from charging them more for using large amounts of bandwidth. It’s framed as an attack on content when in reality it came about because Comcast wanted to charge Netflix more for single handedly consuming the majority of available bandwidth. This was also defensive in that Netflix was rapidly eating into Comcast’s cable TV revenue.
When Obama bowed to the will of the big tech and entertainment lobbyists (which was why the FCC tried to block BitTorrent. The ISPs immediately stopped unlimited bandwidth plans and went to a pay as you go system on all sides and then don’t charge for content they support. So much for “net neutrality”
If socialists are for it - you can safely be against it.
bmp
My take on “Net Neutrality”. Soros and Rats are for it, that all by itself means to me it is evil and not in my interest.
Like all evil, they start with a statement that sounds appealing and use that as the sole focus for selling it. The statement “this set of regulations is necessary to prevent some services from getting preferred treatment”. But, the real point of these regulations is hidden and not talked about.
By the design of networks, traffic has to be allocated. I want voice telephone calls I make over the internet to have preferred treatment as an example.
Also, I am not aware that there were any issues with routing internet traffic, so the purpose of these regulations was “preemptive”.
I believe the entire purpose of this action, was to be able to begin the process of having Federal government control of the internet, and eventually content.
The result has been clear already, and it has been a big negative. Reduced capital spending on internet infrastructure because of this act - especially in rural areas.
Ultimately what this means is “content” becomes government regulated “hey we have to monitor it to make sure everything is “fair”! and the government gets full control over what you see on the internet.
Without net neutrality government has no immediate say in the matter.
Ajit (shit)Pai is the lawyer who, while working for Verizon sued the FCC to end Net Neutrality.
Conflict of interest, much?
This is what will happen when Net Neutrality ends because this is exactly what's happening in other countries that don't guarantee it:
I think a rule that gives as much priority to email packets as it does to a streaming video conference is a poor rule. There was to be some sort of traffic prioritization to not penalize technical advancement.
Look up why the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was signed into law by Grover Cleveland back in 1887.
You’ll see a similarity between the concern about railroads then and internet service providers now.
If railroads gave favored rates to firms that they liked then the RRs and not consumers would be deciding which companies succeeded and which ones didn’t.
I believe internet searches should be free and neutral, therefore search engine companies should not be able to collect "fast lane" money to put someone's business at the top of my search results list.
My take on all this (and I really admit that I view this from a corporate perspective because it makes sense to me) is that if I, as into Company XYZ decide that I’m going to upgrade my infrastructure in order to improve business and capability for people who are my customers, I should not allow free and unfettered use of my upgraded facilities by company ABC who is not going to upgrade their facilities, and has no plans to do so because they can squat on the facilities that are been upgraded by company XYZ and get the same relative capability without having to spend their own money to make it happen.
I don’t have a problem with a company finding a way to make sure that their time effort and money Benefits their customers who pay that money to improve the service instead of benefiting I know load company like ABC who is content not to spend the money on the capital equipment to improve the performance for their own customers.
bookmark
I thought it was all about a “KILL SWITCH” that oBummer wanted.
Starting with the right question often helps.
So, Do you believe in private property rights? Namely, does an owner of a business have the natural right to determine how that property is going to be used? Does the landlord get to determine who and how they will use their “store front” in a mall?
Now consider this - the ISP has paid a LOT of money for internet equipment, for communications lines, for the technical staff to make it work. That is a huge investment. It is also there PROPERTY. So does the private property owner have the right to determine who and how their property is used?
If you say yes, then net neutrality rules is very bad governance because it takes that right away from the property owner. It FORCES the property owner to treat everyone the same by giving them the same bandwidth and the same priority in the traffic queues.
Using Chrome and just opened Wikipedia....you might have other issues...
Google, Facebook et all have their own preferential treatments and charges for various categories of THEIR customers, the internet advertising industry players. Yet they think those supplying the telecom backbones should not have any similar commercial freedom in their businesses; unlike Google et al the telecoms should be treated like a restricted public utility.
I think the facts are the reverse.
Googles near-monopoly MASSIVE dominance in the Internet search industry, and all the internet advertising revenue drawn from it, deserves to be a regulated public utility.