Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

[asmo]

Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).

[Zundfolge]

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

Just because someone uses the term "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean they're talking about the good thing you're thinking about (/me points to gun safety analogy I posted earlier).


The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist.

The opposite is true, we have never had any government forced net neutrality before. We are ALREADY at the mercy of our ISPs and they don't regulate content because the first one to do so would go out of business in a matter of days. The free market is what kept the internet mostly free and open. Stop trying to distort the free market, it never works out well for those at the bottom.

[Artema]

The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.

True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.

[Zundfolge]

True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.

There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.

So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.

No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!

[Artema]

There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.

No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

[68Charger]

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

HELLO? do you even read your own posts? This entire THREAD is about the Government re-classifiying the internet as a UTILITY so they can REGULATE it. All previous rulings (even by the SCOTUS) have ruled the internet is an information service.

I AM for Net Neutrality (in it's most simple form- no blocking or censorship)- but I am NOT for the Government regulating it.

[HoneyBadger]

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.

[Artema]

If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.

I have no idea why an authoritarian would taken on what appears to be a libertarian cause. I'd have to ask Rand Paul why he does it to get some insight. My guess is for appearance. Plus look at the wedge he's creating. By Obama taking on a good cause he has immediately turned Republicans against it. It sounds like politics, and the good cause is going to be what suffers (see gun safety).

[Artema]

MOD EDIT

Actually I was asked to discuss Net Neutrality near the beginning. I am not arguing for authoritarian control over the internet. I am arguing for the opposite of it. However the other authoritarians who oppose Obama's version of it also don't know what they're talking about. Both the Dems and Reps are talking out of their butts; imagine that! Between the politics the truth lies.

[68Charger]

Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).

I've seen claims of this- usually it's related to P2P applications, or other applications which are causing network congestion issues...

It generally goes like this: "I can't get to xxx or yyy by using my ISP, but if I put it in a VPN, then it work fine- so they're censoring based on content"
They have zero concept of how routing works in the internet, and should not speak about it, especially since they generally do no investigation as to WHY the VPN fixed the issue...

It can also go back to congested links, or even DNS issues that could be fixed. If they're on network A, and trying to get to a service on network B, and the A-B link is congested- then they launch a VPN which is on network C... and the A-C and B-C network links are not congested, then it appears circumvent censorship, but all they did was move their traffic (re-route it) on links that were not congested.

Actual censorship can again be fought through other legal means, we don't need more regulations to dictate how to manage a network...
since you're bringing up the extreme example of Comcast fully censoring a website they don't like for political reasons (which is a clear 1st amendment violation), I'll bring up the other extreme-
Will carriers have to get Gov't approval to block DoS attacks from hacker groups? I mean if ALL traffic is to be treated the same, then who's to say Anonymous doesn't have the right to shutdown a right-wing website they don't agree with by saturating it with bogus traffic? What about Trojans? If they use the internet to infect other machines, how do you determine their right to do so? Maybe they're just advertising?