literally: net neutrality is what we have. taking it away is corporate incentive;
In what way is that a corporate incentive?
I know we don't have laws for it now, and there's still neutrality. I pointed it out. Why do you take that away and try to make it your point?
Consider the flow of how I wrote my message. You hadn't said that at that point. I was talking about a specific argument. You'll notice I didn't say "Are you suggesting there is a clear bias on the internet?" Because you weren't saying that.
The fact that you and I agree on the fact that there is already neutrality was not the point I was making. I wasn't saying you weren't saying that. I mentioned it because it was relevant to what I had to say at that time
. And now you're trying to say I'm trying to take credit for the idea? I am not some pompous, self-important jerk, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped treating me like one. You'll notice I don't go out of my way to insult you like you insult me.
Net Neutrality, as pushed by its proponents is little more than a veil for their true intentions.
Beck's conspiracy theories don't work with me well.
Who said I got any of this from Beck?
It's obvious, by the way they're talking, and the way the facts stack up, that they either don't know what they're talking about, or they're being careful about what they say so that they don't come off as purely suspicious or radical.
By the way, there's a book, published in 1971, that is basically a guide for
radicals, written by one of the biggest radicals of all time, Saul Alinsky. It's called "Rules for Radicals
," (read that first description at the bottom by Philly Phool for a brief synopsis) and it talks, among other things, how you can get people to join an otherwise dangerous-sounding cause by simply changing the language to something more pleasant. It would explain, in part, how "The Democratic Party's Total Waste Of Money That Will Destroy Society In Detroit As We Know It And Fill Their Own Pockets With Copious Wads Of Cash At The Same Time Plan" (T.D.P.T.W.O.M.T.W.D.S.I.D.A.W.K.I.A.F.T.O.P.W.C.W.O.C.A.T.S.T.P. for short
) became the "Model Cities Program
" circa 1965.[What, I'm not allowed to amuse myself?]
Let me put it this way. I am against the net neutrality as these people are proposing it right now. Because I believe it infringes on the "unrestricted competition" in the online world. On the other hand, I see and believe there is a need for a basic regulation that will act as a safeguard to prevent abuses of the system, to which it is currently vulnerable.
But, do you see abuses of the system currently happening? That's the issue. The internet has been vulnerable to those very abuses for about 20 years, and we see nothing of that nature. Granted, it's much more practical to do it now, when access to the internet is more available than ever and fiber-optics have hundreds if not thousands of times the bandwidth versus coaxial, and not even a tenth of the attenuation.
But if it's not happening, and if we've been talking about the issue for several years now and nobody's tried to capitalize on it, then I think it's pretty safe to say that extra litigation is not necessary.
What the guy in that video is saying, is that if I make a website on a slow shitty server, net neutrality will mean that the ISP will have to make all sites as slow as mine.
No, what he's saying is that if you
have a high-bandwidth medium and someone else
has a lower-bandwidth medium on the same ISP, proponents of NN say that that guy can pay the ISP to shift bandwidth in his favor (or the ISP could simply do so on its own if it sees higher activity either way), which would be considered unfair.
But I don't think that's the case. Not to mention I'd obviously be against it. There should be no action on the ISP's part, to regulate anything.
If my website is run on server that can serve 4 hits per minute [RD NOTE: Wow, you have low standards, lol], then that is the speed I'd expect every ISP to provide.
Well setting "4 hits per minute" aside, if you want to increase popularity on your site, you could register with a domain that has faster servers, or pay an additional fee (if applicable) with the one you have to increase your bandwidth. This is also good if you are an FTP site that needs faster download speeds. Under Net Neutrality, this would be impossible within the same ISP. You couldn't have different servers with different speeds for users with different needs regardless of what type of service you need. The same thing would apply to ISPs who offer customers higher download speeds, etc. For example, in Guam, MCV gives customers the option of purchasing 1 megabit (mbit), 2.5 mbits, 7 mbits, or 18 mbits of bandwidth at varying prices. A lot of people don't realize, the more bandwidth an ISP can give you, the more it costs them
What I don't want is a provider saying "this website is non-important, we can save up money by decreasing the bandwidth allocated to it by a half, since nobody will be accessing it anyway". Hey, if there is no traffic there and the bandwidth can do better when allocated elsewhere where traffic is high, then that's not the problem for me. The problem is the ISP gains the ability to decide the accessibility to different websites, and they are NOT restricted to follow any kind of a common denominator to determine the accessibility. In other words they can use any reason, including their own wants and likes, to tell people how much access will be possible to which website.
I agree, that's not a good thing. But I don't think the government should be allowed to tell an ISP what they can and cannot regulate on their own network. That strikes me as somewhat of an overstepping of bounds.
Some people argue that bandwidth cap is against net neutrality. I'd say it isn't. It's okay to cut costs by having "dynamic bandwidth" that can shift depending on the traffic. Just like dynamic IP ISP providers have fewer IPs than clients, and exploit the fact that all their clients won't be using the internet at the same time. Hey, that's fine man, I don't have any quarrel with that, just like I don't have a quarrel with speeding up access to a website that is currently under a lot of traffic in exchange for the access to other websites.
Exactly. In fact, that's the system we have now, and apparently that's what proponents of NN are trying to say is wrong. And I agree with you in that we don't need to change the current
But here's the point. Right now they do it to ease access and even out the traffic. To increase the efficiency and speed of service for their clients. But there is no clear law that would prevent them from abusing this, should they want to, in order to limit accessibility to websites/servers they don't like (like the competing ISP's website for instance).
Actually, that's called Anti-Trust. Creating a monopoly, or the appearance of one. That's why you'll see ads for Satellite TV on Cable and Cable on Satellite.
Sure you can trust that they never will do such a thing, but I don't trust them on it. That's why we need a basic form of regulation that will tell the ISPs the common standards and rules with which they can alter their bandwidth and accessibility, and for what reasons/purpose.
So you wouldn't trust the ISPs to do it but you would
trust the government? lol
The only form of regulation you need is the User (collective). I firmly believe that the government shouldn't be given more power than is necessary to keep order.
Also, net neutrality is a big term, it encompasses a lot of issues. You seem to be focusing on those little details that even I am not in favour of. But the general form of some law or limitation is still needed. As well as a limitation that will once and clearly state that websites cannot be given access to in different packets and with different prices. When you buy internet connection you buy the access to ALL of the internet, and let's keep it that way.
Hey, I agree with you, at least in principle. That's why I don't want Net Neutrality; because it's not actually neutral, and really presents a clear bias. We are in agreement on this point. However, I don't think that a law is actually needed. It just doesn't seem necessary with the way things are run.
And that's another issue falling under net neutrality, equalising internet access to that of TV channels, where you often have to pay extra for some more exotic channels. What would you feel like if I, as a cable provider, were to take FOX News channel off of all channel packs and sell it separately for a ridiculous amount of additional money? I can understand how sports channel can be used for that, but no news channel should be underprivileged in any situation. And similarly with the internet.
I could point out that FoxNews would probably be available by the competing broadcast network along with their basic cable bundle, but that's not really the point. I understand what you're getting at in any case. And for the most part, I agree, but I still believe that ISPs should
be allowed to charge more for users that require higher bandwidth, etc.
Think about it Ruff. You argued just a day ago that you want the government to patch up the tax loopholes. What if there was a loophole that nobody used, but could use? Don't patch it up cause nobody uses it right now? I think it's better to be safe than sorry.
We're talking about two different systems with two different sets of operational standards. If you don't close a tax loophole, there's a chance someone gets to keep more of the money they earned. The only way that analogy applies to the internet is in the form of an obscure security hole, and that may have more serious of an impact (for example, Anonymous exploits the hole and steals all your data, then ridicules you for it
, causing loss of money and reputation).
The ideas pushed by proponents of Net Neutrality include restricting bandwidth to sites that have more bandwidth than others. Meaning they would force ISPs to limit bandwidth on high-bandwidth sites because it's unfair to low-bandwidth sites.
So to sum up, I'm against this. Just as I'm against penalising any website for having a fast/better server/bandwidth than others. What I want is for the ISP to give as much bandwidth to each server as they can handle. To allow all websites run as fast as they can. I'm against slowing down the faster sites, just as I'm against slowing down the already slow and unused sites.
Perfect. We are in total agreement.
Except that no one's ISP is limiting access to them because someone else gives them more money to. That's what people who are pushing Net Neutrality are trying to claim is/might happen/ing.
It might happen someday. But that's also besides the point. I don't want the government to have the right to tell ISPs how to treat each case. I want one simple bill to state clear boundaries and limitations for ALL ISPs to prevent potential abuse. After putting out a standardised bill the government is out of the picture. Cause that's all it's good for anyway.
That idea has some merits, but I still don't think it's necessary.