Net Neutrality! The left is in a tizzy because Trump wants to scrap it.

[BerettaGuy]

Net Nuterality
Most Americans are "for" Net Neutrality.
Mark Zukerberg is all for it.
Snowflakes have been told to like it so they like it too.

Net Neutrality means "all internet traffic has to be treated the same" NO DISCRIMINATION, EQUALITY ETC.is the candy wrapper Government regulation of the internet is the true intent.
It seems that a Candy Wrapper name is all you need these days. ala SAFE Act

Hey if all the liberals are for it, I am against it.


Here is the best explaination of "net neutrality" I have found yet.

Bottom line: Let the market decide. This will create a new Bureaucracy in Government.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/surv...he-truth-vs-the-bullshit-about-net-neutrality

 

[minderasr]

7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic

 

[Podmonkey]

Given that most people do not have a choice in ISPs it is bullshit for said ISPs to artificially restrict traffic. This is a perfect how both the left and the right are wrong on things. Keep the internet free, or as much as is possible. I am staunchly pro Net Neutrality.

 

[spat]

Lefties think the government can regulate anything into "fairness", but try telling them public sector workers don't need a union if the government is so fair and they'll have a fit.

 

[spat]

Given that most people do not have a choice in ISPs it is bullshit for said ISPs to artificially restrict traffic. This is a perfect how both the left and the right are wrong on things. Keep the internet free, or as much as is possible. I am staunchly pro Net Neutrality.

You do not want all your traffic treated the same, unless you want your video to buffer every time you download a large file.

 

[Burzum]

Given that most people do not have a choice in ISPs it is bullshit for said ISPs to artificially restrict traffic. This is a perfect how both the left and the right are wrong on things. Keep the internet free, or as much as is possible. I am staunchly pro Net Neutrality.

I totally agree, one of the the few ways our Republic will be saved is publicly financed federal elections-a so-called "leftist" principle but it is the correct way to go.

Remember how great the ruling in Citizens United was supposed to be, well now the "Left" is out-raising / outspending us.

Always be weary of cockwasher globalists pretending to be Conservatives, like the open-borders Koch brothers, they can donate a few million to the NRA but the open borders they support will destroy our 2nd Amendment through demographics.

I have learned mostly anything the chamber of commerce is for, should be opposed, as they are globalist, anti-American worker, slime.

 

[Podmonkey]

You do not want all your traffic treated the same, unless you want your video to buffer every time you download a large file.

Thats not at all what Net Neutrality is saying. Net Neutrality is about ISP A being affiliated with net service B so all competing services C-Z are artificially throttled down to basically force you into using service B. That is a monopoly and thems are very bad for freedom of choice.
Let me use whatever bandwith I'm paying for however I see fit. Now in things like mobile data where a provider teams up with a given service and makes that service available at no cost in data usage that's fine, that's proper free enterprise.

 

[Podmonkey]

There are FAR too many conservatives that figure "If its a Republican policy then its good and I'm for it"
I'm for freedom of choice, I'm for indvidual liberty, I'm for the freedom to self determinate. Donkey's and Elephants be damned. Its just that the donkey's are all about crawling so far up your ass that they end up pushing your brain out your ears. Petty Repulican money grubbing seems the far lesser of evils. And the true Republicans, the small government Ron Paul types I can really get behind.
Net Neutrality is critical to modern liberty, don't be fooled be the government corporate shills into thinking otherwise!

 

[BerettaGuy]

Net Neutrality is critical to modern liberty, don't be fooled be the government corporate shills into thinking otherwise!

Explain.

 

[Phazer]

If a company produces content and invests in infrastructure to deliver their product fastest, or internet traffic at faster speeds to those who pay for more bandwidth...fine. That's called a free market. If high-priced plans don't sell, then the prices will come down. If those plans do sell, then companies will invest in additional infrastructure to maintain high speeds.

If the government is in charge of regulating private enterprises, the product will become mediocre and expensive for all.

 

[Podmonkey]

If a company produces content and invests in infrastructure to deliver their product fastest, or internet traffic at faster speeds to those who pay for more bandwidth...fine. That's called a free market. If high-priced plans don't sell, then the prices will come down. If those plans do sell, then companies will invest in additional infrastructure to maintain high speeds.

If the government is in charge of regulating private enterprises, the product will become mediocre and expensive for all.

You don't get it. Often time these favored services are small underdeveloped or otherwise inferior services to the ones you'd rather use. If you watched youtube, which is the dominant platform of its type, and your ISP set up a partnership with Freds Vidja Pickens, youtube gets throttled back to a snails pace and yiu either deal with a slow running yiutube or watch the vaslty inferior, but ISP favored, Fred's. And that's all the choicr you have since if you are like most Americans your area is serviced by only one ISP. Thats not right. If ISPs arr going to start tailoring their bandwidth distribution amoung service partners then the public at least needs a choice in ISPs so it can tailor their providers according to its tastes. But artificially restricting bandwidth is horseshit anyway you slice it. The internet is our window into the world, it must remain untinted.

 

[Podmonkey]

Explain.

Is it not self evident? Free flowing, unbiased, or at least freely selectably biased, information is the basis of independent thought and opinion. Can you not see the effects of artificially selected information all around you? Can you not see that groups like ANTIFA and BLM are the result of, and fed upon, carefully manipulated and selectively disseminated "news"? Freedom of thought and opinion depend on the free exchange of ideas and information. Liberty is the most precious thing. I'd rather be a free pauper, than a comfortable slave. I gives zero fucks about some corporate entities bottom line if it comes at the cost of my ability to freely choose my media.

 

[Frankly]

Trump isn't perfect but he does respond to criticism so we should tell him.

 

[spat]

Thats not at all what Net Neutrality is saying. Net Neutrality is about ISP A being affiliated with net service B so all competing services C-Z are artificially throttled down to basically force you into using service B. That is a monopoly and thems are very bad for freedom of choice.
Let me use whatever bandwith I'm paying for however I see fit. Now in things like mobile data where a provider teams up with a given service and makes that service available at no cost in data usage that's fine, that's proper free enterprise.

Fine, so Netflix traffic doesn't get priority over your kids downloading crap in the other room and you get "buffering" all the time. Enjoy.

 

[spat]

There are FAR too many conservatives that figure "If its a Republican policy then its good and I'm for it"
I'm for freedom of choice, I'm for indvidual liberty, I'm for the freedom to self determinate. Donkey's and Elephants be damned. Its just that the donkey's are all about crawling so far up your ass that they end up pushing your brain out your ears. Petty Repulican money grubbing seems the far lesser of evils. And the true Republicans, the small government Ron Paul types I can really get behind.
Net Neutrality is critical to modern liberty, don't be fooled be the government corporate shills into thinking otherwise!

If you, in any way, think that the government can improve the internet by adding regulation you are a fool.

The internet has worked great for decades without the government dictating speed limits, don't let them start now.

 

[spat]

I totally agree, one of the the few ways our Republic will be saved is publicly financed federal elections-a so-called "leftist" principle but it is the correct way to go.

Remember how great the ruling in Citizens United was supposed to be, well now the "Left" is out-raising / outspending us.

Always be weary of cockwasher globalists pretending to be Conservatives, like the open-borders Koch brothers, they can donate a few million to the NRA but the open borders they support will destroy our 2nd Amendment through demographics.

I have learned mostly anything the chamber of commerce is for, should be opposed, as they are globalist, anti-American worker, slime.

Publicly financed campaigns ? Who gets to decide who gets financed ?

Sounds like an incumbent protection racket to me, no thanks.

 

[Podmonkey]

If you, in any way, think that the government can improve the internet by adding regulation you are a fool.

The internet has worked great for decades without the government dictating speed limits, don't let them start now.

Jesus fucking Christ how many times do I have to explain this?! Call me a fool and you don't even understand the issue.
Artificial speed limits are what Net Neutrality seeks to avoid. How would you like it if Vertical Scope struck up a deal with your ISP and seriously degraded the speed at which you could browse these forums to encourage you to use the "other" place. Well that is the type of shady shit you want the government to allow. You are paying a flat rate for x ammount of bandwidth. You ought to be able to use that bandwidth, that you are paying for, as you see fit to use whatever online services and/or content you see fit and to the fullest performance extent your connection allows. If you are fine with paying full price for reduced performance and reduced content you are the fool sir.
Internet Service Providers are not operating in a free market in many cases, many people do not have a choice of who they get internet access from. If the policies of a particular ISP do not agree with its users's requirments and that ISP is the only game in town those users are pretty much screwed aren't they? How is that right? Net Neutrality is not about restriction, its about maintaining freedom of choice, even in a monopolistic environment.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

ISP infrastructures cannot support unlimited bandwidth for everyone! That's just not how it works. If you didn't throttle down speeds based on what service you pay for we would effectively be back to dial up connection. It would actually be much worse as we are no longer just sharing static webpages but massive files. The whole monopoly thing and only having certain choices in certain areas is a whole other issue. Nothing to do with the speeds that you receive your content.

The video in the link provided by the op (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/the-truth-vs-the-bullshit-about-net-neutrality?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+survivalpcast+(The+Survival+Podcast)) really does a good job explaining it all in layman's terms. I myself am in the IT field and where I work we have one of those dedicated lines that are talked about in the video. The current line we have is actually an upgrade from an older dedicated line we had because the older line couldn't keep up with our traffic. The amount of users didn't change (about 6000) but the content running through the pipeline did. Content is an ever changing thing. This network is hard enough to maintain and will eventually have to be upgraded as well. I can only imagine how horrible it would be if everyone else had access to it that shared our ISP.

I think I can do even better than the video in explaining why net neutrality is a bad thing. Think about your houses WiFi. Now think of what happens when everyone in your household start using it at the same time. It gets taxed and everything gets slower right? Now imagine if everyone in your neighborhood had your password and access to it. How bad do you think it would be then? It's just that simple. This like many things in life is a case of you get what you pay for and socialism is bad.

 

[BerettaGuy]

It all sounds like common core for the internet or income equality. Lowest common denominator crap. Communist crap to me.

Everybody needs ten megabytes to kiw a deer in computer games.

How about automobile Neutrality? Or Data Neutrality? Is it fair that you have unlimited data while little snowflake only has 5 megs a month.
Its not about fairness or equality. You want more megs? Pay for it.

Did you even watch the video.
Does anyone remember how much a business phone line cost back in the 90's It was tremendously higher than the normal phone.

It you want un-throttled internet buy it. Listen more closely to the propaganda and see through it.

Web designers know that,the more crap they put on a web page the better chance that the user like me gets tired of a pop up to load or the sudden blare of some embedded video when everyone else is asleep and leaves the web site.
News outlets are the worst because it is by design that they want you to buy a subscription to avoid all the clutter.

Do you really need all those ads and videos that automatically start playing? If people leave your web site because it is slow to load then it is your fault.
Net Neutrality could mean a limit on how many megs a web site can be. No Thanks.

So instead of another meaningless Government Agency to make sure that the dependent voter with the Obama Smart Phone can see the crap at the same speed as anyone else. No Thanks.
Let the market decide.

 

[Podmonkey]

ISP infrastructures cannot support unlimited bandwidth for everyone! That's just not how it works. If you didn't throttle down speeds based on what service you pay for we would effectively be back to dial up connection. It would actually be much worse as we are no longer just sharing static webpages but massive files. The whole monopoly thing and only having certain choices in certain areas is a whole other issue. Nothing to do with the speeds that you receive your content.

The video in the link provided by the op (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/the-truth-vs-the-bullshit-about-net-neutrality?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+survivalpcast+(The+Survival+Podcast)) really does a good job explaining it all in layman's terms. I myself am in the IT field and where I work we have one of those dedicated lines that are talked about in the video. The current line we have is actually an upgrade from an older dedicated line we had because the older line couldn't keep up with our traffic. The amount of users didn't change (about 6000) but the content running through the pipeline did. Content is an ever changing thing. This network is hard enough to maintain and will eventually have to be upgraded as well. I can only imagine how horrible it would be if everyone else had access to it that shared our IP.

I think I can do even better than the video in explaining why net neutrality is a bad thing. Think about your houses WiFi. Now think of what happens when everyone in your household start using it at the same time. It gets taxed and everything gets slower right? Now imagine if everyone in your neighborhood had your password and access to it. How bad do you think it would be then? It's just that simple. This like many things in life is a case of you get what you pay for and socialism is bad.

Why do you think I'm asking for unlimited bandwidth? I'm simply saying I want full access to the bandwidth I'm already paying for. And as I've said before there often is no market for ISPs in many areas. Everyplace I've ever lived there was only one provider available. You cannot make a market decision when there is no choice in the market!

 

[BerettaGuy]

Internet Service Providers are not operating in a free market in many cases, many people do not have a choice of who they get internet access from.

People are the users, the customers, the intended targets. I don't want them all to have backbone access.

 

[Podmonkey]

People are the users, the customers, the intended targets. I don't want them all to have backbone access.

Please clarify what you mean by backbone access. And also your division of users, people and customers. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Cleck]

Why do you think I'm asking for unlimited bandwidth? I'm simply saying I want full access to the bandwidth I'm already paying for. And as I've said before there often is no market for ISPs in many areas. Everyplace I've ever lived there was only one provider available. You cannot make a market decision when there is no choice in the market!

Nah, you're wrong. I'd rather pay twice to see it once. After all this dicking around w/ my new router, trying to configure it to maximize my speed, downloading new firmware so it operates as efficiently as possible, I want to pay for website priority w/ my 100Mbps connection. Then, once it gets to my house, I can again prioritize the speed each user gets, since I have enough bandwidth to do both netflix and download everything equally just as fast.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Why do you think I'm asking for unlimited bandwidth? I'm simply saying I want full access to the bandwidth I'm already paying for. And as I've said before there often is no market for ISPs in many areas. Everyplace I've ever lived there was only one provider available. You cannot make a market decision when there is no choice in the market!

Maybe we should remove the term unlimited all together and replace it with throttled. Let's also symbolize a water well for the level of service you are paying for. As mentioned in the video, and if you read your contract, your speed may go UP TO whatever tier you're paying for. So if you pay for 100 Mbps, depending on how many people are currently drawing water from that well you may get up to 100 ounces of water at a time. This is all the while the well is constantly struggling to replenishing itself. Now if there are too many users drawing water from that well at the same time you may only get 50 ounces (+/-) at a time. This is because the amount of water in this well is NOT infinite at any given time. Now imagine if your ISP only has 1 well to draw from. I hope this makes sense.

As far as the monopoly thing I totally agree but these are two separate issues. I myself am in an area like that. It's a horrible situation if the service is shitty and overpriced. However, no matter how many options you have in you're area they will all work the same way (as far as throttling goes) and you're tier of service will always be limited. At that point you would just be deciding who delivers that service best.

 

[Podmonkey]

Maybe we should remove the term unlimited all together and replace it with throttled. Let's also symbolize a water well for the level of service you are paying for. As mentioned in the video, and if you read your contract, your speed may go UP TO whatever tier you're paying for. So if you pay for 100 Mbps, depending on how many people are currently drawing water from that well you may get up to 100 ounces of water at a time while the well is replenishing itself. Now if there are too many users drawing water from that well at the same time you may only get 50 ounces (+/-) at a time. This is because the amount of water in this well is NOT infinite at any given time. I hope this makes sense.

As far as the monopoly thing I totally agree. I myself am in an area like that. It's a horrible situation if the service is shitty and overpriced. However, no matter how many options you have in you're area they will all work the same way (as far as throttling goes) and you're tier of service will always be limited. At that point you would just be deciding who delivers that service best.

Now we are getting somewhere, sharpening the terms of the debate. To use your water example- what I object to is if I have 100oz of bandwidth my ISP restricts me down to 50 or 25oz when I'm using say youtube but gives me the full 100oz on say vidme cause thats who they have an agreement with. If I'm paying for 100oz of bandwidth then I want to use that whole 100oz however the hell I want. I have contracted for the unrestricted use of tgat 100oz. Altering the terms of that contract requires renegotiation of what I'm paying. It also requires choice in providers because if an ISP is wanting to get cute like that I want to be able to tell em to fuck off and switch to a competitor. Thats how the market decides.

 

[Grimscale]

ISP infrastructures cannot support unlimited bandwidth for everyone!

Which is primarily due to the ISPs not building their support structure to take into account the number of customers they have.
If you sell your customers a 50MB/s link, how many customers do you think should be on a 1GB/s circuit?
As a consumer, I feel they should be providing space on that egress circuit for each customer, so no one will be 'throttled' by over subscription. So, 20 customers per 1GB/s link.
ISPs, however, gamble that not everyone will be using their full bandwidth at the same time. They deliberately oversubscribe the egress circuit in the hopes that they can make 'free' money. So that 1GB/s link could end up having well over 100+ customers on it.

So, realistically, you cannot even get the 50MB/s you contracted for. ISPs have gotten away with it by adding the phrase "up to" in the fine print.
And when you're getting only 5MB/s on the link you are supposedly paying for a 50MB/s link what do you do? In many cases, there is no other ISP in your area to switch to. So are you going to do without?

On top of this, they want to charge the websites you visit a fee to carry the traffic back to you. So they get paid twice for the same traffic.
And what happens when they have their own version of that website which they graciously allow through free-of-charge? Now you have the same situation that Microsoft faced when they bundled their Internet Explorer browser with their operating system, essentially making it harder for other browser companies to compete.
This is what Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent. Not whether your video or phone traffic is treated the same as data traffic, but whether Netflix video traffic is treated the same as Time Warner video traffic.

 

[spat]

Jesus fucking Christ how many times do I have to explain this?! Call me a fool and you don't even understand the issue.
Artificial speed limits are what Net Neutrality seeks to avoid. How would you like it if Vertical Scope struck up a deal with your ISP and seriously degraded the speed at which you could browse these forums to encourage you to use the "other" place. Well that is the type of shady shit you want the government to allow. You are paying a flat rate for x ammount of bandwidth. You ought to be able to use that bandwidth, that you are paying for, as you see fit to use whatever online services and/or content you see fit and to the fullest performance extent your connection allows. If you are fine with paying full price for reduced performance and reduced content you are the fool sir.
Internet Service Providers are not operating in a free market in many cases, many people do not have a choice of who they get internet access from. If the policies of a particular ISP do not agree with its users's requirments and that ISP is the only game in town those users are pretty much screwed aren't they? How is that right? Net Neutrality is not about restriction, its about maintaining freedom of choice, even in a monopolistic environment.

No, you don't get it. It is about the government interference in a system that works now.

We haven't had any "net neutrality" rules, and we don't have any of the problems you are talking about now.

If verticle scope tried that crap, there would be a dozen ways around it tomorrow.

The minute you let the government get involved, your internet will get worse, not better, and it will all go to whoever spends the most on lobbying, not who spends the most on technical resources.

 

[spat]

Which is primarily due to the ISPs not building their support structure to take into account the number of customers they have.
If you sell your customers a 50MB/s link, how many customers do you think should be on a 1GB/s circuit?
As a consumer, I feel they should be providing space on that egress circuit for each customer, so no one will be 'throttled' by over subscription. So, 20 customers per 1GB/s link.
ISPs, however, gamble that not everyone will be using their full bandwidth at the same time. They deliberately oversubscribe the egress circuit in the hopes that they can make 'free' money. So that 1GB/s link could end up having well over 100+ customers on it.

So, realistically, you cannot even get the 50MB/s you contracted for. ISPs have gotten away with it by adding the phrase "up to" in the fine print.
And when you're getting only 5MB/s on the link you are supposedly paying for a 50MB/s link what do you do? In many cases, there is no other ISP in your area to switch to. So are you going to do without?

On top of this, they want to charge the websites you visit a fee to carry the traffic back to you. So they get paid twice for the same traffic.
And what happens when they have their own version of that website which they graciously allow through free-of-charge? Now you have the same situation that Microsoft faced when they bundled their Internet Explorer browser with their operating system, essentially making it harder for other browser companies to compete.
This is what Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent. Not whether your video or phone traffic is treated the same as data traffic, but whether Netflix video traffic is treated the same as Time Warner video traffic.

What it is advertised to do, and what the authors intend it to do are 2 very different things.

It is intended to get the government into the internet manipulation business.

Would you rather your ISP spend money on infrastructure, or lawyers to file all the net neutrality paperwork ?

I'll tell you what the government wants.....

 

[ManrisFrack]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that wasn't completely and utterly broken. Then maybe we could actually trust them to make honest regulations that allowed throttling for network efficiency but not for unfair competitive advantage.



LOL, never-mind. I went a little crazy for a minute there.

 

[Podmonkey]

No, you don't get it. It is about the government interference in a system that works now.

We haven't had any "net neutrality" rules, and we don't have any of the problems you are talking about now.

If verticle scope tried that crap, there would be a dozen ways around it tomorrow.

The minute you let the government get involved, your internet will get worse, not better, and it will all go to whoever spends the most on lobbying, not who spends the most on technical resources.

No, you are using a rote conservative mantra to excuse yourself from thinking.
The system in place is a monopoly and that hurts the consumer. We cannot allow ISPs to dictate how we use our bandwidth. If they wish ISPs may incentivize affiliated content, such as Verizon allowing its customers to use tge video service Go90 at no data cost. Go90 sucks but it serves as a model for an equtiable ISP/content affiliation.