Jump to content

Photo

Net Neutrality


60 replies to this topic

Poll: Net Neutrality (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you for or against "Net Neutrality"?

  1. I'm for it! (26 votes [72.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.22%

  2. I'm against it! (10 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    TI-Runner

  • 10,721 posts

Posted Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:22 PM

Private poll (voters NOT disclosed), but if you wish to state WHY you voted the way you did, it might be enlightening to others.



#2 icemanxp300 ONLINE  

icemanxp300

    River Patroller

  • 3,708 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:58 PM

Kind of a weird place to put this seeing as there is already a topic in current events. I'll bite, I already voiced I am against taking away this based on the information I have. I like being able to search all sites at speeds I pay for. I rather not have sites be restricted or throttled down.

 

DOH, LOL I accidentally clicked the wrong one. My against was suppose to be for.



#3 Random Terrain ONLINE  

Random Terrain

    Visual batari Basic User

  • 28,331 posts
  • Controlled Randomness
    Replay Value
    Nonlinear
  • Location:North Carolina (USA)

Posted Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:00 PM

Related thread:

 

atariage.com/forums/topic/224705-net-neutrality/

 

Big greedy companies want to kill Net Neutrality so they can suck more money out of us. If that wasn't bad enough, the big boys will have the fast lane and web sites not owned by billionaires will be stuck in the slow lane.



#4 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:57 AM

If net neutrality actually meant what the name implies, I'd be for it.
But since the name is false advertising of what the regulations are really about, I'm against it.
 



#5 icemanxp300 ONLINE  

icemanxp300

    River Patroller

  • 3,708 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:01 PM

If net neutrality actually meant what the name implies, I'd be for it.
But since the name is false advertising of what the regulations are really about, I'm against it.
 

 educate us.



#6 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:11 PM

Because I get enough politics on facebook.
 



#7 Random Terrain ONLINE  

Random Terrain

    Visual batari Basic User

  • 28,331 posts
  • Controlled Randomness
    Replay Value
    Nonlinear
  • Location:North Carolina (USA)

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:26 AM

Because I get enough politics on facebook.


Speaking of Facebook, I'm sure that's one of the web sites that will be in the fast lane.



#8 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:15 AM

The FCC states 4 simple paragraphs on the main pain describing net neutrality is, but that results in 400+ pages of regulations.

If you read their comments, they don't even have firm rules on those 4 items and determine them on a case by case basis.
Guess who's case will be ruled favorably.  The big companies with the big lobbying budget and lots of lawyers.
Why do you think so many big ISPs supported it?

If someone files a complaint with the FCC against you, who is going to be able to afford to prove compliance to the FCC?  A big company, or a small one. 
Especially when the regulations are on a case by case basis.
If one customer in 1000 files a complaint, but you only have to prove compliance once, it will cost a startup ISP with under 1000 customers as much as a cable company with 500,000 customers.  

And the FCC can add additional regulations at any time.

If it were just left to the free market, if you don't like an ISP's service, you get another ISP.  Problem solved.
I live in a rural area and I have around 8 choices not even counting all the cell phone providers.
 



#9 Random Terrain ONLINE  

Random Terrain

    Visual batari Basic User

  • 28,331 posts
  • Controlled Randomness
    Replay Value
    Nonlinear
  • Location:North Carolina (USA)

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:28 AM

I live in a rural area and I have around 8 choices not even counting all the cell phone providers.


That must be the world's best rural area.

#10 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:00 AM

That must be the world's best rural area.

Actually, there are a lot of areas around here with no providers other than satellite, but several small ISPs have placed antennas on grain elevators to use them as towers and I'm in range of several as well as cable and several cell phone towers.  The cable company actually dropped TV service where I'm at and just provides internet.
 



#11 Classic Pac OFFLINE  

Classic Pac

    River Patroller

  • 3,316 posts
  • Location:Chicago,IL

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:03 AM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I already let my ISP know if there is any changes in my internet I am changing companies. 



#12 icemanxp300 ONLINE  

icemanxp300

    River Patroller

  • 3,708 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:57 PM

If it were just left to the free market, if you don't like an ISP's service, you get another ISP.  Problem solved.
I live in a rural area and I have around 8 choices not even counting all the cell phone providers.
 

 

Yay this nonsense again. Using a home network to do any gaming at all requires a cable line. DSL and such will lag like a mofo. I have ONE monopolized cable provider and that is it. Sure I can get subpar dsl crap in which I would have ONE choice of that and maybe I could get some year long satellite contract for even crappier service.

 

While many of you are attached to the hips via cellphones, cellphones are NOT acceptable for many applications that must be performed on a home network. I have a basic phone, I use it very little for online purposes. Until someone is willing to fork out hundreds of thousands to run new lines to be competitive in less populated areas many of us are screwed and have one choice.



#13 homerhomer OFFLINE  

homerhomer

    Star Raider

  • 60 posts

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:28 PM

While I'd love to go off and argue my opinion, I feel that this forum is a nice place I visit on the internet away from politics.  There's a ton of places one can argue the night away on the daily issue. www.reddit.com/r/politics



#14 Random Terrain ONLINE  

Random Terrain

    Visual batari Basic User

  • 28,331 posts
  • Controlled Randomness
    Replay Value
    Nonlinear
  • Location:North Carolina (USA)

Posted Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:36 PM

Remember this bullsh*t commercial from 2006 that was paid for by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association?

youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI

 

The commercial says:

 

"Are you Google-eyed with confusion over Net Neutrality? No wonder, it's all just clever mumbo jumbo. Net Neutrality is nothing more than a scheme by the multi-billion dollar Silicon Valley tech companies to get you, the consumer, to pay more for their services. Forget all their mumbo jumbo, Net Neutrality simply means you pay."

It ends by showing the sentence "Net Neutrality is BAD for consumers."

 

If the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is against Net Neutrality, maybe you should be for it.



#15 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:22 AM

 

Yay this nonsense again. Using a home network to do any gaming at all requires a cable line. DSL and such will lag like a mofo. I have ONE monopolized cable provider and that is it. Sure I can get subpar dsl crap in which I would have ONE choice of that and maybe I could get some year long satellite contract for even crappier service.

 

While many of you are attached to the hips via cellphones, cellphones are NOT acceptable for many applications that must be performed on a home network. I have a basic phone, I use it very little for online purposes. Until someone is willing to fork out hundreds of thousands to run new lines to be competitive in less populated areas many of us are screwed and have one choice.

Govt created the monopoly by interfering, now you want govt to fix it



#16 TheTIGuy OFFLINE  

TheTIGuy

    Dragonstomper

  • 530 posts
  • “cheap, fast, good – choose any two”
  • Location:The west end of Hell...

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:54 AM

See Also:

NYTel

Bell System

AT&T

Alex. Bell

Bell Atlantic

Verizon

Telephone

1984



#17 icemanxp300 ONLINE  

icemanxp300

    River Patroller

  • 3,708 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:25 AM

Govt created the monopoly by interfering

 

My ass. The government no way in hell stops people from becoming an ISP. High cost of running fiber optic lines, cable, or building towers prevents BUSINESS men and women from investing huge amounts of money into an infrastructure of little return.

 

That's just facts. Is there a law somewhere telling Google they can only run fiber optics in extremely populated areas and they need to stay away from country settings w/one house every 1 mile. Try thinking for yourself because common sense is there for a reason.



#18 NE146 ONLINE  

NE146

    Dumbass Atari Fan

  • 14,960 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:41 PM

I do agree the name "net neutrality" is probably a misleading name when it comes to granting govt. additional power to control and regulate it... I'm not sure how neutral that is. :lol:   We did not have this regulation ever and things have worked out fine. So we need to very very carefully consider the justification for putting that seed down, because it will inevitably grow beyond what it is presented now as the years progress, as the Fed will always do.  if the entire premise behind it is "because corporations are evil", I really don't think it's needed. I prefer things shake out and evolve naturally as the years and decades progress.  Let the good things happen. Let the bad things happen.
 


#19 icemanxp300 ONLINE  

icemanxp300

    River Patroller

  • 3,708 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:28 PM

Well I really have not researched this to be an expert but something happen way before 2 years ago. Back in 1996 Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law. This all revolves around that. Not sure what the big deal was 2 years ago that all of the sudden something needed to be done.



#20 Random Terrain ONLINE  

Random Terrain

    Visual batari Basic User

  • 28,331 posts
  • Controlled Randomness
    Replay Value
    Nonlinear
  • Location:North Carolina (USA)

Posted Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:43 PM

Well I really have not researched this to be an expert but something happen way before 2 years ago. Back in 1996 Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law. This all revolves around that. Not sure what the big deal was 2 years ago that all of the sudden something needed to be done.

 

There might be something going on in the world that they want us to ignore, something they don't want mentioned on mainstream news. The 24-hour news channels can show people arguing about Net Neutrality all day long to keep us distracted. The system is probably rigged, so there's a good chance that we're going to get screwed no matter which side wins.



#21 pacman000 OFFLINE  

pacman000

    Moonsweeper

  • 313 posts

Posted Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:35 PM

https://websitering....org/neutral.htm

 

Article I wrote trying to understand/explain Net Neutrality. Already posted this on another thread, but that thread's only visible to registered members.



#22 Dripfree OFFLINE  

Dripfree

    Moonsweeper

  • 405 posts

Posted Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:57 PM

Take the name of any bill the Government passes and figure out what the opposite is. That is what the bill really is. When the government gets involved it is never in the interest of making anything better it is always in the interest of control. 99 times out of 100 when the government gets involved things get worse.

#23 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:31 AM

https://websitering....org/neutral.htm

 

Article I wrote trying to understand/explain Net Neutrality. Already posted this on another thread, but that thread's only visible to registered members.

Yeah, that's what WE/YOU say net neutrality is.  Go to the FCC site and read the actual rules.
And your email example is complete bs.  No company has ever suggested charging for email delivery.
I don't know, maybe they should.  Spam would halt immediately.



#24 pacman000 OFFLINE  

pacman000

    Moonsweeper

  • 313 posts

Posted Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:07 PM

Yeah, that's what WE/YOU say net neutrality is.  Go to the FCC site and read the actual rules.
And your email example is complete bs.  No company has ever suggested charging for email delivery.
I don't know, maybe they should.  Spam would halt immediately.

Thank you for reading my article and for responding. As far as I know no one suggested charging users for sending an email to users of another service; the services simply couldn't work with each other, which is what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

 

 

Important fact 2: These services only allowed people to communicate with other people on the same service; an AOL user couldn't send an email to a Compuserve user; a Compuserve user couldn't send an email to a Prodigy user.

If that suggests service providers considered charging their users for receiving emails from users of another service, I apologize; it was not meant to do so. It's not that great of an article. Too breezy; no cites; grammar mistakes, etc.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if there's some buggaboos in the actual regulations. I probably should read them. When is the question... :(



#25 JamesD OFFLINE  

JamesD

    Quadrunner

  • 7,859 posts
  • Location:Flyover State

Posted Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:15 PM

Thank you for reading my article and for responding. As far as I know no one suggested charging users for sending an email to users of another service; the services simply couldn't work with each other, which is what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:

 

If that suggests service providers considered charging their users for receiving emails from users of another service, I apologize; it was not meant to do so. It's not that great of an article. Too breezy; no cites; grammar mistakes, etc.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if there's some buggaboos in the actual regulations. I probably should read them. When is the question... :(

Well, I was looking at it from how cell phone providers are organized. 
You can only use your cell phone on other companies networks where they have agreements in place or you have to pay roaming.

Those agreements include an exchange rate for how services are paid for.
I think the only reason they would not exchange mail with a provider would be if agreements like this were used and someone wasn't on their list.
However, if you look at how internet mail is actually delivered/handled, this would be very difficult to do. 
Some large services hold a huge number of IP addresses, but many are licensed out to smaller ISPs that access the backbone through their networks.
I just think it's sort of a situation that could not happen.

Charging netflix a fee so you don't throttle their bandwidth is a possible scenario, but it's never happened and it raises some fundamental questions.
Shouldn't some multi-billion $ company subsidize the costs of speeding up a company's network to accommodate the traffic that company makes money off of? 
Shouldn't an ISP have the right to throttle bandwidth to such services that are swamping their networks and slowing access to other internet sites?
There isn't an easy answer here.






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users