Net Neutrality

[malice]

so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs.
what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that...
these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.

[Norah]

Now you're getting it!

[malice]

Now you're getting it!

but no one cares, pete

[broken iris]

so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs.
what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that...
these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.

It's not really, it's just regulated as such.


This is a tricky one for me, I understand and agree with points on both sides. Verizon is basically subsidizing Google and Netflix, but without neutrality we wouldn't have those services.

[Norah]

I can understand the Telecom side of the argument from an idealistic market point of view, but a more pragmatic look at the reality of how the Internet is used and what the benefits of it are lead most people to side with the open Internet perspective.

[malice]

so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs.
what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that...
these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.

It's not really, it's just regulated as such.


This is a tricky one for me, I understand and agree with points on both sides. Verizon is basically subsidizing Google and Netflix, but without neutrality we wouldn't have those services.

if it's not a public right of way - I'm having trouble with why the government is implementing programs that provide cheap or free internet services to low income homes?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/govt-effort ... computers/

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-and-con ... fact-sheet


at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations. last time I checked, none of those companies gave a damn about more than their ability to make a profit, which we see what that did to the health care industry...

[broken iris]

at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations.

But isn't that what it already is? We pay our ISPs, they pay the backbone providers, etc... I think the biggest problem is that huge portions of the American (and global) economy developed based on the assumption of net neutrality between the host and the browser. To change it now would be like you said, akin to extortion.

[malice]

at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations.

But isn't that what it already is? We pay our ISPs, they pay the backbone providers, etc... I think the biggest problem is that huge portions of the American (and global) economy developed based on the assumption of net neutrality between the host and the browser. To change it now would be like you said, akin to extortion.

we do pay our ISPs, obviously.
the danger is that as an unregulated industry (since the gov't can't classify them as part of the telecom industry I guess), and with no binding rules in place, there is nothing that stops them from abusing that power to charge for service. the future practices of these companies, (as in, how much they can squeeze out of the public) will depend on the rules that are in place now.

really this is like all industries, every one of which could likely be cited for abuse of power in pursuit of profits, has there ever been a virtuous industry out there that worked to keep their products/services affordable and accessible for the greater good of the society? none that I can think of - when there's no controls in place, industry goes wild polluting the air and water, denying access to medical care, whatever.
that's what the government is supposed to watchdog against. I mean, capitalism only truly thrives when there's a fair marketplace to deal with. without it it's all in the hands of the corporations.

[nyquillyn]

Our company is in an uproar about this because a major competitor is partnered with Warner. Hypothetically, Warner could choke access to the resources we provide. This would be particularly devastating to us because our products are media heavy and require a decent amount of bandwidth. But we are in the educational industry and even though we are a "for profit" company, I find it hard to believe that the government would allow ISPs to essential block access to educational resources.

[broken iris]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

[malice]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

let's make a bet they won't be penalized for it...

[Electromatic]

So what about Google Fiber?

[Norah]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

link please

[broken iris]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

link please

It was on zerohedge earlier, I won't visit that site at work.

[simple schoolboy]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

link please

It was on zerohedge earlier, I won't visit that site at work.

I'm sure your boss already knows you're a "bitter clinger". Embrace it.

[broken iris]

Apparently Verizon has acknowledged it's throttling NetFlix's speed to it's customers. Yeah!

link please

It was on zerohedge earlier, I won't visit that site at work.

I'm sure your boss already knows you're a "bitter clinger". Embrace it.

Ever vigilant.

#TeamSentinel

[Norah]

http://mashable.com/2014/02/21/netflix- ... -main-link

[bart]

http://mashable.com/2014/02/21/netflix-verizon-speed-battle/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link

This has been pissing me off for like the last six months. I'm supposed to watch Mad Men at two dots? Fuck that shit.

[zeb]

Americans and their free trade.

[broken iris]

Netflix and Comcast made a deal this weekend to ensure "a certain service level" for Netflix. Total coincidence of course, since Comcast throttling them would be a violation of net neutrality laws.