Net Neutrality Day

[JJBers]

Well, I guess it's already July 12. Today is Net Neutrality Day...
This sums it up pretty well

[bandit957]

If the federal government won't enforce 'Net neutrality, the states - maybe even the counties or cities - need to.

[hbelkins]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

[hbelkins]

Well, I guess it's already July 12. Today is Net Neutrality Day...
This sums it up pretty well

I just looked at the list of sponsors. Makes me even more opposed to the current "net neutrality" setup. RedTube, PornHub, High Times, The Nation, NARAL, Greenpeace, MoveOn.org -- what a cesspool.

[SP Cook]

Yep.  The whole issue is much ado about nothing.  If you don't like one provider, get another one.  If you want to have your stuff download faster, pay the ISP. 

I note that when I opened my DIRECTV app today it had a pop-up that "AT&T supports internet freedom".  Yep.  Great concept.  Freedom. 

Maybe the government should worry about trade, infastructure, health, education and fighting radical Islamic terrorism, and let the internet alone.

[US71]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

Nice to know you can afford it

[hbelkins]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

Nice to know you can afford it

Wouldn't be an issue of me affording it. It would be an issue of Amazon being able to afford it to allow their content to be delivered faster than, say, Walmart. Notice I said giving sites the ability to speed up the delivery of their content, not individuals paying to have content delivered faster. Although that exists now too. Several ISPs offer speed tiers. The more you pay, the faster your connection is (and the more data you can consume in a given time period). If they can charge consumers more for this, why shouldn't they be able to charge content deliverers more as well?

[vdeane]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

Let's put it this way: creating that "fast lane" is similar to taking a lane from an already open road and turning it into a toll lane.  Any site that doesn't pay that specific ISP would be de facto throttled as a result, especially since we really need more internet capacity, but the ISPs have no interest in making any because there is very little competition.

Yep.  The whole issue is much ado about nothing.  If you don't like one provider, get another one.  If you want to have your stuff download faster, pay the ISP. 

I note that when I opened my DIRECTV app today it had a pop-up that "AT&T supports internet freedom".  Yep.  Great concept.  Freedom. 

Maybe the government should worry about trade, infastructure, health, education and fighting radical Islamic terrorism, and let the internet alone.

In many areas, if you don't like your provider, you're basically screwed.  Where I live, there are only two providers of high speed internet: Verizon and Spectrum.  Where I grew up, there is only one: Spectrum/Time Warner (not sure if it's been re-branded in Rochester yet).  The telecoms and cable companies that provide internet service are among the most hated companies in the country.  If the market was capable of providing these incentives, they would all be bankrupt by now.

AT&T doesn't support your freedom to get any content, from any site, at full speed.  They support their "freedom" (read: greed) to extort even more money for what is actually a utility.  It's time for it to be treated as such.  It is how we communicate today.  I remember the golden age of the internet, before it became corporatized, when it was a platform that was expanding free speech and freedom of the press to the little guy, with anyone being able to set up their own site or side business and get a following.  Companies like Amazon and Facebook would not have been able to become the giants they are if they had to play by the rules AT&T and Verizon want to put on the internet.  Net Neutrality is about making sure the even playing field for all sites remains.

The ISPs want internet to become the next cable TV, essentially because they are dinosaurs who are seeing their previous business model disintigrate.  But the internet is not cable TV.  I hope it never will be, but it's probably just wishful thinking on my part; these companies are just too powerful.  Without Net Neutrality, the corporitization and appification of the internet will only get worse.

This issue affects us, too: roadgeek websites are going to have a harder time, since none of us will be able to pay to get in the fast lane.  We'll have to choose between our photo galleries being very slow and shutting down our sites in favor of platforms like Flickr.  I don't use any of those online photo storage sites at all (or any cloud platforms, for that matter).  I hope I don't have to choose between having a slow site and shutting it down.  And who knows what else will start happening.  Maybe ISPs will start inserting ads into your web traffic (yes, they have the technological capability to do that), and then one of the ads gives your computer a virus.  Maybe they'll decide they won't allow YOU to go to Netflix unless you pay extra, or even at all, since they will have their own competing video service (we're already seeing a softer version of this on mobile with respect to data caps).  A lot of what we take for granted today could be gone.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

Nice to know you can afford it

Wouldn't be an issue of me affording it. It would be an issue of Amazon being able to afford it to allow their content to be delivered faster than, say, Walmart. Notice I said giving sites the ability to speed up the delivery of their content, not individuals paying to have content delivered faster. Although that exists now too. Several ISPs offer speed tiers. The more you pay, the faster your connection is (and the more data you can consume in a given time period). If they can charge consumers more for this, why shouldn't they be able to charge content deliverers more as well?

They already do that with their own ISP.  How many companies will really be able to afford to do it with every ISP?  Facebook and Amazon, sure, but someone opening their small business on the internet will not be able to, and they will lose customers because their site will be loading slower.

[bandit957]

Yep.  The whole issue is much ado about nothing.  If you don't like one provider, get another one.

Some areas only have one.

[SP Cook]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

[bandit957]

When did "freedom" get redefined as "greed"?

[bandit957]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

I'm not a free marketster, so why should this apply to me?

[jeffandnicole]

IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

People have been saying this for years.  It's 'free' in that it's included in existing pricing, such as a hotel room.  Most xFinity hot spots are simply routers that others are paying for, but emitting a free signal.  Many people don't even realize their router, which they are paying $40 - $60 a month for, is the hot spot others are using for free.

Text messaging used to be costly.  Cell phone calls used to be costly.  Long Distance calls used to be costly.  Now they just roll the free texts and free calls into your basic plans.  Is it saving you money?  You'll be one of very few that is paying less today than you were 10 or 20 years ago.

Internet access will always cost money.  How it's paid for may differ, but it's not going to be free.

[jakeroot]

I'm pretty sure that Net Neutrality is the only reason that I have unlimited data and tethering at T-Mobile (T-Mobile is extremely competitive). Which is a good thing, because my local Internet monopoly Comcast provides dog shit reliability. The speed isn't so bad, but the reliability is just terrible.

Just the other day, some fiber optic lines were charred due to some astray fireworks (and the ensuing blaze). The entire city was shut down for 24 hours as damn near the entire city uses Comcast. Perhaps if another provider was in the area, only half the city would have been shut down.

[kkt]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Internet access is pretty much a necessity now.  Want to apply for a job, order those goods and services that have disappeared from brick and mortar stores (or your brick and mortar store has disappeared itself), get tax forms and info, without the internet it's all much harder or impossible.

Net neutrality isn't just about speed.  Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping them being selective about content.  Would you like your phone company to refuse to connect phones at the offices of one political group?  They can't, because they are a common carrier and obliged to be neutral about access to phone service.  Internet access should be the same.

[jakeroot]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

You're not serious are you? That's all a joke, right?

Internet access is pretty much a necessity now.

Don't mince words. It is a necessity.

[jemacedo9]

Internet access is pretty much a necessity now.  Want to apply for a job, order those goods and services that have disappeared from brick and mortar stores (or your brick and mortar store has disappeared itself), get tax forms and info, without the internet it's all much harder or impossible.

THIS. Want your bank statement mailed to you? Phone bill? Car note invoices?  Car insurance bills? Feel free to pay a mailing charge...or you use internet access to avoid those fees.  Even in cases where brick-and-mortar still carry products, many offer discounts or lower prices for web-based orders. Those without internet access of any kind are getting more and more penalized for it.  Sure...you could require people to find public internet access for that...except...would you trust accessing your own personal information on a public internet access computer such as at a library?

5 years ago, maybe, the internet was more of a luxury.  Not anymore.

[kkt]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

You're not serious are you? That's all a joke, right?

Internet access is pretty much a necessity now.

Don't mince words. It is a necessity.

Well, yeah.  There are folks like some Amish who don't use electricity or indoor plumbing and they live somehow, but I would consider those things necessities along with internet access.

[formulanone]

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Internet Service Providers are part of an oligopoly, there are limited additional choices (or a single choice in some areas). They own/lease the cabling and wires going into our neighborhoods, or the satellite if you're using that. ISPs have also been bought up and merged over the years. The golden days of the free market (for dial-up connections) ended at the turn of the millenium. Wireless might give you more options in some areas, and quite limited connectivity in others. Never mind that their "bait-and-switch-for-one-year" pricing is ridiculous; that's not a free market, because you have no idea what price they're going to compare to in a year or two down the line.

The telecoms and cable providers and internet providers are great at lobbying government for getting things done their way. They beg for "fees" so they don't have to compete directly in an open market. Why not give us some right to not be throttled back in return?

There's all sorts of valid reasons why internet speed is variable, much of which are logical and physical bandwidth/infrastructure limits, nature, and public demand. The ISPs can't control those things, understandably. But folks are sick and tired of having every convenience monetized on top of their bills. And that's where we've had enough.

It's not a utility, per se, but the infrastructure has moved into that direction. Internet isn't a basic necessity, but it has turned into a secondary necessity, like electricity and having transportation.

[US71]

When did "freedom" get redefined as "greed"?

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength"

[HazMatt]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The more I learn about "net neutrality," the more I'm against what's currently in place.

Instead of complaining about possible slowdowns, companies like Amazon ought to be championing the fact that they can have the ability to pay to make their content deliver faster.

I'm not in favor of throttling or blocking, but I'm all for an optional "fast lane" that lets sites have the ability to speed up their content delivery.

Nice to know you can afford it

Wouldn't be an issue of me affording it. It would be an issue of Amazon being able to afford it to allow their content to be delivered faster than, say, Walmart. Notice I said giving sites the ability to speed up the delivery of their content, not individuals paying to have content delivered faster. Although that exists now too. Several ISPs offer speed tiers. The more you pay, the faster your connection is (and the more data you can consume in a given time period). If they can charge consumers more for this, why shouldn't they be able to charge content deliverers more as well?

I keep seeing this argument and it's ridiculous.  How do you think content deliverers get access to the Internet?  They pay ISPs and exorbitant amount of money to have connections for all of their servers.  They already pay for these speeds, just like you or I do.

Net neutrality's premise is that all data should be treated equally on the public Internet.  You're arguing that Amazon should be able to pay extra to have their content delivered faster, which would in turn throttle my connection during busy periods if I choose not to use Amazon.

[kalvado]

I keep seeing this argument and it's ridiculous.  How do you think content deliverers get access to the Internet?  They pay ISPs and exorbitant amount of money to have connections for all of their servers.  They already pay for these speeds, just like you or I do.

Net neutrality's premise is that all data should be treated equally on the public Internet.  You're arguing that Amazon should be able to pay extra to have their content delivered faster, which would in turn throttle my connection during busy periods if I choose not to use Amazon.

As far as I remember, big part of it started when Netflix started pouring traffic into their ISP, Level3 (or comcast?) I believe - and it started clogging traffic exchange points. Netflix refused to pay for upgrades required for handling their traffic, and Tier 1 doesn't pay anyone... 
Basic assumption about Tier 1 is that traffic generation is more or less evenly distributed between them. Attaching one HUGE generator to a given point changes that.
So while net neutrality is often seen as ability to throttle smaller guys, big question is actually about dealing with biggest ones. 

[The Nature Boy]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Let's extend this logic:

You can live just fine without electricity, just light a candle, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without government provided water, just pump your own water, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without indoor plumbing, just build yourself an outhouse, you'll be fine.

The internet is as much as necessity for modern existence (for reasons outlined above) as the utilities I just mentioned.

[US71]

Ever notice how TV & satellite companies are always fighting with each other?

[jeffandnicole]

The concept that the internet is a "utility" is just wrong.   It is a luxury, and should be treated as a luxury item.   You can live just fine w/o it.   It is no more a "utility" than a bookshop, or a baseball park, or a car dealer.

If one ISP provides poor customer service, another will provide better.  The magic of the free market.  IMHO, in 10 years internet access will be free anyway.

Let's extend this logic:

You can live just fine without electricity, just light a candle, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without government provided water, just pump your own water, you'll be fine.

You can live just fine without indoor plumbing, just build yourself an outhouse, you'll be fine.

The internet is as much as necessity for modern existence (for reasons outlined above) as the utilities I just mentioned.

Not even close. Heck, there are still many people that live in areas without internet access.