Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet

[Zundfolge]

Yep. Shitty situation, and no clear way to fix it since you would need someone with the people's interest in mind to correct it. That's why I'm doubtful over this posted by OP, but mildly hopeful.

How is that a shitty situation? The internet exists and thrives preciously because it has been the free market environment we conservatives and libertarians have been carping about for the last half century.


If the government had started these stupid rules back in the early days of the internet we'd all still be stuck on Compuserve and AOL and Netflix would be the stuff of science fiction.

[Artema]

The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.

True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.

[Artema]

How is that a shitty situation? The internet exists and thrives preciously because it has been the free market environment we conservatives and libertarians have been carping about for the last half century.

If the government had started these stupid rules back in the early days of the internet we'd all still be stuck on Compuserve and AOL and Netflix would be the stuff of science fiction.

So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.

[68Charger]

Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said

Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.

A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).

I've seen claims of this- usually it's related to P2P applications, or other applications which are causing network congestion issues...

It generally goes like this: "I can't get to xxx or yyy by using my ISP, but if I put it in a VPN, then it work fine- so they're censoring based on content"
They have zero concept of how routing works in the internet, and should not speak about it, especially since they generally do no investigation as to WHY the VPN fixed the issue...

It can also go back to congested links, or even DNS issues that could be fixed. If they're on network A, and trying to get to a service on network B, and the A-B link is congested- then they launch a VPN which is on network C... and the A-C and B-C network links are not congested, then it appears circumvent censorship, but all they did was move their traffic (re-route it) on links that were not congested.

Actual censorship can again be fought through other legal means, we don't need more regulations to dictate how to manage a network...
since you're bringing up the extreme example of Comcast fully censoring a website they don't like for political reasons (which is a clear 1st amendment violation), I'll bring up the other extreme-
Will carriers have to get Gov't approval to block DoS attacks from hacker groups? I mean if ALL traffic is to be treated the same, then who's to say Anonymous doesn't have the right to shutdown a right-wing website they don't agree with by saturating it with bogus traffic? What about Trojans? If they use the internet to infect other machines, how do you determine their right to do so? Maybe they're just advertising?

[Zundfolge]

True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.

There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.

So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.

No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!

[HoneyBadger]

Here's an interesting read from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshstei...et-neutrality/
If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.
I Want More Competition
Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and the same organization that spends320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space. Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?
The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?
I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.
If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.
I Want More Privacy
Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or anygovernment, to use that access in a benign manner?
While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?
I Want More Freedom

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison,The Federalist No. 51

Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rightsguaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.


What Instead?
Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.

Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid. Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.
Joshua Steimle is an entrepreneur and U. S. citizen currently residing in Hong Kong.

[68Charger]

True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.

EVERY TCP session on the internet is a 2-way conversation (it is a "reliable protocol" in that it sends ACK packets back to acknowledge that each packet was received.), and every destination has a source... direct communication between those endpoints, no matter how many.

so when there are 3 million subscribers that each have 10Mbps, then how much BW does the provider of that content need? (30Tbps) What BW level did they subscribe to?

So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.

Zund is saying the Gov't would have limited innovation and growth of the internet- which is what we're seeing again with content providers like Netflix & Amazon Prime... and something has to give- and those companies are arguing over who is going to. I say let them work it out, and keep the damn Government OUT of it.

[Artema]

There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.

No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

[68Charger]

You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.

HELLO? do you even read your own posts? This entire THREAD is about the Government re-classifiying the internet as a UTILITY so they can REGULATE it. All previous rulings (even by the SCOTUS) have ruled the internet is an information service.

I AM for Net Neutrality (in it's most simple form- no blocking or censorship)- but I am NOT for the Government regulating it.

[Artema]

MOD EDIT

Actually I was asked to discuss Net Neutrality near the beginning. I am not arguing for authoritarian control over the internet. I am arguing for the opposite of it. However the other authoritarians who oppose Obama's version of it also don't know what they're talking about. Both the Dems and Reps are talking out of their butts; imagine that! Between the politics the truth lies.