Net Neutrality
-
..from John Kerry's Meeting With Staff and Families of Embassy Brasilia - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213088.htm
"I'm a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the 18th, 19th centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars. And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky. Well, folks, ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.
It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest, and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we’re operating in."
so leave the internet out the governments hands....NO REGULATION WANTED, except by those who feel threatened by it?
You realize Net Neutrality is the belief that Government and ISP's should not control the content you are able to view by favoring certain groups(either financially or politically)? To basically allow the internet to be free, with the flow of information.
Companies like Google, Youtube, and Facebook would actually benefit more without Net Neutrality than with it, since start-ups would have a harder time competing against an established company.
You realize Net Neutrality is the belief that Government and ISP's should not control the content you are able to view by favoring certain groups(either financially or politically)? To basically allow the internet to be free, with the flow of information.
Companies like Google, Youtube, and Facebook would actually benefit more without Net Neutrality than with it, since start-ups would have a harder time competing against an established company.
I think we all learned this week - who WAS and was not "grubered", you are not really believing that the "free flow" of internet use is best left
up to the decision makers in dc do you? ( insert gruber reference) They are very interested in controlling the net on all levels as you said ^^
heres another reason - http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/14/obamas-plan-backdoor-internet-tax/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
everything has to be taxed to support a socialist state.
They'll tax gun owners, if they can get em registered, farmers
for cows farting......
everything. It's a disaster, this obamao crap.
-
Aaannnddd We're gone
-
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
Considering the current state of internet service providers, I truly wonder how competition might make it worse.
-
Time Warner sucks. I have constant outages at all times of the day.
-
Time Warner sucks. I have constant outages at all times of the day.
Time Warner sucks. I have constant outages at all times of the day.
I hear ya. But how will net neutrality change that? Not everybody is going to run cable.
And wouldn't that mean everybody shares the same cable? Even after they get the light pipe run?
WSS
-
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
But that's the free market, allowing everyone to compete with everyone. It's led to better service over here from broadband-only companies that have popped up. The alternative is just to ring fence the existing companies and let them form a cartel.
-
one downside of allowing every jerk off with a ten dollar bill in his pocket to jump in the game and compete with the guys who have laid the groundwork and spent the money is that you get so many proprietary splinter groups.
While that is supposed to promote competition it usually lines up making every product worse than it might be.
WSS
But that's the free market, allowing everyone to compete with everyone. It's led to better service over here from broadband-only companies that have popped up. The alternative is just to ring fence the existing companies and let them form a cartel.
But that's the free market, allowing everyone to compete with everyone. It's led to better service over here from broadband-only companies that have popped up. The alternative is just to ring fence the existing companies and let them form a cartel.
Well not quite. Forcing the person who spent the money and effort to lay the cable to share that commodity with startup companies isn't the free market.
If in fact that's what the law might do. I admittedly don't understand every nuance and I'm not an attorney.
WSS
-
That's not what this is about though, this is about not letting service providers throttle websites that can't afford to pay.
-
It sounds like it Chris. It sounds like company x has run the infrastructure to provide cable or Internet to wherever and they are extracting a fee for those who want to use that. Where am I going wrong?
WSS
-
It sounds like it Chris. It sounds like company x has run the infrastructure to provide cable or Internet to wherever and they are extracting a fee for those who want to use that. Where am I going wrong?
WSS
It sounds like it Chris. It sounds like company x has run the infrastructure to provide cable or Internet to wherever and they are extracting a fee for those who want to use that. Where am I going wrong?
WSS
It's about enabling competition - for example, if a new service like Amazon pops up, it could be just as good if not better than amazon, but if it's being throttled because it can't pay extortionate fees, while amazon can, that company won't survive.
Or netflix, a website that relies on its speed of streaming for customers - if you can't watch instantly because of low bandwidth, their business model is null and void, so they're forced to pay extra for the higher download speeds, and again, newcomers to the market, unless they are from another existing massive company that can jump in and compete straight away, won't survive.
It's about cultivating an environment where competition can thrive and new business can challenge the established regime.
-
You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.
So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.
I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.
Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.
So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.
I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.
Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?
WSS
You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.
So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.
I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.
Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?
WSS
Check the graph that I linked to earlier in the thread. Comcast were negotiating with Netflix about their new deal. In a 'net neutral world' Comcast would not be allowed to modify the service they're providing to any customer, but as it stands, they basically throttled Netflix until they caved, so customers using Comcast to access Netflix were getting shitty speeds. Straight after the deal was agreed, the speeds went right up again.
-
You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.
So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.
I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.
Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?
WSS
You are speaking more like an advertising firm than a distributor of information.
So I want to start up a business to compete with the bad guys. It costs X amount of money to use the services provided by the ISP.
I simply can't afford that because I am not as rich as Amazon.
Net neutrality fixes that problem exactly how? I'm not trying to bicker with you just trying to get an idea of the reality. Is it the intention to charge startup companies less than the big boys?
WSS
Steve, this shit happens because the cable companies are losing money to people who watch Netflix. No one wants to pay 120 a month for 700 channels when you really only watch 5 to 10. It's an outdated business model and people went elsewhere when Netflix and Amazon Prime and Hulu popped up. To reduce this competition, the cable companies extorted Netflix to pay some money or get throttled - these costs would presumably be passed on to the consumers of Netflix. Net neutrality would make it illegal to do this.
-
I agree with Vapor.
-
You are all still missing my point. As a consumer? Sure. I'm always happy to get something for less. I didn't care if DIRECTV got screwed or not when channel 19 held out on the Browns games. On the other hand if I own the means of distribution.....
WSS
-
You are all still missing my point. As a consumer? Sure. I'm always happy to get something for less. I didn't care if DIRECTV got screwed or not when channel 19 held out on the Browns games. On the other hand if I own the means of distribution.....
WSS
You are all still missing my point. As a consumer? Sure. I'm always happy to get something for less. I didn't care if DIRECTV got screwed or not when channel 19 held out on the Browns games. On the other hand if I own the means of distribution.....
WSS
Hence why a lot of people are wanting google fiber and verizon fios in their area.
-
You are all still missing my point. As a consumer? Sure. I'm always happy to get something for less. I didn't care if DIRECTV got screwed or not when channel 19 held out on the Browns games. On the other hand if I own the means of distribution.....
WSS
Hence why a lot of people are wanting google fiber and verizon fios in their area.
Hence why a lot of people are wanting google fiber and verizon fios in their area.
True enough. I would imagine if they pulled their heads out of their ass communities counties States etc could run optic fiber underground and lease it to the retail company.
or sell open source Internet to the citizens.
WSS
-
Imagine if the electricity companies were able to do that? They didn't lay the wires, but they're still using them. These days, broadband is basically an essential service, at least it's treated that way in Europe.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login