the whole purpose of it is to get rid of regulation lol
Top reasons for people in favor or not of Net Neutrality:
You can keep thinking I’m stupid or you can do your homework and see why a lot of people like me are opposed and not fooled by it’s name. It will still bring government and ISP regulation.
soooooo, instead of letting the FCC butt in, we should just let our ISPs handcuff our connections?
If they revise it to TRULY elimate any possibilty of regulation or censorship by the government then I would support it. As it stands now, I don’t.
So, you’re FOR neutrality, but against it’s current form? Sometimes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Basically. :tinfoilhat:
I did read the article. Good for that chairman. However if congressional Republicans support more government regulation of any big business I will shit in my hat.
Wow this Glitch guy is fucking stupid
^ Do your homework. Do you really want the goverment to be able to control the flow of information over the net? I sure as hell don’t. It opens up a whole can of worms for of potential abuse.
Control the flow, or stop ISP’s from controlling the flow?
I’m more worried about censorship and privacy violations by our own government than different tiered internet services. Like I said before, it needs revision until it get’s my support. I’m trying to look at the bigger picture here.
lets mind the forum rules and keep the debate civil.
Just a heads up, they already monitor internet traffic. Where do you think they hear “chatter” when they talk about terrorist chatter? They aren’t sitting there listening to HAM radios. Try sending emails back and forth between some friends acting like you’re planning on bombing sensitive targets and see how long before a government agency knocks on your door.
The federal government has bigger things to worry about than how often you’re visiting moveon.org and huffingtonpost.com each day. Plus it’s really difficult for them to keep calling out China on it’s web censorship while planning to limit your access to Michael Moore streaming video using Net Neutrality.
Here’s only a fraction of the debate against the current “net neutrality”…
By cleverly framing this debate around the bumper-sticker term “net neutrality,” those who want to regulate broadband like dialup, created a very helpful myth to bolster their pro-Internet regulation cause.
By insinuating that the net was neutral, it made the proposed regulation sound less onerous and threatening, and more virtuous. Too bad it wasn’t true. The Internet is not a “neutral,” equal, one tier network.
If people knew the facts and not the spin, I believe they would be much less inclined to support the net neutrality concept. That’s why I have begun a series of one-pagers that debunk these big myths promoted by the neutr-elitists.
No net neutrality myth is bigger than “the net is neutral today.”
In a nutshell, the one pager provides a detailed rebuttal of the assertion “the net is neutral.”
- First, Internet traffic is not treated neutrally; large entities that invest more in infrastructure and pay more – get better Internet service.
- Second, the Internet backbone is not equal, but tiered into three peering tiers.
- Third, Internet access pricing differentiation is the norm, with dialup, free services and various speeds of broadband for a variety of prices and terms.
- Fourth, Net usage is far from equal; ~5% of users consume ~50% of the bandwidth.
- Finally, Net legal precedent is not neutral or equal but extremely different between telecom, cable and wireless technologies.
http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/pronetcomp/debunking-myths.shtml
yep, it’s official…you have managed to KILL this thread with useless information
The net is not neutral because the speeds, pricing, and bandwidth usage is different? You clearly don’t understand
I’m the only one actually debating in a civil and normal manner for a change…
I haven’t saw anything yet from the supporters except name calling and jokes.
:lol: Glitch you really don’t understand how the internet works
The internet is always going to be tiered because certain companies invest the money into building the backbone of the internet…and while we are discussing that issue its the same backbone the NSA and other government agencies are passively tapped into.
The FCC was trying to stop ISPs from rate limiting certain kinds of traffic and being able to charge for accessing youtube etc
"# First, Internet traffic is not treated neutrally; large entities that invest more in infrastructure and pay more – get better Internet service.
Second, the Internet backbone is not equal, but tiered into three peering tiers."
Let me know when you find a way to give everyone equal bandwidth and still have it aggregate somewhere and route traffic efficiently.
Thank you LZ, for being coherent. I have a hard time doing that on the internet…but yeah, all of that is right. Infrastructure costs money. If you have enough of it, you can get a T1 line into your house.
Fuck that. If I’m baller enough I’m getting an OC3.
I know, brah.
If only it were that simple, why can’t they just make a law against it instead of handing over complete control of the internet to the government too?