Net Neutrality

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
      The FCC said the internet is a free public place and internet providers don't have the right to control what people do while on the web.  
    Posted by Mungomunro


    And you can do whatever you want. Comcast just wants to reroute high bandwidth websties to different channels so it doesn't slow down the whole network. In the end I'm sure they will try to charge these websites but the free market has a way of working itself out without the feds sticking their nose in.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality :  Just because I can buy gas at a Shell station instead of a Exxon station doesn't give either one of them the right to charge me for 20 gallons of gasoline but only let me pump 10 gallons into my cars fuel tank
    Posted by Mungomunro


    And likewise you can't pump 20 gals of gas and only pay for 10. When comcast starting charging for internet access these sites didn't even exist. Bandwidth costs money. Comcast has to pay for it, and everyone else who doesn't stream TV or other high bandwidth web content deserves the performance that they're paying for. I know people in rural locations and their Comcast internet has gradually slowed down over the last 10 years to the point where it's only a little faster than dial up. They are complaining and canceling their service because of it. Comcast allows a personal bandwidth of 250gb a month for the price that you pay. I'm on the internet all day between work and home and I don't even come close to that. I'm around 10gb a month work and home combined. There a gluttons out there that are taking advantage of the "Unlimited internet". Those are the people that this is going to affect.  And no, I don't work for comcast. If my town would let Verizon string for Fios I would have that right now. If comcast sticks it to me I'll switch to DSL.It's cheaper and almost as fast. My brother has it and it works awesome.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

     Like I said before, an all you can eat buffet doesn't mean you can realy eat it all.

      The court just gave the privetly owned internet companies the power to decide how and where you can go on the internet.

     Of course the good new is now your IP can shut you down.hahaCool 

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    All you can eat buffet does mean you can eat it all.  The analogy is apt here.  Besides the censorship issue which the cable companies want there's also the issue of dishonesty.  They are selling unlimited internet at a certain bandwidth and then saying sorry but you are using too much internet so you can't go to sites that use a lot of bandwidth.  If I'm not exceeding the bandwidth I payed for than I should be aloud to do it.  It's as if you bought an all you can eat buffet but then when you get up to the buffet they say "Sorry, you can't yave the beef or pork or spaghetti". 
    "But I thought you said it was all you can eat."
    "Sure but that stuff is expensive, it's all you can eat of potato and peas."

    It's at the very least dishonest, they are selling a product but not delivering it.

    The Government says the internet is an open market and if you pay for it's use you should not be censored by your provider.

    The Cable companies say we own the wires and we can charge tolls to those websites and users who want higher speeds.  There's a couple issues with this.

    -It allows the highest bidder to block sites they don't like from the public.  I.E.  RNC could pay comcast to block the DNC's sight.

    -Startup companies would die, low money sights could be blocked by big money sites who couldn't afford to pay the money to be as fast as large sites.  At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube, Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away.

    -They are double charging.  Both me and Youtube pay for internet access with a certain bandwith.  They would be charging us both extra to use bandwith we already payed for.

    -They can't truly guarantee speed they would charge for.  If I pay extra and youtube pays extra for higher speeds than we would get those, but only on
    Comcasts wires.  If the signal passes through Time warner, Fios or whoever elses wires we would be dropped back down (unless we paid those companies also) resulting in people paying multiple tolls for true access at speeds already paid for.

    -The market is not truly free.  Call it what you want but the companies monopolize areas and use thier power to keep out competition.  It's unamerican to punish a company for being successful but the truth is the market probably won't be able to fix this monopolization.  Nobody was able to compete with the phone company, and the Government finally broke it up resulting in better service for everybody. 

    The best option IMHO is to have the Government invest in highspeed internet technology and then let the companies compete for use of the lines they own.  This would create a free market and an open internet without government regulation. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    All you can eat buffet does mean you can eat it all.  The analogy is apt here.  Besides the censorship issue which the cable companies want there's also the issue of dishonesty.  They are selling unlimited internet at a certain bandwidth and then saying sorry but you are using too much internet so you can't go to sites that use a lot of bandwidth.  If I'm not exceeding the bandwidth I payed for than I should be aloud to do it.  It's as if you bought an all you can eat buffet but then when you get up to the buffet they say "Sorry, you can't yave the beef or pork or spaghetti".  "But I thought you said it was all you can eat." "Sure but that stuff is expensive, it's all you can eat of potato and peas." It's at the very least dishonest, they are selling a product but not delivering it. The Government says the internet is an open market and if you pay for it's use you should not be censored by your provider. The Cable companies say we own the wires and we can charge tolls to those websites and users who want higher speeds.  There's a couple issues with this. -It allows the highest bidder to block sites they don't like from the public.  I.E.  RNC could pay comcast to block the DNC's sight. -Startup companies would die, low money sights could be blocked by big money sites who couldn't afford to pay the money to be as fast as large sites.  At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube, Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away. -They are double charging.  Both me and Youtube pay for internet access with a certain bandwith.  They would be charging us both extra to use bandwith we already payed for. -They can't truly guarantee speed they would charge for.  If I pay extra and youtube pays extra for higher speeds than we would get those, but only on Comcasts wires.  If the signal passes through Time warner, Fios or whoever elses wires we would be dropped back down (unless we paid those companies also) resulting in people paying multiple tolls for true access at speeds already paid for. -The market is not truly free.  Call it what you want but the companies monopolize areas and use thier power to keep out competition.  It's unamerican to punish a company for being successful but the truth is the market probably won't be able to fix this monopolization.  Nobody was able to compete with the phone company, and the Government finally broke it up resulting in better service for everybody.  The best option IMHO is to have the Government invest in highspeed internet technology and then let the companies compete for use of the lines they own.  This would create a free market and an open internet without government regulation. 
    Posted by shenanigan


    I hear your points but you're getting way ahead of yourself. "This could Happen..That could happen" If someone uses their internet service to purposely put another company out of business then that is a violation of antitrust and anti competition laws that I'm sure the government that you trust so much can deal with..That is not happening and you can not enforce will because you think that someone could break a law down the road. Incidentally, maybe people should read their comcast contract and they would find out exactly what it is. I would think that everybody 18 yrs or older should be smart enough to read the fine print.I certainly did. As far as the Government owning the internet hang in there because they're working on owning everything we use. The government can take care of you from cradle to grave and in return they will only take 50% of your paycheck( If you're lucky enough to have a job) every week just like in Canada and Europe. The American dream is still alive.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Startup companies would die, low money sights could be blocked by big money sites who couldn't afford to pay the money to be as fast as large sites.  At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube, Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away.

    This is the kernel of the argument. Right now cable is a monopoly that has just been divided by several multi-billionaires. The only reason NN has cropped up is because they ARE picking and choosing who they "prefer" should get full access. 

    As of right now the FCC has done nothing to stop me from using my internet, yet COX is doing it.

    WAKE UP! Corporate America IS the threat, not some imaginary "big government."
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]Startup companies would die, low money sights could be blocked by big money sites who couldn't afford to pay the money to be as fast as large sites.  At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube, Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away . This is the kernel of the argument. Right now cable is a monopoly that has just been divided by several multi-billionaires. The only reason NN has cropped up is because they ARE picking and choosing who they "prefer" should get full access.  As of right now the FCC has done nothing to stop me from using my internet, yet COX is doing it. WAKE UP! Corporate America IS the threat, not some imaginary "big government."
    Posted by zbellino[/QU"OTE]

    "Wake up"???? Take your own advice..If you don't think your government is growing exponentially on a monthly basis you're living in a cave. The Federal government is much more powerful than any Internet company and much more capable of ruining my life with Taxes, regulations and the IRS. Comcast can't do anything to me to ruin my life. You guys are more concerned with being able to watch TV on your computer(Which will never go away) then you are the amount of money the federal government is spending.Wake up???? You're the one that's sleeping.I'm scared..I may not be able to down load Porno Bit Torents at the same speed I used to.Call the Police on those scoflaws.. 

    Here's what it breaks down to..I believe in Capitalism and free enterprise and you guys want the government to take care of us..
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2. Show Tcal2's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

     "At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube,Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away."


    No Facebook.  What would losers and spouse's looking to cheat with old high school classmates do?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
     "At one time Ebay, Google, Youtube, Facebook were all little sites.  That innovation would die away ." No Facebook.  What would losers and spouse's looking to cheat with old high school classmates do?
    Posted by Tcal2




    Amen My Man!!!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    In Response to Net Neutrality : I am not too concerned. Obama wants to increase HSI in the US and, if he gets Congress' backing, the regulation isn't too far behind. Posted by EnochRoot


    Well the best way to increase HSI is to remove all the stuff that you deem unworthy, so that it does not clutter the net.  WHo cares if some of us want to see it... It is not the PARTY LINE..... OBAMA the DICTATOR- he has appointed a communication CZAR... and they believe that they have control of EVERYTHING you are allowed to see and hear.

    Next coimes the VAT so that they can drain every penny out of everyone who has any cash left, that way they can have you happy to get your two breadsticks and a head of cabbage each day.  Maybe once a week we will be able to afford a gallon of Milk, and a pound of hamburger.   The current proposal is that the VAT would be set at 20%.  One needs to determine what that means. It is more than a simple SALES tax at the federal level.  It is a 20% tax on the value added to an item every time the item is improved.  SO the corn that starts at $4.00 per bushel becomes about $30 by the time it becomes corn flakes for you and I.  Look it up, and realize exactly what this president means to do to the middle class.  A VAT is a tax that EVERYONE pays, and at the 20% amt. it is actually expected to raise the price of EVERY item we buy an approximate 30%....  That $3 gallon of milk is now $4 so that OBUMMER can have his cut.  That $5 value meal that you get is now $6.50... The Subway $5 jinkgle will change to the $6.50 jingle.  That $14,000 bottom of the line KIA becomes $16,500 and those prices are BEFORE they add you local and state sales tax.   Socialism is great until you run out of someone else's money!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    The telephone companies have network neutrality as well. Basically if they didn't they would have the right to charge you more for calling high traffic areas, or charging you more if you lived in a high traffic area.  Now your cable company can charge you more if you are in higher traffic areas and simply pull the switch on sites that stream a lot of information like hulu, youtube or anything else they so desire to limit.  Now there are abusers to the net neutrality like bit torrents but sometimes you have to live with some of the abusers if you want total and complete access to the sites you want. 
    Posted by Macrawn


    AGREEED< but when your freedom interferes with the freedom of aso many others, is that also to be allowed?  HULU, YOU TUBE and the others (Bit Torrent) take up bandwidth thereby (in many cases) decreasing the quality of service to others in the same area.  NOW you desire to have COMCAST forced to allow yyou free and unfettered access.. OKAY (Sounds great) but what about when the limitations of their equipment means that others in your neighborhood get Poor service while you are doing your thing?   I KNOW- you want uncle obama to create equipment and force all ISP's to have equipment without limitation so that you can exceed their current limitations.
    SO who pays for this unfettered access?... YOU?  NO way you desire COMCAST to pay the expense and then just hand you a minor amt. of it at a cost that you want to pay.  OF course for them to do that, they must charge every other subscriber more than they reallly desire to pay since they do not need this extra bandwidth- But you are OKAY with that.....  Distribution of Internet!

    I say that COmcast get you the better service (unfettered you desire) then charge you per Megabyte you upload and download.... I have been there before through satellite- YOU will love paying as YOU go!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality : So you don't mind the Federal government sticking their nose in everywhere. But you would mind if George Bush were president. How'd you feel about the Patriot act George Bush signed in???????  Really, Didn't like it did you?  But Obama just resigned it into law again renewing the bill a couple of weeks ago. Probably doesn't bother now because your guy did it.This isn't Republicans VS Democrats because they are Both Sticking it to us. This is about keeping the Federal government from overstepping their boundries once again. "Big Bad Government" Used Tax payer Money to buy General Motors and then gave 51% of the company to the United Auto workers which just by coincidence is one of their biggest campaign contributers. Yet I'm sure  your still complaining about Bush and "Big Oil".  That doesn't Bother you?? This isn't football this is the future of the country but as long as they keep your porn movies streaming your fine with it. That's good..If Comcast does something that you don't like go to another ISP..If Comcast loses enough money because of it they will change their standpoint and reconsider. That's capitalism.The Federal Government running companies is called something different.
    Posted by underdogggg

    Danfg it isn;t often I agree with Underdogg.....  BUT BRAVO ZULU Big guy.....
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    I would pick a different cable provider IF THERE WERE OTHER CABLE PROVIDERS!!! In most places the cable company is the ONLY cable company.  Despite making profits each year, cable companies refuse to expand into each others' territories, which is a discussion unto itself.  There is little selection for changing services within a type of telecom, only between different types of telecom
    Posted by NickC1188


    Nick do you know why Cable companies do not expand into each other's areas?.... DO YOU?

    Because they cannot- in most areas of the country the city/state government gives exclusive contracts to one company.  The only way to breech that agreement (usually 50 yrs) is to Buy out the old company - which COMCAST has been doing throughout the midwest.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality :  Just because I can buy gas at a Shell station instead of a Exxon station doesn't give either one of them the right to charge me for 20 gallons of gasoline but only let me pump 10 gallons into my cars fuel tank
    Posted by Mungomunro


    Comcast doesn;t charge you for the entire internet- they charge you for access to the internet.  As such they can limit the data transfer through their equipment as part of the terms of service.  IF you do not like it- then you can go to another provider.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    AHHH, it appears we have the ENTITLED crowd in an uproar, because a company that they must still pay (COMCAST/COX)is saying we are not a government handout and you can not take all you want and demand more.

    You are using COmcast/Cox ewquipment to gain your access through a portal into the world of the internet.  YOU do not like the fact that their equipment has limitations and they are going to spread it's use amongst all their customers?  Well then go buy your own equipment and get higher bandwidth and do what the heck you desire.....  Until your almighty government decides to take away parts of the internet- FREE SPEECH?  NOPE!  They want NEUTRALITY.. so if they do not like it- it is not neutral.

    Get back in the handout lines you whiners..... GET A JOB and pay for more internet access, most otf the companies (including COmcast in the midwest) sell better faster packages for more money... BUY ONE!  Oh and Comcast does not take FOOD STAMPS. WIC COUPONS/ or section 8.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality


     I support Net neutrality with a few caveats.   I think that any damage the IPs suffer from bit torrent etc  doesn't outweigh the people's right to free and (reasonable) unfettered access to the public spaces. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

      
      If we lose net neutrality we will lose any right to free speech or free enterprise while we are on the internet.

       Net neutrality says you can go to any legal website and participate in any legal activity you choose.
      Comcast and Murdock want to control what you can and can't do while on the Net.
     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
         If we lose net neutrality we will lose any right to free speech or free enterprise while we are on the internet.    Net neutrality says you can go to any legal website and participate in any legal activity you choose.   Comcast and Murdock want to control what you can and can't do while on the Net.  
    Posted by Mungomunro


    Absolutely Ludicrous
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality : Absolutely Ludicrous
    Posted by underdogggg

     

      It has already begun
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    @Underdogggg - how can you say that you don't like the FCC trying to control media content and SUPPORT the court's ruling that will also affect content?

    While I understand why Comcast would block BitTorrent, I don't like the PRECEDENT set by this case wherein Comcast now has the power to control ALL content by controlling the bandwidth assigned to it.

    Add the fact that Comcast is the only cable company in the northeast (which again is a conversation unto itself) and people don't have many other choices unless FiOS is available - satellite is NOT a reliable option in New England weather - and I feel like I have a right to be legitimately concerned.

    As for the free market, I don't trust that the telecom powers won't just force this down our throats.  It's in THEIR best interests to charge more money from companies that want preferential treatment on the web PLUS they'd also get to take more money from customers who want more bandwidth.  Tell me why they won't all do this if they have the right?

    Unless we vote for legislators who will mandate net neutrality or unless the Supreme Court overrules this case via certiori, you will all regret it when this forum site is deemed unworthy of Comcast's bandwidth capacity.  Just my two cents (I didn't want to rant, but I thought it was an important issue to discuss and God knows nobody is discussing anything on the news forums on this site lol)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    AHHH, it appears we have the ENTITLED crowd in an uproar, because a company that they must still pay (COMCAST/COX)is saying we are not a government handout and you can not take all you want and demand more. You are using COmcast/Cox ewquipment to gain your access through a portal into the world of the internet.  YOU do not like the fact that their equipment has limitations and they are going to spread it's use amongst all their customers?  Well then go buy your own equipment and get higher bandwidth and do what the heck you desire.....  Until your almighty government decides to take away parts of the internet- FREE SPEECH?  NOPE!  They want NEUTRALITY.. so if they do not like it- it is not neutral. Get back in the handout lines you whiners..... GET A JOB and pay for more internet access, most otf the companies (including COmcast in the midwest) sell better faster packages for more money... BUY ONE!  Oh and Comcast does not take FOOD STAMPS. WIC COUPONS/ or section 8.
    Posted by FenwayChuck


    Interesting, but I think you've missed the point.  Comcast and all companies charge for bandwidth.  They can charge for a speed (which most do), or a total amoung of GB.  They have always had options to pay more for more bandwidth and nobody questions their right to do that.  Bandwidth is not the issue here, or they would say our network can't handle all the high use so we are raising the price for people who want to maintain those speeds so we can afford to improve our equipment.  If they sell their service at 1000KB/s than the cable company does not have the right to decide which websites you use those KB/s.  The problem is the cable companies don't own the businesses online and those businesses also pay for a rate of speed.  It's as if the post office said "we've noticed how popular Bank of America is, so from now on the price to mail letters and packages to or from that bank is double."  It's just a legal way to extort money from businesses that they do not provide a service for.  It's a free market, but in the sense that you can have a better product or sell your product at a better price.  Using position to interfere with anothers business is not free market.  Like when Microsoft told companies they could not put netscape on computers with windows.  They were not making a better product just using their position to stop a free market, sure you could use a computer other than a windows computer but that isn't going to change the fact that netscapes business was hurt (and never recovered).  Americans have typically made laws to stop business practices that are caustic to capitalism and the free market.

    It's the economic implications that are problematic.  If they choose which sites are worthy of the bandwidth you payed for than business will be hurt.  I'm not sure where you got the foodstamp thing as losing neutrality would most likely be less expensive (with fewer options) to the average consumer, with Cable companies shifting a higher cost to businesses.  The governments case here is that nuetrality promotes free market, which promotes competition which in the end creates more tax revenue for the Government.  There's also a question of how American sites will compete against a neutral european market.  Foreign companies could operate with less overhead and be more successful.  It's not a question of "how will we live without facebook, youtube etc."  The question is how will the people who are employed by those companies do without jobs?  What will  happen to all the startup businesses that have made Americans jobs and money when they can't compete with the speed of big businesses?
     

Share