FCC regulating net neutrality

[Gamma Male]

So, should the FCC step in to protect net neutrality or allow the internet companies to let certain websites pay for special treatment?

While I normally detest the FCC, in this instance I agree that net neutrality must be protected.

[sqishy]

Net neutrality should be maintined yes, no country should have more power over it than another

[Typhlosion]

I am against net neutrality. Here's the problem:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle) that Internet service providers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider) and governments should treat all data on the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu) in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-kraemer-def-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-berners-lee-def-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-nn-for-google-users-4) Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards) allow those on the internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-5) A "closed internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards), artificially degrade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping) some services, or explicitly filter out content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship).

Lets say that there is some illegal material on the web that can be easily accessed. I, not knowing it was illegal in Brazil, almost screwed up the whole family. That and other content, as I believe, should be filtered. Rare exceptions.

In practice, however, I do know that net neutrality is more good than those few exceptions above.

In theory again, it is their service, not ours. I find it ridiculous to see people having rules on what they can and can't do on their service. Want a better and/or different one? Make your own.

[tovaris]

how can you regučate so ethi g that is not supozed to be regučated?
No! No goverment agency of any country should heve contol of data flowing frew the web... All dada is equal, no exceptions

[Gamma Male]

how can you regučate so ethi g that is not supozed to be regučated?
No! No goverment agency of any country should heve contol of data flowing frew the web... All dada is equal, no exceptions

You misunderstand. The FCC would not have control over the information. All net neutrality means is that companies wouldn't be able to pick and choose what websites load faster and sell higher speeds to certain websites. All information would be equal.

[tovaris]

You misunderstand. The FCC would not have control over the information. All net neutrality means is that companies wouldn't be able to pick and choose what websites load faster and sell higher speeds to certain websites. All information would be equal.

nonono, that should not be alpwed, equač speeds for everione!
Thats what the web is about, you cant have a greater speed for a porn site who has money, than for a site of a student project that doesnt!
We have equal speed for all data pakages, (unlike thay Fürte Reich) and so shal it remain, data pakagw speed equalety is there for a reason.

[StoppingTime]

I am against net neutrality. Here's the problem:



Lets say that there is some illegal material on the web that can be easily accessed. I, not knowing it was illegal in Brazil, almost screwed up the whole family. That and other content, as I believe, should be filtered. Rare exceptions.


Internet Service Providers are not law agencies - they aren't the ones who should be filtering illegal/copyrighted/etc material from websites/hosts. The copyright owners of the respected works should be.



In theory again, it is their service, not ours. I find it ridiculous to see people having rules on what they can and can't do on their service. Want a better and/or different one? Make your own.

Net Neutrality is trying to reclassify the internet as a Common Carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Carrier). In the US, things like telephones, electricity, etc. are services that also are classified as common carriers. This means that those who regulate these services can only give you the service, but they cannot pick and choose to only allow you some of the service you're paying for.
If the Internet isn't reclassified as a Common Carrier, then this would mean that the ISPs would be able to charge you more to access certain websites at "faster" (though in reality, they'd only be faster because everything else is slowed down) speeds. This is like saying that an electric company can say, "You may use X watts, but if you go over that number, we'll start to dim your lights/turn off your electricity unless you pay us more."

[Typhlosion]

Internet Service Providers are not law agencies - they aren't the ones who should be filtering illegal/copyrighted/etc material from websites/hosts. The copyright owners of the respected works should be. Agreed, but wouldn't the government also be held from censorship if a neutral net is held? And there's my problem.

Net Neutrality is trying to reclassify the internet as a Common Carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Carrier). In the US, things like telephones, electricity, etc. are services that also are classified as common carriers. This means that those who regulate these services can only give you the service, but they cannot pick and choose to only allow you some of the service you're paying for.
If the Internet isn't reclassified as a Common Carrier, then this would mean that the ISPs would be able to charge you more to access certain websites at "faster" (though in reality, they'd only be faster because everything else is slowed down) speeds. This is like saying that an electric company can say, "You may use X watts, but if you go over that number, we'll start to dim your lights/turn off your electricity unless you pay us more."
While I wouldn't like that, I don't see why companies shouldn't be free to do that.

[StoppingTime]

Agreed, but wouldn't the government also be held from censorship if a neutral net is held? And there's my problem.

What do you mean exactly? People post copyrighted, illegal, etc, material on the Internet all the time, that wouldn't be affected by net neutrality. I think you're entering a different topic and and a different debate, but do correct me if I misunderstood.


While I wouldn't like that, I don't see why companies shouldn't be free to do that.

Because it allows them to do any of the following (and more)

Charge you and/or certain websites (say, Netflix, since they're a huge competition to ISPs, who happen to almost always provide you with cable, and Netflix is taking away the need for expensive cable) a premium to allow you to access it "in the fast lane" (though as I said before, it's not actually any faster).

Slow down websites that compete with services that the ISPs offer (once again, like Netflix, Skype, Amazon Instant Video, etc) so that people will switch to expensive plans just to get "faster" service.

While the ISPs control your connection to the Internet, they shouldn't control what's available to you to access on the Internet. It's not their business what you're doing on the Internet - that's up to assorted law enforcement agencies to take care of.

[Typhlosion]

What do you mean exactly? People post copyrighted, illegal, etc, material on the Internet all the time, that wouldn't be affected by net neutrality. I think you're entering a different topic and and a different debate, but do correct me if I misunderstood. That's also part of Net Neutrality, actually - the ability to control content, as a whole. And while I'm theoretically against it, I do prefer it hanging around. Save the very illegal material.



Because it allows them to do any of the following (and more)

Charge you and/or certain websites (say, Netflix, since they're a huge competition to ISPs, who happen to almost always provide you with cable, and Netflix is taking away the need for expensive cable) a premium to allow you to access it "in the fast lane" (though as I said before, it's not actually any faster).

Slow down websites that compete with services that the ISPs offer (once again, like Netflix, Skype, Amazon Instant Video, etc) so that people will switch to expensive plans just to get "faster" service.

While the ISPs control your connection to the Internet, they shouldn't control what's available to you to access on the Internet. It's not their business what you're doing on the Internet - that's up to assorted law enforcement agencies to take care of. Yet it's not our business to demand full access to everything from a non-governmental 3rd party. Any access routing/speeding/slowing could all be based of IPs w/o a single registered.

Also, maybe this would go off-topic, but I don't think the net should be neutral regarding government powers. I think the government should have the power to control internet access - in full force.

[StoppingTime]

That's also part of Net Neutrality, actually - the ability to control content, as a whole. And while I'm theoretically against it, I do prefer it hanging around. Save the very illegal material.


It'd be part of net neutrality in a way, I suppose, but it's not what the current discussion is, which is the reclassification as a common carrier. That shouldn't have anything to do with blocking certain websites, but rather, it's about how those sites may be delivered, and what powers ISPs do and do not have.


Yet it's not our business to demand full access to everything from a non-governmental 3rd party.

Why not? Governments don't own or control the Internet as a whole - it's independent of any and all government agencies.


Any access routing/speeding/slowing could all be based of IPs w/o a single registered.


..hm?


Also, maybe this would go off-topic, but I don't think the net should be neutral regarding government powers. I think the government should have the power to control internet access - in full force.

Not too off topic, no.

And why do you think that way? I'll save any dispute until after I know a bit more :P

[britishboy]

how can you regučate so ethi g that is not supozed to be regučated?
No! No goverment agency of any country should heve contol of data flowing frew the web... All dada is equal, no exceptions

Not if you pay more for it.

[StoppingTime]

Not if you pay more for it.

But you're not paying for data, you're paying to "receive" that data from cable companies who should have no say in how fast you receive data that has nothing to do with them.

[Jean Poutine]

Lets say that there is some illegal material on the web that can be easily accessed. I, not knowing it was illegal in Brazil, almost screwed up the whole family. That and other content, as I believe, should be filtered. Rare exceptions.

Knowing what is or isn't illegal in your country is your responsibility, and yours alone.

Since illegality has no correlation with usefulness or morality, that information cannot easily be divided along moral or useful lines, and that the Internet works well at it is as a repository of information, no matter how damnable, it would be unfair to filter "illegal" sites.

In theory again, it is their service, not ours. I find it ridiculous to see people having rules on what they can and can't do on their service. Want a better and/or different one? Make your own.

Yes, because we all have the ability to create out of thin air an ISP and because the ISP market isn't verging on an oligopoly in many countries because established ISPs are simply too big, established and profitable to fail. Add no net neutrality and the big ISPs get even more of an unfair advantage because they can rack up additional fees from content providers and/or users, while a new start-up "net neutral" ISP will find itself quickly cash starved.

Rules are needed to both prevent unfair competition (the Netflix example) and to protect the consumer (as access and content are completely separate on the Internet), doubly more so in the case of Internet since it's the last great equalizer. Would you like to see rich people get amazing Netflix tubes while the rest of the mortals actually have their access speeds lowered to enable rich fucks to enjoy content ahead of all of us without having to share their tubes with the plebs? And of course the big ISP has just the replacement for you, no additional charges...unless you want your videos to load faster than a handicapped snail's pace in which case, pay up, sucker!

[britishboy]

But you're not paying for data, you're paying to "receive" that data from cable companies who should have no say in how fast you receive data that has nothing to do with them.

If it makes my internet faster I will happily upgrade.

[tovaris]

Not if you pay more for it.

NO! We have data laws that state all data speed should be equal, if i have a 1T/s transfer rate all data should be transfered at the same speed, not some sites faster than others, that is imoral, ilegal, and yust not right...

[LuciferSam]

If it makes my internet faster I will happily upgrade.

But wouldn't you rather not have to pay any extra at all?

Also, much of this may have been said already, but it's relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

Merged double post. ~StoppingTime

[StoppingTime]

If it makes my internet faster I will happily upgrade.

That's not the point. The point is that it should be illegal for ISPs to distinguish and separate different websites' data (that they don't own) for their own profit. That doesn't make any sense.

[britishboy]

That's not the point. The point is that it should be illegal for ISPs to distinguish and separate different websites' data (that they don't own) for their own profit. That doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does, you already pay more for speed and bandwidth so I don't see how this is any different.

[StoppingTime]

Yes it does, you already pay more for speed and bandwidth so I don't see how this is any different.

This is different because instead of paying for "more" bandwidth overall, you're paying ISPs (who have absolutely nothing to do with the content you're generally trying to access online) a premium to give you services that they don't own or have any right to regulate. It's comparable to an electric company saying that you need to buy a special plan if you want to use products that use X watts at a time, or that you need to pay a premium if you want to use X kind of bulb.

The TL;DR of it is this: Internet Service Providers shouldn't have the right to control how fast specific content that they don't own gets to you. They can charge you for an overall speed, but they can't start offering "the YouTube plan" or "the Netflix streaming all-in-one bundle."

[Body odah Man]

So, should the FCC step in to protect net neutrality or allow the internet companies to let certain websites pay for special treatment?

While I normally detest the FCC, in this instance I agree that net neutrality must be protected.

FCC? Could you perhaps elaborate? :)

[Vlerchan]

Internet Service Providers shouldn't have the right to control how fast specific content that they don't own gets to you.
I think we should just hold (more, in your case) faith in the free market: it'll get us the best solution, it always does.

Also, it actually costs your ISP money to slow down your broadband like they do. I just feel like everyone should be aware of that.

[Gamma Male]

FCC? Could you perhaps elaborate? :)

The federal communications commission.

[Body odah Man]

The federal communications commission.

And that's in charge of what exactly? (European here so don't really know about it)

[Gamma Male]

And that's in charge of what exactly? (European here so don't really know about it)

Why communications, of course! :lol:

Radio, tv, that sorta thing. The reason I said I normally detest them is because half of what they do is just needless censorship, and I'm strongly anti-censorship.

Somebody accidentally says fuck or flashes a nipple during a live broadcast

A bunch of bitchy self righteous soccer moms with nothing better to do file complaints in the name of "PROTECING DUR CHRILDREN!!!1!!11 D : WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?????117 WHA ABOUT THA CHILDREN!?!?"

The FCC fines the company that aired the content

The company bows down and apologizes


But this? Protecting net neutrality? This is a legitimate function.

[britishboy]

This is different because instead of paying for "more" bandwidth overall, you're paying ISPs (who have absolutely nothing to do with the content you're generally trying to access online) a premium to give you services that they don't own or have any right to regulate. It's comparable to an electric company saying that you need to buy a special plan if you want to use products that use X watts at a time, or that you need to pay a premium if you want to use X kind of bulb.

The TL;DR of it is this: Internet Service Providers shouldn't have the right to control how fast specific content that they don't own gets to you. They can charge you for an overall speed, but they can't start offering "the YouTube plan" or "the Netflix streaming all-in-one bundle."

If it makes my internet even faster, I want it.

[Vlerchan]

If it makes my internet even faster, I want it.
It doesn't make your internet faster.

It just slows it down for everyone else.

[Harry Smith]

If it makes my internet even faster, I want it.

I think I'm the 3rd person to say this-it doesn't make your internet faster

[Body odah Man]

Why communications, of course! :lol:

Radio, tv, that sorta thing. The reason I said I normally detest them is because half of what they do is just needless censorship, and I'm strongly anti-censorship.

Somebody accidentally says fuck or flashes a nipple during a live broadcast

A bunch of bitchy self righteous soccer moms with nothing better to do file complaints in the name of "PROTECING DUR CHRILDREN!!!1!!11 D : WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?????117 WHA ABOUT THA CHILDREN!?!?"

The FCC fines the company that aired the content

The company bows down and apologizes


But this? Protecting net neutrality? This is a legitimate function.

Ahhhh, I see. Yeah I agree with you then.