This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: jacobe001

Prior to the year 2015, we had a Free and Open Internet.

Are you sure?

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

www.nbcnews.com...

Another:
arstechnica.com...

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nope.

Just aware of reality.

Can you explain how this is a good thing? How it will help the flow of information and not create more censorship?

Or are you just trolling?

Are you saying that prior to 2015, the flow of information wasn't exponential?

What horrors did you personally witness prior to 2015?

Prior to the year 2015, we had a Free and Open Internet.
After the year 2015, we have a Free and Open Internet.

We have the same internet NOW as we did before 2015.
Can you explain this?

So if its the same, then nn really didn't do anything and nothing will change, everyone is just overreacting.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage

Under Title II, carriers were required to share access to their infrastructure. Meaning they were required to "rent" access to other ISPs. Meaning a new ISP did not have to install its own infrastructure.

The big boys don't like that. The big boys won.

No one, big boys or not, should be required to share their infrastructure.

Then they need to relinquish control over all pipelines that are still in use in rural areas supplied by the government.
They also need to payback the initial investment the government put into it via research.
They also need to pay back all subsidies that were given to them by the tax payers under the promise to expand the infrastructure to get it up to modern standards.
They also need to boot all the lobbyists out of Washington DC

This would pretty much kill them

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jacobe001

Prior to the year 2015, we had a Free and Open Internet.

Are you sure?

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

www.nbcnews.com...

In relation to piracy. Remember that Comcast is also in the business of movie as well.

Google does the same, or worse, if it suspects you of piracy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jacobe001

That is making them bigger, not competing with them.

The revenue they were allowed to collect was regulated.

It is analogous to cellular telephone services. There are cell carriers who use Verizon's network who do indeed, compete with Verizon.

Ok, I did not know this, another instance of good regulations

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Ever have to sit through the 30 second unskippable ads on a YouTube video? Thanks net-neutrality...

Youtube is not an ISP provider and gatekeeper.
You have the choice to go elsewhere.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Ever have to sit through the 30 second unskippable ads on a YouTube video? Thanks net-neutrality...

Youtube is not an ISP provider and gatekeeper.
You have the choice to go elsewhere.

And when did ISPs do this prior to 2015?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Google does the same, or worse, if it suspects you of piracy.

And you're ok with that.

a reply to: Phage

It has to do with the 1934 Communications Act. Specifically Title II. Which is what net neutrality is about. Which is what the topic is.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

Net Neutrality

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Google does the same, or worse, if it suspects you of piracy.

And you're ok with that.

I don't care. But why don't we hold Google's feet to the fire as well? Oh that's right, they support nn.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

www.highbeam.com...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

Same source.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jacobe001

Which is actually criminal since tax payers built the initial backbone of the internet from one side of the country to the other.

Ok, so internet should be free and run by the government. Sure thing.

That is not what I said.
The infrastructure should be treated like a utility since tax payers had a huge initial investment in it.

When the internet first came around, dial up was all there was backed up by phone lines and there were thousands of ISPs across the country competing unlike a handful today.


I remember the days of paying 10 bucks for free unlimited internet because of competition in capitalism

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Google isn't a provider it's a search engine.

When you type in breitbart.com it doesn't block you from access or throttle your service.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

But why don't we hold Google's feet to the fire as well?

If they were doing it when they were regulated under Title II, their feet should be held to the fire.

If they're doing it now...oh well.

a reply to: jacobe001

The infrastructure should be treated like a utility since tax payers had a huge initial investment in it.

Under Title II it is. For telephones, and cell phones. But not for the internet. Not now.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

www.highbeam.com...

That seems to not have required net-neutrality.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jacobe001

The infrastructure should be treated like a utility since tax payers had a huge initial investment in it.

Under Title II it is. For telephones, and cell phones. But not for the internet. Not now.

And this should change, but there are too many still lost that think the Big Corporations and Lobbyists do not own the government.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.

Same source.

Granted, the concept of "common carrier" comes from your telecomunications act, but I'm not sure how Net Neutrality is about that specific act.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

But why don't we hold Google's feet to the fire as well?

If they were doing it when they were regulated under Title II, their feet should be held to the fire.

If they're doing it now...oh well.

They do. Copyright infringement enforcement as a means of "network management" I believe is the phrase.