NET NEUTRALITY: A look at your ISP in months to come...

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Sure, maybe we have it wrong. Could you clarify something for me then?

1) How is the internet currently unfair?
2) How will this make it more fair, exactly?

to clarify, I am being sincere.

Originally posted by sstark
1) How is the internet currently unfair?

Right now, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have the ability to block any websites they wish so that you can't view them. They can block ATS, blogs, etc., and only allow you to view what the ISPs want you to view. They can also force you to pay more to view individual websites. That is how it is RIGHT NOW, nothing is stopping them from doing it tomorrow.

It would be unfair if all ISPs started to do it. Although ISPs should be able to do what they want, it will kill the internet if they do. That is BAD.

Originally posted by sstark
2) How will this make it more fair, exactly?

Net Neutrality should stop ISPs from being able to block websites. With net neutrality the government wont allow ISPs to censor content. This will keep the internet open and free.

Net Neutrality is actually a good thing for the internet, however, many people still don't understand it.

Few people just don't want it because they don't want the government to have any say on what ISPs do. They want ISPs free to do whatever they want (including block and censor the internet) rather than to have an open and free internet.

Other people don't even know what net neutrality is, they just think it is a bad thing because it's the governments idea. It's like everyone believes the government is bad, and everything the government does is bad. They got used to everything being bad, so when the government finally does something good, they mistake it for bad without even understanding it's good. It's funny...

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Right now, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have the ability to block any websites they wish so that you can't view them. They can block ATS, blogs, etc., and only allow you to view what the ISPs want you to view. They can also force you to pay more to view individual websites. That is how it is RIGHT NOW, nothing is stopping them from doing it tomorrow.

Are there any examples of this happening, except when ordered to by the law, government or bandwidth restrictions? I feel this scenario is highly unlikely, and a bad move for the ISP's.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Net Neutrality should stop ISPs from being able to block websites. With net neutrality the government wont allow ISPs to censor content. This will keep the internet open and free.

HOW will they block this? Governments want to control the net, not keep it neutral. So is it a fine? Is there monitoring? Persons who physically come and review systems?



I'm not yet sold here.

Originally posted by sstark
Are there any examples of this happening, except when ordered to by the law, government or bandwidth restrictions? I feel this scenario is highly unlikely, and a bad move for the ISP's.

Yes, one example is Comcast blocking peer-to-peer file sharing applications.

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic.

...and the FCC couldn't do anything about it.

Court says FCC cannot stop Comcast from blocking Bittorrent.

Here is a recent video about it:



The problem with this is that they are discriminating the data which passes through their services. Where does it stop? They can block any websites they wish, and any services they wish. That includes their competitors. That is already happening in many ways.

Once major corporations start censoring their competitors, and blocking access to certain websites, this can cause many issues. New innovative services, businesses, and websites created in someones bedroom or garage could be stopped in its tracks by mega corporations and their censorship. As soon as they start blocking certain data, they also start blocking free speech.

ISPs and other providers for wireless internet could also start making you and other businesses pay extra "tolls" to view or provide certain information.

Comcast forces Netflix partner to pay a ‘toll’ to deliver video.

This quote sums it up:

"In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs," noted The New York Times' Brian Stelter.

The above is control, and censorship...

Please watch the video on the bottom of this page:

Engadget explains net neutrality -- and our full interview with Professor Tim Wu!

...and this video is to the point:

Originally posted by sstark
HOW will they block this?

If you try to access something on the internet and you can not, and it turns out your internet service provider was blocking it, I am pretty sure you will be able to file complaints, and an investigation will take place. The government will have laws about blocking content.

Originally posted by sstark
Governments want to control the net, not keep it neutral.

That is not entirely correct. Yes governments want to increase security on the internet, and reduce fraud, etc., but they do not want to block and censor everything. CORPORATIONS wan to control the net.

Originally posted by sstark
So is it a fine?

Probably.

Originally posted by sstark
Is there monitoring?

That is not needed. Their customers will probably file a complaint if they find that their ISP is blocking websites.

Originally posted by sstark
Persons who physically come and review systems?

That is not necessary.

Originally posted by sstark
I'm not yet sold here.

I suggest reading more about net neutrality. It's actually a good thing, and the confused fearful ones are making out to be bad.

www.openinternet.gov...

Watch this too...

This is a good video to:

Ok yes, I fully agree with you there. Thank you for the videos. Comcast, RoadRunner, and others have always metered torrent data, have they gone further than just torrent data? The load from torrents almost brought their networks down, they had to do something.

Our concerns are not about that, it's about the surcharge in the OP's original post. How is keeping the internet on an even playing field mean we pay for only the few websites? This seems very wrong and backwards. The problem we have is with the available content vs what we pay changing a lot. It's this paid packaging and new price scale, which means the exact opposite of net neutrality.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

You will have to pay extra, just like TV, to get what you want.

You want HBO and Sports on TV? Cable companies have been charging you per package.
You want YouTube and CNN on your internet? You will have to pay extra for those websites.

edit on 21-12-2010 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)

Can you please explain how this works with new neutrality? This is catering to just a few websites.

Did I completely miss something here?

Originally posted by sstark
Ok yes, I fully agree with you there. Thank you for the videos. Comcast, RoadRunner, and others have always metered torrent data, have they gone further than just torrent data? The load from torrents almost brought their networks down, they had to do something.

Our concerns are not about that,

"Torrent data" is no different than any other data. A "torrent" is just a unique way to download data bit-by-bit from multiple sources that have the same data, and that increases the speed of the download. It is really no different from having a video/audio conference with multiple people connected to each other.

If corporations can "meter" peer-to-peer file sharing, what stops them from metering peer-to-peer communication? Nothing... Your concerns should be about that.

Originally posted by sstark
, it's about the surcharge in the OP's original post. How is keeping the internet on an even playing field mean we pay for only the few websites? This seems very wrong and backwards.

The OP has it all wrong, that is what I was trying to say. The corporations want to surcharge, and net neutrality wants to stop it. The OP thinks net neutrality is the surcharge, that is completely wrong.

The title is; "NET NEUTRALITY: A look at your ISP in months to come..."

The title should be; "A look at your ISP in months to come... WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY".

Originally posted by sstark
The problem we have is with the available content vs what we pay changing a lot. It's this paid packaging and new price scale, which means the exact opposite of net neutrality.

Yes exactly.... The paid packaging and new price scale is what the corporations want. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent that, not create that. Net Neutrality is to stop what the OP thinks is going to happen. That is all explained in the video I posted.

Originally posted by sstark

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

You will have to pay extra, just like TV, to get what you want.

You want HBO and Sports on TV? Cable companies have been charging you per package.
You want YouTube and CNN on your internet? You will have to pay extra for those websites.

Can you please explain how this works with new neutrality? This is catering to just a few websites.

Did I completely miss something here?

Yes, you completely missed everything... Net Neutrality PREVENTS / STOPS / KILLS the catering to websites, it doesn't cause it.



Unless I am reading the OP completely wrong, he isn't to clear about his position in this topic, but it seems the OP thinks Net Neutrality will cause corporations to meter or charge per website. It's the opposite, Net Neutrality will prevent the corporations from metering or charging per website.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Thank you for taking the time to clear that up. I hope it helps others also.

Here in Canada, Shaw is fairly clean with this business. Yes, there's caps and downgrades during peak times, but that's a good thing IMO. I feel for all comcast users. I used to do tech support for roadrunner internet, and same thing there. They'd block whole ranges of ip's, including sites, just for one of them sending spam. This resulted in large portions of the net being unaccessible. As a tech, I was not allowed to mention this on support calls with customers. .. Also, we weren't allowed to tell a customer to reset their computer, for some reason, so we all had shared a handful of tips that'd make windows crash and force a reset. heh. good times. that was around 2004.

If they were to change the internet to that model it would only censor free speech and information.


Piracy, file sharing etc would still continue. It would just return to its origional form, people actualy picking up their computers, driving to a mates place, and setting up there with other mates. Heck, if anything it will protect the pirates more as they're forced to do their transactions offline, rather than online, so they "should" in theory at least - be harder to keep tabs on.


If the internet was to go to this style.......

How would groups of people like ourselves continue discussions?

And i also think it may be harder for groups to have private discussions if they're in a seperate country as well?

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Too late im afraid. The info and truth has already been spread.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Wow...thanks for posting this image on here... This is NOT something I would ever want to have to deal with, or I might have to just break my internet habit. I would no longer be able to visit sites for torrents

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Where did you see this from? Is this subscription on top of your internet acess fees? How does that work for wi-fi. This can't be every company. Is this only in Canada. Nothing suprises me anymore. I have heard so many rumors on the internet that have become a reality. What about sites like netflix which you already pay a seperate fee, online courses or work web sites?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Wasn't this already approved? Censorship, thy name is corporatism.

It is the Govt involvement that created this.

If one ISP tried this, and the others did not, then that ISP would fail. Or, should I say that they should be able to fail?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by sstark
1) How is the internet currently unfair?

Right now, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have the ability to block any websites they wish so that you can't view them. They can block ATS, blogs, etc., and only allow you to view what the ISPs want you to view. They can also force you to pay more to view individual websites. That is how it is RIGHT NOW, nothing is stopping them from doing it tomorrow.

It would be unfair if all ISPs started to do it. Although ISPs should be able to do what they want, it will kill the internet if they do. That is BAD.

Originally posted by sstark
2) How will this make it more fair, exactly?

Net Neutrality should stop ISPs from being able to block websites. With net neutrality the government wont allow ISPs to censor content. This will keep the internet open and free.

Net Neutrality is actually a good thing for the internet, however, many people still don't understand it.

Few people just don't want it because they don't want the government to have any say on what ISPs do. They want ISPs free to do whatever they want (including block and censor the internet) rather than to have an open and free internet.

Other people don't even know what net neutrality is, they just think it is a bad thing because it's the governments idea. It's like everyone believes the government is bad, and everything the government does is bad. They got used to everything being bad, so when the government finally does something good, they mistake it for bad without even understanding it's good. It's funny...

edit on 4-1-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

This is mostly incorrect.
Net Neutrality gives the power and control of the internet to the Fed Govt, and takes it away from the people (i.e. companies and corporations).
If an ISP blocks a website, I have yet to see it done, then they would loss business.
I work for an ISP. I know what is being talked about both inside and outside. The company I work for does not throttle down nor block sites. I have yet to see any other ISPs doing this. It is mostly a BS solution without a problem.
So what if an ISP wanted to block or censor a website. Move to another ISP. The free market will drive the ones out of business. Look at how much Comcast has lost in customer's due to their price increases?
Some of the main points of it is to provide the internet to everyone, as a blanket solution to the masses that are outraged at everyone and everything currently.

I did some research and At and T already does on this on their date plans for cell phones. Who is to say they won't do it for regular internet acess. I know when I had unlimited acess from Boost mobile; I had to pay to acess most downloads on my phone. I hope that the internet does not become like the internet on cell phones. Cell phone internet is horrible; you can't watch youtube or do much with it.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
I did some research and At and T already does on this on their date plans for cell phones. Who is to say they won't do it for regular internet acess. I know when I had unlimited acess from Boost mobile; I had to pay to acess most downloads on my phone. I hope that the internet does not become like the internet on cell phones. Cell phone internet is horrible; you can't watch youtube or do much with it.

That is not for censorship practices, but has to do with either bandwidth allotment or if the site is known to have virus/trojan horse type issues.

reply to post by macman


Ok so this will be totally different. It will be more restricted to sites vs bandwidth?

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by macman

 

Ok so this will be totally different. It will be more restricted to sites vs bandwidth?

Well, if the GOvt deems that the site is bad, they can impose restrictions.
If it gets shot down, then it is restricted due to bandwidth, in regards to phone web surfing.
I have only seen throttling down bandwidth for sites between the end user and the DSL DSLAM (Equipment between the end user and ISP switch site). This is done during peak usage times in an attempt to provide equal bandwidth between all the users.

that sounds scary. They can deem anything bad really.