The Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality

Why shouldn't the internet be controlled by greed, just as damn near everything else around is.

a reply to: DBCowboy


This is a problem. Net Neutrality has allowed many companies to force cities into only allowing them to use only their service within city limits. When net neutrality was ended, numerous service providers started to offer FiOS, but since Washington State decided to make net neutrality the rule of the land, those companies were forced to pull out. Now Comcast told us that we'll be eligible for FiOS in 2020 at the soonest, while the other companies were quoting that they could get it going at the end of the summer. One of the companies even owns the Fiber Trunk that Comcast uses, but Comcast doesn't want to provide FiOS in outlaying area until later (that was strait from a Comcast employee that lives nearby.

If the Government wants to offer internet service to everyone at a reasonable price, then I think that the US Post Office should be used as an internet service provider.

***ADDED COMMENT BELOW***

A lot of people are talking about how the Internet will be more expensive if net neutrality remains gone, but here's the issues with that;
ISP currently charge people different prices for different types of service (ie pay more get faster service)
More companies that are allowed to play means prices will be more competitive
The removal of net neutrality means that ISPs can't force cities into using only their services, but instead have to go with a supply and demand option of provisions.

a reply to: Guyfriday

What does NN have to do with who has the monopoly in town?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: stormcell

being that it is a natural monopoly essentially that these very small amount of companies have this needs to be regulated

And regulated is the key term
Government regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and imbibing themselves with pocket money

a reply to: roadgravel

By stating that the "net" is a public utility, service providers are able to force cities into using their services. I'm not sure how else I can put this. Go look around and see how many companies are servicing cities, and look at how many were before the "net" became a public utility.

Fair pricing in a non-net neutral world is based off of the number of providers that would be available to the public. As for the issues of limiting speeds or requiring extra costs for running a site, well that's a Constitutional Issue (1st Amendment) and can be contested in court.

But to better answer your question, Companies use the issue of "Public Utilities" to force their company's service as the only service a city should use. By them doing this, it forces other providers the inability to offer their services. That's how a city wide monopoly is created.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: stormcell

being that it is a natural monopoly essentially that these very small amount of companies have this needs to be regulated

And regulated is the key term
Government regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and imbibing themselves with pocket money

Oddly enough if the US Post Office would become an ISP, and offer nation wide FiOS to all of it's service areas, the US Government could charge a fairly reasonible price for service, people would pay them for it, and any profit that a commercial ISP wold have gained goes strait to the governement, bypassing any taxes to collect. It's win win. People gain access to a fast reliable internet service, the Post Office evolves for the 21st century, and the Governemt gains a really great source of income.

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: stormcell

being that it is a natural monopoly essentially that these very small amount of companies have this needs to be regulated

And regulated is the key term
Government regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and imbibing themselves with pocket money

Oddly enough if the US Post Office would become an ISP, and offer nation wide FiOS to all of it's service areas, the US Government could charge a fairly reasonible price for service, people would pay them for it, and any profit that a commercial ISP wold have gained goes strait to the governement, bypassing any taxes to collect. It's win win. People gain access to a fast reliable internet service, the Post Office evolves for the 21st century, and the Governemt gains a really great source of income.

It doesn't work that way
Never has , never will
Sometimes I wish it could , but that is a fantasy.
I am a realist with little to no imagination .

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: stormcell

being that it is a natural monopoly essentially that these very small amount of companies have this needs to be regulated

And regulated is the key term
Government regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and imbibing themselves with pocket money

Oddly enough if the US Post Office would become an ISP, and offer nation wide FiOS to all of it's service areas, the US Government could charge a fairly reasonible price for service, people would pay them for it, and any profit that a commercial ISP wold have gained goes strait to the governement, bypassing any taxes to collect. It's win win. People gain access to a fast reliable internet service, the Post Office evolves for the 21st century, and the Governemt gains a really great source of income.

That's all fine until the next Obama comes along and targets their political opponents by denying them service, tracking their net usage and using it against them when they have control of the levers. Government shouldn't be in control of the internet spigot. Free market Capitalism with light regulation to prevent monopolies is the way to go for the Free World. Commies would love the government in control of everything though, go look at Venezuela for the results.

a reply to: Gothmog


I don't see why not. If the Post Office provided services along with commercial services (like how the USPS, Fed-EX, UPS, and such works today), then I don't see how it could be a bad thing. More choices mean more competition, which means better services and/or prices. It's win-win.

i have a feeling this battle will rage on forever and end up costing us tax payers alot in the meantime....

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: stormcell

being that it is a natural monopoly essentially that these very small amount of companies have this needs to be regulated

And regulated is the key term
Government regulation = revenue = taxes = stealing from the poor and imbibing themselves with pocket money

Oddly enough if the US Post Office would become an ISP, and offer nation wide FiOS to all of it's service areas, the US Government could charge a fairly reasonible price for service, people would pay them for it, and any profit that a commercial ISP wold have gained goes strait to the governement, bypassing any taxes to collect. It's win win. People gain access to a fast reliable internet service, the Post Office evolves for the 21st century, and the Governemt gains a really great source of income.

That's all fine until the next Obama comes along and targets their political opponents by denying them service, tracking their net usage and using it against them when they have control of the levers. Government shouldn't be in control of the internet spigot. Free market Capitalism with light regulation to prevent monopolies is the way to go for the Free World. Commies would love the government in control of everything though, go look at Venezuela for the results.

So what part of USPS and commercial services aren't people here getting? Right now if you don't like the Post Office you can go the many other delivery services that offer the same deal. What I'm saying is that the USPS should expand what they do to Internet services too. Don't like/trust the USPS, then go get Comcast or something. I'm not talking about removing options, but rather stating that if the government wants to ensure a fair price for a service then it should just offer the service too, and force the commercial services to be competitive with them.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Gothmog


I don't see why not. If the Post Office provided services along with commercial services (like how the USPS, Fed-EX, UPS, and such works today), then I don't see how it could be a bad thing. More choices mean more competition, which means better services and/or prices. It's win-win.

You still havent got it have you ?
The government and commercial services have never worked out
Check out the TSM after being "Federalized"
How well did that work out ?
I realize your "Don Quixote" idealism behind what you are saying , but it would never work out.

a reply to: dug88

OK, I will admit (to my shame, I should know more in my occupation) that I am still not completely 100% sure how this works... but from what I understand so far, it's about time the Democrats did something right in the Senate!

Net neutrality is about the biggest thing I disagreed with Trump on. At least one of the biggest.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Guyfriday

You tried.

Goddamn I know i said I wouldn't but....

A lot of people seem to think of the internet as a service that's provided to you by the government or a company...it's not...it's not comparable to the post office, TV, or anything like this.

The closest comparison would be shortwave radio. The internet isn't just your computer accepting information from somewhere. It's a network that consists of every machine connected to every other machine that's part of that network. Net neutrality ensures your computer is treated the same as joe bob's home computer, netflix servers, the servers that host ATS, or every other machine connected to the internet.

Without net neutrality companies get to decide which computers you can connect to, how much you have to pay to connect to a specific computer and so on and so forth.

If anyone here remembers dialup and AOL # where you had to pay every time you connected to the internet and for every website you visited...this is what you want if you are against this.

Right now the internet is fairly amazing, anyone can pay a bit of money, get a website and have a platform to do nearly anything they want. Almost any information is available at nearly anyone's fingertips and it's pretty much the only time.in history when nearly anyone, rich or poor, can have their voice heard as loud as anyone else, can have a chance to do something that affects the world or at least connects them to things.

There hasn't really ever been another time in history where regular people had the same access to information or a way to connect with the world.like that.

Taking away net neutrality will restore the old order of some elite having the power over that network. Corporations are not better.than the government. Corporations give zero #s, at least governments have to pretend to be accountable and at least some semblance of a system to affect change with things you're not happy with. Private corporations do not have that. The big ones have more power than a lot of.countries, work internationally and care nothing for anyone anywhere.

Handing over the internet to.
Them is going to create a #ty corporate oligarchy where the internet will be reduced to another #ty content and product distribution mechanism instead of the amazing interconnected network of billions of,machines doing all sorts of things it is now.

scripting.com...
This article is.somewhat unrelated but the last quotes sorta summarize my points.

Deliberately taking features out of the web, claiming pieces of the web as corporate property, forcing the history offline, all are terrible abuses of what make the Internet great.... The Internet is a place for the people, like parks, libraries, museums, historic places. It's okay if corporations want to exploit the net, like DisneyLand or cruise lines, but not at the expense of the natural features of the net.

a reply to: dug88

Without net neutrality companies get to decide which computers you can connect to, how much you have to pay to connect to a specific computer and so on and so forth.

If anyone here remembers dialup and AOL # where you had to pay every time you connected to the internet and for every website you visited...this is what you want if you are against this.

First: As I stated in one of my posts, this is prevented by the first amendment of the US Constitution, and if a limit is created, then it can be contested in court. It was no different than when telecom companies tried doing the same thing, and those rules (laws) still apply to ISPs with/without net neutrality.

Secondly: It's different now since the infrastructure is now in place to accommodate internet traffic. Back in the early days it just wasn't there and the internet access was being ran over decades old systems that weren't set up for it. Hence the legal rational for charging up front fees for access.

So, since you seem to be so into net neutrality, could you possibly list the advantages and disadvantages of net neutrality vs non-net neutrality (as you see it of course)?

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: dug88

Without net neutrality companies get to decide which computers you can connect to, how much you have to pay to connect to a specific computer and so on and so forth.

If anyone here remembers dialup and AOL # where you had to pay every time you connected to the internet and for every website you visited...this is what you want if you are against this.

First: As I stated in one of my posts, this is prevented by the first amendment of the US Constitution, and if a limit is created, then it can be contested in court. It was no different than when telecom companies tried doing the same thing, and those rules (laws) still apply to ISPs with/without net neutrality.

Secondly: It's different now since the infrastructure is now in place to accommodate internet traffic. Back in the early days it just wasn't there and the internet access was being ran over decades old systems that weren't set up for it. Hence the legal rational for charging up front fees for access.

So, since you seem to be so into net neutrality, could you possibly list the advantages and disadvantages of net neutrality vs non-net neutrality (as you see it of course)?

Ok you didn't seem to get it from my last post so right now, with net neutrality running a web server, browsing the internet, uploading, downloading etc. Are all treated the same. An ISP can't stop you from hosting a webserver in your home, they can make it difficult by charging more for a static ip address but they can't stop you. You can host whatever you like on that server, barring illegal things, and they can't stop you. Currently you can access any website you want, net neutrality ensures no matter what server you wish to connect to whether it's your own server, Netflix, facebook, ATS or any other serveryour ISP is not allowed to interfere by restricting any of those in any way.

Without net neutrality, this doesn't exist. Any of those things are fair game to be charged for expicitly, or just restricted at the whims of a private company.

The internet is used globally, it is not owned by the isps. The infrastructure that the internet runs on was built and funded using tax payer money and generally benefits the entirety of humanity. Such a thing should not be at the whims of private companies to decide. The internet is pretty much the opposite of private property, it is a shared space used everywhere in the world that exists only in the billions of computers in the world. Your computer and all the rest are the internet. The internet only exists as it does because all the machines connected to it have the same ability to.connect to any other machine equally. If that gets taken away...there is no more internet. It's not some outside thing. If you have a computer hooked up to the internet you are part of the infrastructure that makes it possible.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

The government is NOT controlling anything. It is keeping the free market free by having a law preventing discrimination.

Anything that was created by the Obama administration will be bad for the consumer, Obama net and Obama care to name two.

In their effort to prevent states from protecting a free and open Internet, a small handful of massive and extraordinarily profitably Internet service providers (ISPs) are telling state legislatures that network neutrality would hinder their ability to raise revenues to pay for upgrades and thus force them to charge consumers higher bills for Internet access. This is because state-based network neutrality will prohibit data discrimination schemes known as “paid prioritization” where the ISP charges websites and applications new tolls and relegate those that do not pay to the slow lane.

In essence, they are saying they have to charge new fees to websites and applications in order to pay for upgrades and maintenance to their networks. In other words, people are using so much of their broadband product that they can’t keep up on our monthly subscriptions.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Today in America we have ISPs that are already deploying 21st-century high-speed broadband without resorting to violating network neutrality or monetizing our personal information with advertisers. The fact is nothing—and certainly not a lack of funds—prevents incumbents from upgrading their networks and bringing a vast majority of American cities they serve into the 21st century of Internet access. That means gigabit broadband services anywhere between $40 to $70 a month (the range people in the handful of competitive markets pay today). Yet, year after year, these ISPs have pocketed billions in profits and it is not until they face competition from a rival provider that they upgrade their networks.

Ultimately, it’s not network neutrality that prevents the large ISPs from upgrading their networks while lowering prices. It is a lack of incentive.

The Biggest Cost For An ISP is the Initial Deployment, Not Internet Usage

It is worth remembering that our current incumbent telephone and cable companies have made back their initial investment costs because they entered the market as monopolies in the old days and likely enjoyed favorable financing as safe bets (nothing is safer to invest in than a monopoly). Our current incumbents enjoyed a litany of advantages for being the first to deploy. For example, many buildings as they were constructed prospectively required the installation of a telephone and cable line, which in essence gave them virtually a free ride to customers that new entrants will not enjoy.

Another example, when Google was deploying its fiber network in Austin, Texas, it needed to run its wires along the telephone pole system. Unfortunately for Google, AT&T owned many of those poles and simply denied them access to build in their entirety. This is a big reason why many small ISPs supported the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order because it guaranteed them rights to access infrastructure if it was owned by an incumbent and prohibited by law the conduct AT&T exhibited in Austin, Texas

www.eff.org...