Who's gonna control the Internet? Net Neutrality defined.

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

yeah, important topic that often gets overlooked. i think i wrote an essay on it once, it was pretty baller.

Wait... Mr. Bishop doesn't own the internets???

SamSandmire(Do you even REMEMBER dial-up Intenet speeds)?

Lol I had dial up Internet at home less than 4 years ago. Yah for country living!

And in terms of the topic, idk too much about it yet to give an honest opinion.

although an unpopular position, ISPs should be able to throttle traffic as they see fit.

as a system admin at a remote rural location with ~200 employees, if i didn't take advantage of the network firewall throttles and controls the internet would become basically unusable for everybody at the office very, very quickly (we have a 50mb/sec connection....average speed of a cable modem).

users in an unregulated environment use WAY too much bandwidth, especially when they are not the ones paying for it, or maintaining the equipment. it's just human nature...take, take, take

I feel the ISPs pain, network connectivity and uptime is in their best interest AND the public's best interest. they need some way to raise capital to upgrade and maintain them sweet, sweet internet pipes.

I do like barry's idea of turning the net into a public utility.

explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw

Big update on this topic. FCC seeks to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II. Things are looking up.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977963/fcc-net-neutrality-victory

I dont know what any of this is but as long as i can watch my free porn i dont care

momsspaghettiI feel the ISPs pain

Comcast profit: $1.73 Bn
Verizon: $3.7 Bn
AT&T: $71.84 Bn


Something tells me you don't feel their pain.

It passed today by a 3-2 vote. So an open internet for all.....for now.

Thanks, Obama. No...really...Thanks, Obama!

Internet should only be for rich people and porn companies.

I don't understand how people can be against net neutrality. It's pretty important to the functioning of the Internet.

Its fucking apeshit crazy that the land of the free has to vote for Net Neutrality when it's standard in most other civilized countries.
Everyone you are welcome to the real land of the free: Sweden (we have hot chicks (and dudes if you are in to that) and snow)

From what I read net neutrality was originally something good, but what the FCC was voting on yesterday was very different than what the original discussions were about.

I don't know if that is true or not, its just something I read... On the internet.

theBearJewFrom what I read net neutrality was originally something good, but what the FCC was voting on yesterday was very different than what the original discussions were about.

I don't know if that is true or not, its just something I read... On the internet.

There was a few sentences that could be interpreted in a not so great way, from the few articles I read.

It also puts the government in charge of protecting the freedom of the internet.......why can't it just be free free??

The referenced post has been removed.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a private company "innovating" with my drinking water.
This water tastes like lead... You mean it tastes like FREEDOM!!

CaseyI'm not sure I'm comfortable with a private company "innovating" with my drinking water.
This water tastes like lead... You mean it tastes like FREEDOM!!

Hahaha

le searchbar. I posted a fairly in-depth explanation of net neutrality stuff earlier this year. More nuanced than you think, this is not black and white. I'm not taking a stance on the issue, as this will be challenged and tweaked over time.

Source: I work in Telecom.

FYI Cellular network tech is fascinating. Check out this new tech from a company called Artemis. Dish Network just allowed these guys to use their spectrum. Somewhat related, though less so.

http://www.artemis.com/pcell

https://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/771825/Net-Neutrality-and-Newschoolers

Okay. I'm probably missing something but,

So the ISPs are government subsidized. The bill was to force ISPs to continue to keep data speeds the same for everyone and all content, and would place the protection of said "right" under the control of the government.

So, the government was going to have a say in the internet no matter what happened?? Am I seeing that right?

As much as I hate government intervention in the economy I feel like this is for the better. Internet is now a necessity, not a luxury.

For those saying it discourages competition, you have to realize that ISPs do not compete in a perfectly competitive marketplace. There are very high barriers to entry, and if multiple companies were building the same broadband infrastructure into the same home they would be forced to charge enormous amounts of money to cover costs, which would result in higher costs for everyone.

Therefore, the government should regulate internet as a natural monopoly, much like they do for other utilities. This is basic economics taught in any entry-level economics course.

bieberhole69.As much as I hate government intervention in the economy I feel like this is for the better. Internet is now a necessity, not a luxury.

For those saying it discourages competition, you have to realize that ISPs do not compete in a perfectly competitive marketplace. There are very high barriers to entry, and if multiple companies were building the same broadband infrastructure into the same home they would be forced to charge enormous amounts of money to cover costs, which would result in higher costs for everyone.

Therefore, the government should regulate internet as a natural monopoly, much like they do for other utilities. This is basic economics taught in any entry-level economics course.

A few points: in the states, we have what are essentially lines of demarcation where charter does not compete with TWC, Comcast doesn't compete with Charter, etc. etc. mix and match those as you like with cable guys. Their competition (as they define it) are from 3 national groups (i.e., not regionally restricted groups): the national telecom operators (AT&T, Centurylink, Verizon), the Satellite television guys (Dish, DIRECTV), and the newly emerging Over the Top (OTT) players: Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. There are reasons to debate this, but this is what they say is their real competition. This is their "reasoning" for not expanding nationally in all markets, for example. Additionally, most cable co's are very, very wary of breaking a subscriber threshold larger than 30% of all broadband / video subscribers, for various reasons.

What I think you are forgetting are a few things:

1) in other markets (such as the UK and some of Europe), certain telecoms (BT, the still state owned incumbant in the UK example) is required BY LAW to allow other companies to provide broadband on their existing broadband pipes. This is called as operating as an FVNO (or MVNO), which means Fixed (Mobile) Virtual Network Operator. This encourages competition and cheaper prices.

2). The barriers to entry are negated by increased competition in a mature business market. The saturation point of broadband customers is likely peaking. Consumers will gravitate towards the best service at the lowest price. This gives the advantage to the most efficient operator at the lowest price. Which is good for consumers. The increased costs at the "last mile" are more negligible than you think. Think google fiber.

The Obama administration is doing some good things on this front. Namely, they have made it legal, by executive order, for municipalities to build their own fiber networks. This is great, because it encourages competition at a local level for broadband. This used to be ILLEGAL in a large swath of the country. Incredible what lobbying can accomplish.

This is a super complicated issue with varying shades of grey. no doubt. It is the convergence of one's political beliefs on expression, equal treatment, government intervention / regulation, corporate vs. state owned enterprises, basic human liberties, capitalism, public funding for private investment, and a whole slew of other topics (for example, it should shock you that lower income neighborhoods are drastically underserved when it comes to broadband. why?).

Research, read, learn, vote, speak up.

huckcliffsBT, the still state owned incumbant in the UK example

BT hasn't been state owned since 1993, and even then it was only a third.

They still provide all the infrastructure, but they charge a line rental to internet and phone providers to use it. For a house this is about £15/month. If I have a problem with my line I call my ISP and they send out BT to fix it. This makes things complicated if you want to install a new line in a building (ie the building did not previously have a phone line), you first need a BT engineer to connect the house to the internet then an ISP engineer to check the internal wiring. It could be far simpler and we don't really have competition (price fixing) so prices aren't exactly cheap.

caucasian_chadI don't understand how people can be against net neutrality. It's pretty important to the functioning of the Internet.

People aren't against it.


Heavily funded lobbyists are though and that is who matters.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/758694/Net-Neutrality-in-the-US--Now-What-