Author Topic: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On  (Read 14403 times)

catastrophe and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2014, 11:58:34 AM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35184
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2014, 11:59:07 AM »
Utilities should not be allowed to do this.  Non-utilities should not be allowed to collude to do this.

Basically I agree, although I'm skeptical that new regulations will improve upon the existing body of law we have to prevent this (eg, if you let the feds eff with it, we're just as likely to get non neutral Web as if we let time Warner super stream espn and curtail fox sports).

That's why you just have to make that kind of crap illegal.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2014, 12:00:55 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.

Some people can. A lot of people really can't if they want fast internet.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35184
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2014, 12:03:21 PM »
Also, lots of tax dollars built the internet infra structure. 

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34403
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2014, 12:10:48 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.

It's going to be very lucrative for service providers, so they will all be doing it.  Also, how many service provider options do you have at your current location?  I have one that isn't satellite.   Even heavy pop areas have very few options.  Maybe two?  Three? 

The ability to shop just isn't really there.  They should definitely be treated as semi-monopolies/ utilities for this reason alone.

Offline ChiCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 13077
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2014, 12:12:46 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

$10 to get online per month 
Entertainment Package: Netflix and Hulu for an additional $20
Shopping Package: Ebay and Amazon for an additional $5
Sports Package: ESPN, WatchESPN, Fox Sports GO for an additional $20
Online Gaming: PS4/Xbox Live access for an additional $15

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34403
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2014, 12:14:57 PM »
Yep, and then Netflix and other streaming services would raise their rates to pay for the money they have to pay Time Warner for the faster speeds to their customers.

This whole idea is a huge get-rich-quick idea for ISPs

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6179
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2014, 12:51:37 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6179
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2014, 12:52:33 PM »
Like, just be cool k-s-u

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2014, 01:00:04 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.

So we can watch our porn and youtube videos of cats/babies unimpeded.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6179
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2014, 01:03:03 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.

So we can watch our porn and youtube videos of cats/babies unimpeded.

Pretty much

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13452
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2014, 01:03:52 PM »
Are there any advantages to the public for non-neutrality?
:adios:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2014, 01:04:59 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6179
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2014, 01:07:11 PM »
Hopefully one day we're all voting for the president on the internet. I'm serious.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2014, 01:09:17 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

No, it would be much, much worse.

I wish my internet speed were at least 10x faster than it is right now.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 62014
  • SP? all of that--->
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2014, 01:31:43 PM »
Quote
And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

good grief

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 62014
  • SP? all of that--->
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2014, 01:38:13 PM »
like, we all joke about how barry hussein obama can come in on any arbitrary side of an issue and we would instantly have the extreme right come out on the other side but this was something I thought that may not be the case for. yet here we are.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13452
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2014, 01:40:21 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.
:adios:

Offline ChiCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 13077
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2014, 01:44:06 PM »

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?



You are assuming they are going to piece it out in an effort to save the consumer money.  In my experience, businesses generally try to make money.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35184
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2014, 01:58:18 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

You do understand that it would be large media companies controlling the speeds and they usually have a liberal bent.  You think your Drudge report loads slow now...

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6179
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #45 on: November 10, 2014, 02:08:45 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Online EMAWican

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • 'Murica
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #46 on: November 10, 2014, 02:16:22 PM »
I'll just connect to the 'net using my dial-up cable that I never tore out.  That will stick it to those big city ISPs. 

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #47 on: November 10, 2014, 02:16:45 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

You do understand that it would be large media companies controlling the speeds and they usually have a liberal bent.  You think your Drudge report loads slow now...

Drudge loads incredibly fast because it's about 200kb. It's nothing but a page full of links to news articles and maybe 1 or 2 pictures.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #48 on: November 10, 2014, 02:18:11 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.

If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #49 on: November 10, 2014, 02:22:38 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.