URGENT - Net Neutrality Under Attack - Action Needed

[meketrefe]

As you might already know the FCC goons are at it again. The chairman of the FCC wants to please the big corp communications lobby from ATT, Comcast, etc.. who finance his political career and secure a chair for him when he is out of politics. He doesn't care about you.

The FCC is about to vote on its plan to kill net neutrality. We have just days to stop censorship, throttling, and extra fees online.

Follow this simple link and form below and call that takes only two minutes and will help protect the net, and with it, help preserve the propagation of free speech and free commerce.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION...

The FCC wants to destroy net neutrality and give giant cable companies control over the Internet



I hate this lobby and elite, they do like the NFL... all they want these corporate parasites is to charge big time for everything and suck our blood dry.

Write your senators, congressman, white house... and also pass the word along. If you can make sure you make 3 people call or contact that takes only minutes then we will be heard.

PASS THIS ALONG!!!


IF YOU DO NOT AGREE CREATE YOUR OWN THREAD FOR DISCUSSION AND LEAVE THIS THREAD CLEAN OF ARGUMENTS FOR PEOPLE TO FIND INFORMATION AND ACT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE NET NEUTRALITY.

 

[masterswimmer]

Good post Mek. We lose net neutrality and we'll see 'cable type fees' for internet site subscriptions. This will affect everyone!

 

[Darth]

I'm very wishy washy on net neutrality as people define it differently, and it seems to be a government vs. free market thing, when it's not a case of "how much control should they have" it's more a case of "they should have none."

 

[Podmonkey]

I'm very wishy washy on net neutrality as people define it differently, and it seems to be a government vs. free market thing, when it's not a case of "how much control should they have" it's more a case of "they should have none."

Free information>free market
And I am a staunch capitalist.

 

[Darth]

Free information>free market
And I am a staunch capitalist.

I'm not even sure you know what that means.

I certainly dont.

 

[Podmonkey]

I'm not even sure you know what that means.

I certainly dont.

What what means?

 

[Darth]

What what means?

Free information and free market.

 

[Phazer]

Free information>free market
And I am a staunch capitalist.

I'm against any further government regulations in any private industry.

Companies and industries need to prosper or close on their own. If I want to pay more for a better, faster, service then that's my decision.

Nobody is telling freight and letter carriers that we need one-price-for-all "package neutrality." If you want overnight air service, fine. Pay for it. If 7-day ground service fits your needs and budget, fine. Go that route. The government shouldn't mandate 2-day service for all when that price and speed doesn't fit everyone's needs. Plus, when the government starts fixing prices in private industries, service and quality always suffers. After all..."If you like your network contract, you can keep your network contract." Hmmm...heard that before.

 

[Grimscale]

...If I want to pay more for a better, faster, service then that's my decision.

Nobody is telling freight and letter carriers that we need one-price-for-all "package neutrality."...

What is at stake here has nothing to do with what you describe.
Do you want to have to pay your Internet Service Provider for access to the internet, only to find out they are blocking the websites you want to go to unless they pay your Internet Service Provider a fee to allow their traffic through? Even if they don't directly connect to your Service Provider?

What if you buy something online, pay for shipping from the manufacturer, only to find out your package is being held by the shipper until you also pay money to that shipper to deliver your package?


Service Providers "peer" with each other to allow traffic to traverse the internet. this is, essentially, a gentleman's agreement that each won't charge for the other's traffic as long as each doesn't interfere with that traffic. this is how the "internet" works. What we call the "internet" is really just interconnected large-scale networks that span the globe, each allowing the other's traffic, so that it becomes a seamless whole.
once this idea is broken, the internet as we know it will break down into its individual parts, effectively rendering it almost useless.

 

[masterswimmer]

What is at stake here has nothing to do with what you describe.
Do you want to have to pay your Internet Service Provider for access to the internet, only to find out they are blocking the websites you want to go to unless they pay your Internet Service Provider a fee to allow their traffic through? Even if they don't directly connect to your Service Provider?

What if you buy something online, pay for shipping from the manufacturer, only to find out your package is being held by the shipper until you also pay money to that shipper to deliver your package?


Service Providers "peer" with each other to allow traffic to traverse the internet. this is, essentially, a gentleman's agreement that each won't charge for the other's traffic as long as each doesn't interfere with that traffic. this is how the "internet" works. What we call the "internet" is really just interconnected large-scale networks that span the globe, each allowing the other's traffic, so that it becomes a seamless whole.
once this idea is broken, the internet as we know it will break down into its individual parts, effectively rendering it almost useless.

Unfortunately I can't LIKE this post more than once. You hit the nail on the head.

When neutrality is gone there will be 'packages' that we can purchase to allow us to access various segments of the internet. No different than buying HBO, MLB package, gold package, platinum package, NFL package, etc.

 

[Phazer]

Service Providers "peer" with each other to allow traffic to traverse the internet. this is, essentially, a gentleman's agreement that each won't charge for the other's traffic as long as each doesn't interfere with that traffic. this is how the "internet" works. What we call the "internet" is really just interconnected large-scale networks that span the globe, each allowing the other's traffic, so that it becomes a seamless whole.
once this idea is broken, the internet as we know it will break down into its individual parts, effectively rendering it almost useless.

Okay. But you make no compelling point for U.
S. federal government involvement in the system. Historically, any time the federal government has unconstitutionally involved itself in regulating private industries the people have paid the price in money, loss of quality, decline in services, and loss of jobs (see: New Deal National Recovery Act codes).

To be honest, why wouldn't an infrastructure provider expect, and require, content providers to pay to use that infrastructure? Netflix makes its corporate living using private network infrastructure. Why shouldn't they pay the hardware companies that maintain the "pipes?" If Netflix pays Comcast, but not Verizon, why should Verizon ensure adequate bandwidth for 4k streaming in their network at the expense of fee-paying businesses? Let the markets work things out. People will, or will not, buy services that they feel meet their personal technical demands and budgets.

Either you believe in real capitalism or you don't. No more crony capitalism. The government should not ever pick corporate winners and losers.

 

[meketrefe]

All we care is that this is bad and we need to act. There will be time to argue about the full extent of things. So please sign up, write, call because that is very important right now.

 

[Phazer]

All we care is that this is bad and we need to act.

I respectfully disagree.

Less government in business is better.

 

[Robin]

Less is more! Less government is more freedom, simple as that.
Robin

 

[meketrefe]

I respectfully disagree.

Less government in business is better.

I understand. If you don't support net neutrality open another thread and explain it there.
I want this thread to be dedicated to people interested in stopping these FCC goons and the lobby from interfering
in our internet independence.

 

[Grimscale]

SO, if Netflix directly plugs into, say, a Verizon circuit, and pays Verizon for that circuit, Netflix must then ALSO pay AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, etc., even though they don't directly connect to them, simply because a customer on one of those other networks, who pays those networks for that connection, wants to watch Netflix?

What you are proposing is not capitalism, it is monopolism based on area.

Netflix already pays for their connections. in fact, Netflix frequently pays other providers to house cache servers on their network somewhere to help alleviate the disparity in peering traffic. But now they have to pay even more or their traffic will be throttled or not permitted? That's extortion.

Down this path lies the death of the internet as we know it. No longer a supposed "free" (as in information, not beer) network, but a patchwork quilt of huge corporate independent networks that no longer allow traffic from one to the other.

These big corporations take government handouts to supposedly improve their networks, then give that money to their upper echelon and complain that they cannot afford to improve their networks. The majority of large service provider networks are paid for using significant contributions from State and Federal government.
for example:
Federal Communications Commission GIS Program


What these companies want to do is what you would call double-, and triple-, dipping.
you pay for a connection to your local ISP
a content provider (like Netflix) pays for a connection to its local ISP
But now the content provider must also pay your local ISP to allow their traffic? Sorry, that's completely opposite to how the internet was built, and will result in networks being severed until "the Internet" no longer exists.

 

[Phazer]

 

[meketrefe]

I'm against any further government regulations in any private industry.

Companies and industries need to prosper or close on their own. If I want to pay more for a better, faster, service then that's my decision.

Nobody is telling freight and letter carriers that we need one-price-for-all "package neutrality." If you want overnight air service, fine. Pay for it. If 7-day ground service fits your needs and budget, fine. Go that route. The government shouldn't mandate 2-day service for all when that price and speed doesn't fit everyone's needs. Plus, when the government starts fixing prices in private industries, service and quality always suffers. After all..."If you like your network contract, you can keep your network contract." Hmmm...heard that before.

Net neutrality guarantees all that because it allows ISPs to offer any package you can buy with the guarantee that it will not be tampered with
in either end of the communication. I think the example that you use applies to the different quality of services from ISPs. Different carriers ... different ISPs.
We allow poeople to compete so if you have a better, faster and cheaper ISP service then people will come to you.
That is free commerce.

 

[Phazer]

As Mark Cuban explains, if Net Neutrality forces ISPs to treat all data the same, regardless of content, then your video throughput will be severely hampered by all of the other less time-critical data that, by law, must be treated equally.

If you weren't able to send an important item via overnight airmail because the government mandated that junk mail catalogues were to be given equal place on cargo jets, you'd be upset. And...eventually there'd be no overnight service because the government had mandated that the carrier could not charge any more for air service than ground trucking due to "package neutrality laws and regulations."

 

[minderasr]

Net Neutrality is neither. When all the major providers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.) are actively lobbying for it, you know it is NOT what we want.

I don't need the government controlling my interwebs. Let the free market decide.

Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

 

[libertysnake]

Okay. But you make no compelling point for U
S. federal government involvement in the system. Historically, any time the federal government has unconstitutionally involved itself in regulating private industries the people have paid the price in money, loss of quality, decline in services, and loss of jobs (see: New Deal National Recovery Act codes).

The service fees they're collecting from individuals and companies should be going towards them upgrading their network in areas of heavy load, to ensure good service. The cost is spread equally throughout service fees since the "where" is a little unpredictable until a service becomes popular.

I acknowledge that ISPs are a business, and one part of me wants to say "Ok, let's just leave them alone like everyone else." The problem is the net benefit of having an open internet is like the benefit of open highway system. If you start walling off the means of doing business, it's not going lock out small business from starting. We want to lay the ground work / restrictions required for small business to grow, as opposed to more restrictions.

If we don't set some ground rules for how ISPs need to function, then what we're going to wind up with is more freedom to business (which, in itself isn't bad. I'm for that). But what we'll get at the cost of that freedom is an internet in which people aren't as free to roam it, and businesses can be hypercharged out of doing business because they're dealing with the only ISP in a given area where they want to reach users. We won't have the open road and fresh air which the internet could be.

While I hate to do it, it pains the Libertarian in me, I do see the benefits -- which is why I'm for neutrality. More business will come out of having it, and be created by neutrality, than not.

 

[libertysnake]

SO, if Netflix directly plugs into, say, a Verizon circuit, and pays Verizon for that circuit, Netflix must then ALSO pay AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, etc., even though they don't directly connect to them, simply because a customer on one of those other networks, who pays those networks for that connection, wants to watch Netflix?

What you are proposing is not capitalism, it is monopolism based on area.

Netflix already pays for their connections. in fact, Netflix frequently pays other providers to house cache servers on their network somewhere to help alleviate the disparity in peering traffic. But now they have to pay even more or their traffic will be throttled or not permitted? That's extortion.

Down this path lies the death of the internet as we know it. No longer a supposed "free" (as in information, not beer) network, but a patchwork quilt of huge corporate independent networks that no longer allow traffic from one to the other.

These big corporations take government handouts to supposedly improve their networks, then give that money to their upper echelon and complain that they cannot afford to improve their networks. The majority of large service provider networks are paid for using significant contributions from State and Federal government.
for example:
Federal Communications Commission GIS Program


What these companies want to do is what you would call double-, and triple-, dipping.
you pay for a connection to your local ISP
a content provider (like Netflix) pays for a connection to its local ISP
But now the content provider must also pay your local ISP to allow their traffic? Sorry, that's completely opposite to how the internet was built, and will result in networks being severed until "the Internet" no longer exists.

In agreement. Netflix and other places are paying a TON on CDN fees to places like Akamai for caching locally for users already. And that's not cheap either. Imagine what would happen without neutrality in place -- basically at a certain point all services would need to be run almost solely out of CDNs to avoid transversing any network for too long and getting insane fees. Either that, or a lot of micro datacenters per region. Costs would skyrocket for services and for users.

 

[meketrefe]

Net Neutrality is neither. When all the major providers (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.) are actively lobbying for it, you know it is NOT what we want.

I don't need the government controlling my interwebs. Let the free market decide.

Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

The diagram here is wrong. I am affraid articles like this get people all confused.
For example, google is mentioned. Google doesn't hire an ISP for everything. They actually have
data centers all over the world and go directly to the tier 1 companies that own the cables, in some
cases dedicated lines to link the different data centers. These are connected in multiple points
with fail-over so they can assure continuity of service under the most unexpected circumstances.
Net also helps assure that is the case.

 

[meketrefe]

The idea of any sort of regulation going away is great and I would not oppose simplification.
The main issue is not knowing what is inside the proposed 300+ page changes.

 

[meketrefe]

 

[Target]

Ok, I'm confused.
I can't tell if the OP is for or against Net Neutrality.
The text seems to be for but the vid links are against it.

I'm against it.
It is hard to know what the real truth is, though. Who do you believe, CNN or Fox?

 

[libertysnake]

Ok, I'm confused.
I can't tell if the OP is for or against Net Neutrality.
The text seems to be for but the vid links are against it.

I'm against it.
It is hard to know what the real truth is, though. Who do you believe, CNN or Fox?

I'm for it. While we do have private roads, we see the value of public roads to facility business. Having a baseline infrastructure upon which small and large businesses alike can compete is advantageous. I think we should define, as a country, what an ISP is providing to an end user exactly, to encourage that field being an open one for all businesses. Much like the roads. If someone wants to provide that access, great. There is just a known utility aspect we should be transparent about here.

Now, if companies want to make direct lines to each other, to maybe cut costs or increase efficiency, much like a private road would be, then that's fine. Maybe Netflix wants a direct line to Google, and they're willing to pay to have the line put in the ground. Great. Go for it. That's a private network they're setting up, and that's up to them. No one should stop them.

The general internet, though, should just be about paying a provider for bandwidth into the network in general.

 

[meketrefe]

We need government to assure that the media is unrestricted and available to everyone.
That is as far as the government should go and not try to "deregulate" anything when in fact their intention
is to favor very dangerous and controversial agendas.
Government will not tax, nor decide, nor do anything other than to assure things are flowing for everyone.
Pretty much what we have today that works much better here than in other countries where they do
not have net neutrality.
The FCC and government want to fix something that is working fine for everyone.
Obama tried to do the same and they had to reverse course because they were going to hit a huge wall
that is the millions of people that want an unrestricted internet and assuring neutrality is the way.

 

[Robin]

Its a big G size foot in the door. Stay out.
Robin

 

[Robin]

The government makes many laws under the guise that they will free people, when in reality they further restrict people from exercising their God given freedom. One little law at a time.