• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Net Neutrality - thoughts?

Not really sure how a reasonable person educated about net neutrality could be against it.

Which explains a lot about why Ted Cruz is against it.
 
So I've gone through 4 pages hoping to become better enlightened on the issue and still haven't identified (1) what the problem is, and (2) what the President's proposal would fix.
 
There is no problem, which is why the president is throwing his administration's weight behind an effort to keep it that way. Interestingly, that everybody I am friends with on facebook (who posts about politics) agrees on something political since I started using facebook.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
So I've gone through 4 pages hoping to become better enlightened on the issue and still haven't identified (1) what the problem is, and (2) what the President's proposal would fix.
Click to expand...

Without net neutrality, Internet providers are essentially the mob and they are offering speed instead of "protection". They basically extort providers to pay for their speed. As I understand it, the President wants to establish regulations to keep providers from extorting those businesses and individual subscribers.
 
Right now i get 15 mb/s for 29.99. What will net neutrality change?

It seems like a decent concept: essentially to prevent monopolies but what is the actual results of this push by Obama other than more govt oversight (not saying that in a bad way - sometimes more oversight is good. This may be one of those cases).
 
Wrangor said:
Right now i get 15 mb/s for 29.99. What will net neutrality change?

It seems like a decent concept: essentially to prevent monopolies but what is the actual results of this push by Obama other than more govt oversight (not saying that in a bad way - sometimes more oversight is good. This may be one of those cases).
Click to expand...

Rest assured, he WILL be taking your guns with this initiative.
 
Wrangor said:
Right now i get 15 mb/s for 29.99. What will net neutrality change?

It seems like a decent concept: essentially to prevent monopolies but what is the actual results of this push by Obama other than more govt oversight (not saying that in a bad way - sometimes more oversight is good. This may be one of those cases).
Click to expand...

Net neutrality won't change your line speeds. Not having net neutrality will lead to ISP charging providers for speed.

Your 15 Mbps won't matter if Netflix/ESPN/whatever is limited to 1 Mbps because they're not paying.

Also, larger content providers will be able to pay the charge, limiting the entry of smaller competitors.
 
Wrangor said:
Right now i get 15 mb/s for 29.99. What will net neutrality change?

It seems like a decent concept: essentially to prevent monopolies but what is the actual results of this push by Obama other than more govt oversight (not saying that in a bad way - sometimes more oversight is good. This may be one of those cases).
Click to expand...

Nothing directly. It should be business as usual. But internet companies will cry poverty and use it as an excuse to raise your rates.

But they were going to raise your rates anyways. This will just be the most convent excuse.
 
bym051d said:
Net neutrality won't change your line speeds. Not having net neutrality will lead to ISP charging providers for speed.

Your 15 Mbps won't matter if Netflix/ESPN/whatever is limited to 1 Mbps because they're not paying.

Also, larger content providers will be able to pay the charge, limiting the entry of smaller competitors.
Click to expand...

Very helpful. Makes sense. If I am not mistaken netflix is already limited to 6-8 mb/s. I am always hesitant to have to much govt involvement but it seems to make some sense here. Internet providers have mini monopolies wherever they reside. Good to have some sort of pressure on them to be fair to customers and content providers.
 
I realize it's just a rhetorical maneuver but in what way is net neutrality remotely similar to Obamacare?
 
or exactly when healthcare was last a "private enterprise". Hint: a long, long time before Obamacare.

Anyway, its a stupid comment by Cruz. There is a much larger issue here, which is that the FCC and its enabling legislation was created long before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. The agency and the legislation are poorly suited to dealing with the modern internet reality in 2014. In most countries with a functioning government, the legislature would realize this and come up with some kind of modernized regulatory structure to deal with it, since the internet is a hugely important component of a modern economy. Instead, because our legislature is completely nonfunctional, the executive branch is forced to try and find a way to shoehorn the internet into 50-year old laws governing utilities. The result will be years-long high stakes litigation. Completely asinine and an indictment of our entire system.
 
Wrangor said:
Government intervention in a previously private enterprise?
Click to expand...

There's necessary government intervention in a huge percentage of private enterprise. This isn't the 18th century or a tiny, tiny country.

Whether it's mine safety, product safety, truth in advertising or many other areas, we all benefit from government intervention. Without it workplaces would be far more dangerous without laws. There would still be lead in paint. There would be no safety belts in cars or many other things.

There would still be a monopoly in telecommunications. It used to cost $0.30 or more call long distance in the US. If you made four fifteen minute calls, that would cost you $18+ taxes. Today, I pay half of that for unlimited calling to anywhere in the US and Canada. Plus it used to cost $25+ (in 1980s dollars) just to have a phone in your house. Without government intervention, this wouldn't have changed.

Come visit, we'll drive ninety minutes to the Mexican border. I'll show you the difference in water and air pollution due to our government intervention versus theirs.

Look at little things like McDonald's. They could say their food is healthy. Because of government intervention if they say that, they have to show you why.

Without government intervention, drug companies could put anything put anything into their products and claim anything.

The key is wise government intervention not none.
 
Deacon923 said:
or exactly when healthcare was last a "private enterprise". Hint: a long, long time before Obamacare.

Anyway, its a stupid comment by Cruz. There is a much larger issue here, which is that the FCC and its enabling legislation was created long before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. The agency and the legislation are poorly suited to dealing with the modern internet reality in 2014. In most countries with a functioning government, the legislature would realize this and come up with some kind of modernized regulatory structure to deal with it, since the internet is a hugely important component of a modern economy. Instead, because our legislature is completely nonfunctional, the executive branch is forced to try and find a way to shoehorn the internet into 50-year old laws governing utilities. The result will be years-long high stakes litigation. Completely asinine and an indictment of our entire system.
Click to expand...

end thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top