Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lance Ulanoff
4942 Followers
Shawn M. Smith
2353 Followers
James PowerDigger Chase
10242 Followers
hax0rgam3r
567 Followers
BrainDeranged
292 Followers
Angelina Eve
-80 Followers
Dominique Conte
1824 Followers
vigrocoDec 21, 2010
The FCC should really only step in on this issue of the ISPs begin abusing their power. Otherwise, leave the internet alone.
particleman420Dec 22, 2010
why should we wait until its a problem to fix it? it's no secret that they've been lobbying to be able to sell the internet like they do cell phone plans.
oh look, a giant pile of s**t is flying toward that fan, someone block it!
nah, we'll just try and clean it out of the carpets afterwards
jeffdabeatDec 22, 2010
That's my point exactly. I don't care if you have a boner for your ISP, cell phone company, or your cable company. They will do anything possible to make a bigger profit if they can. Although I still think the "All-you-can-eat" internet is a thing of the past, I still want them to put up a fight as long as they can. There will come a point where you pay for your access and if you think that's a lie, wait a few years.
bluto36Dec 21, 2010
no, unless you want the FCC to f**k up the internet like everything else it has ever touched.
asrrin29Dec 22, 2010
We've given billions of dollars to the ISPs in the united states to upgrade their networks to allow for more bandwidth. Instead, they took the money and ran, leaving behind packet shaping technology that slows down applications doing nothing illegal, and denying the bandwidth to customers who rightfully payed for it. Even scarier, ISPs are DESPERATE to do some form of tiered pricing to charge more to people who actually attempt to use the bandwidth they rightfully paid for, or to tier the internet up like some sort of cable network where you only get to visit certain sites. They want to play the middle man, charging exorbitant fees to customers, and to companies who don't want their traffic throttled in favor of the ISP's own traffic.
These are just a FEW reasons why the FCC needs to step in and declare Net Neutrality.
addiktionDec 23, 2010
I agree with you man but I have concerns that when you throw something down on paper, everyone manipulates it to find workarounds. The recent stuff that dropped was very watered down allowing corporations to essentially find loopholes.
proverbs17Dec 22, 2010
I'm usually not in favor of regulation, but the carriers have proven that they can't be trusted and will screw over their customers every chance they get. They need to be locked down. Why is access so much better in other countries? Because the governments in other countries take a firmer hand with their carriers.
snake36Dec 22, 2010
Net Neutrality is a scare tactic. There are some concerns yes about shapping bandwidth based on what ports are being used but that is really about it. There are easy ways around most everything else people are getting worked up over. I believe in the free market and how everything equalizes itself out. Keep in mind you will always have at least two choices of ISP because of monopaly laws.
particleman420Dec 22, 2010
yea, 2 companies that are known for treating their customers fairly and honestly and never trying their hardest to rip you off, give you no customer service and not being able to tell the difference between $.01 and $.001 (in their favor)
i totally trust companies like ATT and Verizon (2 of the 5 major internet providers lobbying against net neutrality) to do whats best for their customers. what could go wrong?!
kinserDec 22, 2010
Yeah both of those choices for me want to screw me over. Now what? There's no third company that offers a great price and allows me to do what I want. No, free market can't help this one, free market would destroy it.
Infact, all it seems the 'free market' does nowadays is destroy my wallet.
snake36Dec 22, 2010
You obviously don't understand the concept. If consumers are not happy then either the company will change or a 3rd party company will be created to appeal to what the customers want. Neither happen over night but it is better then having the government again step in and control things.
If everyone thinks the FCC is so great then I ask you why is that the place I grew up does not have decent cell phone coverage. The reason is because the FCC does not allow someone living in one state to consistently use a cell tower (OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY) across the border in another state. For several years Verzion paid FCC fines as it was cheaper to pay the fine then put up another tower where very few people lived. Finally the FCC told them stop the practice of face huge law suites. End result I have horrible cell phone coverage when I go home. Thanks for looking out for me FCC! By the way no other cell company has coverage out there because of the rural population.
particleman420Dec 23, 2010
who is going to create a 3rd party internet service and avoid dealing with those companies (who actually own the infrastructure). those wires connected to the side of your house didnt grow there.
snake36Dec 22, 2010
Also most other countries with better networks are also much smaller then the US. It is easy to wire up gigabit ethernet to every home when your country is the size of a state or two.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kinserDec 22, 2010
So you're saying its okay for us to accept less than the best because we live in a larger country? I think you're off your medication.
snake36Dec 22, 2010
You expect everything and don't consider the cost. Where is the money going to come from to wire our entire country?
There are over 4 million miles of roads in the US. You will need fiber next to each one and up to each home. It is not economical for an ISP to do that, so then what the government pays for it. OK then what? They give it to the ISP and we pay them? Who maintains it?
You have to think of these things before, otherwise you make your self look like an idiot.
countess666Dec 22, 2010
even in densely populated areas, speed cost and choice in the US are behind the average of many developed nations.
if its easy to wire up a small country tot a gigebite ethernite, why not a city the size of a small country?
gkiltzDec 22, 2010
Again, the end user is the one who is screwed!
kylereDec 22, 2010
If you have to ask yourself this question, you do not know enough to comment on the issue.
myztryDec 22, 2010
In a way it would be good if the FCC stuffs it for the American population. The remaining 95% of the global population (even if not as active) such as myself would become the juiciest slice of the pie.
I would imagine that even US companies would find it more attractive to service those outside of the US via foreign subsidiaries and not be hindered by the failures of the US end point cartels.
Regardless of where the fundamentals of the Internet may have begun, the Internet is a global phenomena and exists in many jurisdictions where the FCC is irrelevant.
The think the FCC is pursuing this as much as to not let the US providers destroy America's power on the Internet as much as anything else. The US presence on the Internet may be huge but it is entirely optional.
kinserDec 22, 2010
So you would be okay with a company like say, Verizon who is based in the us telling you what you can and cannot access or charging you more for accessing something that they deem should cost more?
No, The FCC should stop companies like that from doing such. That's exactly what this is about.
But if you want them to step off, then by all means. But your content is gonna get regulated too by us companies, you just don't know it yet.
Schweppesale2Dec 22, 2010
Most of the people against net neutrality have no f-cking clue what it is.
Let's all weigh in our opinions anyway though.
macharborguyDec 22, 2010
yeah, because most of the articles talking about Net Neutrality and this new FCC ruling dont actually spell out what the rule IS, only what it is supposed to do, which are not the same thing.
One explanation of these rulings is that it would prevent ISPs from "arbitrarily" blocking or slowing down content. "Arbitrary" means "Based on random choice, rather than any reason or system.", and as many people have said so far, ISPs, especially television providers, HAVE a reason for slowing down or blocking traffic. They want to sell THEIR content to you, rather than you using Netflix on their network.
Here is a quote from the New Your Times "Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. Mr. Genachowski said these proposed rules aimed to both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses." Thats all well and good, but what are the specifics of the rules. What you (NYT) just said is simply fluff.
TechCrunch makes mention that the rules have yet to be published. I would hope the whole myth of "Transparency in Government" comes thru and we actually see these rules posted online 72 hours before they are made law.
On a side note, this whole "Transparency in Government" thing just never sounded right to me. Wouldn't we want an "opaque" government, so we can SEE what they are doing. Transparent = invisible, hidden, unable to be seen.
Schweppesale2Dec 28, 2010
"One explanation of these rulings is that it would prevent ISPs from "arbitrarily" blocking or slowing down content. "Arbitrary" means "Based on random choice, rather than any reason or system.", and as many people have said so far, ISPs, especially television providers, HAVE a reason for slowing down or blocking traffic. They want to sell THEIR content to you, rather than you using Netflix on their network."
-Wrong already. It's not "their" content to begin with; which of course cuts the heart of what Net Neutrality is all about.
The Internet is unique in the sense that it provides a forum for public debate(aka freedom of speech) where everyone has an equal footing and who's comments are rated purely on merit.
This flies right in the face of; hey give me more money and I'll bump you to the front of the line. Or, hey - let's break the internet into pieces and charge more for this application.
Imagine yourself being a web developer who writes the next netflix. You only want to charge $3 a month for your service, however you're forced to bump up the price because your ISP wants to charge extra for users streaming content via your shiny new app.
Meanwhile Netflix is exempt from this additional fee or they're able to swallow the cost because they're already an established brand.
Elimination of Net Neutrality flies right in the face of both Freedom of Speech AND Free Market principles.
linuxpersonDec 22, 2010
I know exactly what it is: a government solution to a government created problem.
Local governments created monopolies and now some people are insisting on more control of the market to fix the problem by regulating the government created monopolies. Personally, I'd like to see government get completely the hell out of the telecommunications market and let competition provide consumers with the highest quality services.
That's all just crazy talk though, everybody knows government gives us high quality service, not business! /sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kinserDec 22, 2010
You are an idiot if you think it would solve itself. The whole reason government stepped in to begin with is because one company always ends up buying all the competition so that they can screw over all the customers by charging what they want and not having to compete with lower prices or better service. You should probably look up some history of the telecommunications companies before you speak again.
Or just don't speak again, that would be nice too.
Companies, are more evil than the government, they always have been. Both are bad, but i'd rather be protected from money hungry citizens behind things like comcast, rather than have the government completely out of my business.
countess666Dec 22, 2010
"Local governments created monopolies"
those monopolies would have formed anyway because it isn't as advantage to move into a area that another network operator is already operating in, so it wont happen, except maybe in high density areas, and then at most you get 2 choices instead of 1.
Real competitions isn't going to happen until the government steps in and forces the ISP's to open up their networks to other ISP's.
only then can the a free ISP market operate properly
when the Dutch government forced the Telecom provider to allow 3de parties on their network at a reasonable rate the result very quickly was a multitude of choices all offering fast and cheap internet. now almost the whole countries can get 80/8mb/s access for a reasonable price. and not a data limit in sight.
this in contrast to our southern neighbours that didn't do this, choice is limited, prices are higher, data-limites are quit strict and speeds are not even half that of those in the Netherlands.
there you have it: a true story about how government caused business to offer higher quality, and cheaper service.
triplegz3Dec 22, 2010
We sure do! Protect Free Speech On The Internet Now!
hackwrenchDec 22, 2010
I watch Glenn Beck and it's a little frustrating when he talks about Net Neutrality because he confused what Net Neutrality is with other statements made by Obama's people (Cass Sunsteen, primarily) about their wishlist for the internet.
kinserDec 22, 2010
Well there is your problem, Glenn Beck never knows what he's talking about. The man is grade A moron in the truest sense of the word. Beck is by far the worst, but I will go on to say that everyone at Fox news, Msnbc, and CNN are all a bunch of idiots who never know what they are speaking about.
They're just people reading off a teleprompter that is promoting whatever views the owners of those channels want them to promote. You want real news? Find it for yourself, only way you're gonna get it.
particleman420Dec 25, 2010
"but I will go on to..." ...and completely ruin my comment by making a completely wrong assessment of other news organizations by suggesting that they are clueless.
the only cluelessness of your comment was the 2nd half of it.
jonjonblazezanyDec 22, 2010
NOOOOO
DonaldPThompson7Dec 22, 2010
NO get them out.