GOP leader John Boehner vows to eliminate ‘net neutrality’
- Thread starter JackLuis
- Start date
Net neutrality is a bad thing. The internet has grown so exponentially, and grown well I might add, by distinctly keeping the gov't out of it. By being uncensored, and allowing unfettered access the internet has evolved into an effective marketplace of products, information, and entertainment.
Net Neutrality is one of those euphamisms that is almost the exact opposite. It will stunt the growth in both content and speed of delivery. What it does is force all backbone supplies to treat all content providers equally. Sounds like a good, fair thing, right? Wrong. By doing that it disallows them from managing their own network bandwidth and infrastructure. So, companies like Comcast (who serves as an ISP for a lot of households) and companies like Sprint (who own a good portion of the physical backbone of the internet) have no say in what goes through their equipment: their fiber, their routers, their everything. This creates two huge problems. First, since they lose their competitive advantage in delivery they would have an immediate disincentive to continue to upgrade. Why should sprint lay new and improved fiber when they have to share it with competitors whether they want to or not (at gov't determined prices)? Also, why would the likes of Comcast continue to streamline their bottlenecks and increase their bandwidth when they have no guarantee that they'll be able to utilize that increased efficiency? Remember, if the net is "neutral" then it's first come, first serve.
What net neutrality, sadly, is really about is political bedfellows. Companies, but mainly one company, Google, are at the whim of the companies that own the infrastructure. Google, who wants to be all things (nothing wrong with that in a capitalist society), has cozied up to the democrats and Obama. What they want in return for their coziness and $$ is net neutrality. They want the guarantee that they can push as much information over other people's networks as they want, regardless if that means the network's owners can't even push their own information. And, they want the gov't to regulate (set) the wholesale price for them.
It is a way to cripple the companies that actually make investment in the infrastructure for the benefit of companies that consume that infrastructure. Opponents, like myself, of net neutrality, prefer that the marketplace regulates who is granted the bandwidth to deliver content. If Google has what everyone wants, the the backbone companies will allow as much of it as they can so long as it's in their best financial interest. If Comcast restricts google apps against the will of the public then that will cost comcast. They'll set a wholesale price that they are willing to accept and google is willing to pay. No need for the gov't to step in.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
I've never understood what 'net neutrality' meant. I've heard plenty of people claim that it is a plot by the big providers to squeeze money out of users and plenty of others claiming that it was the only way to 'save' the Internet. Can anyone explain?
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Like the man said: You build the road, Google fills it up, and pays you what it wants to pay to use your road.
Well, you can see by my above post where I am on the issue. I've heard the 'save the internet' thing, but I haven't heard a valid argument showing that it's needed.
Google (and other content providers) would stand to make a killing because their cost would be fixed (wholesale price set by the gov't to use the backbone) but they could charge for the content (again, without having to share with the companies that deliver it for them). Think of it like this. It would be like the gov't telling UPS that they HAD to, by law, deliver packages FOR specific companies (not "to", but "for"), even if they were competitors (fed ex) and the gov't would tell them what their charge would be. So, Fedex can say to you "yes, we'll deliver your package, that will be $13" and then turn to UPS and say "OK, you have to deliver this and, per the gov't, we'll send you a check for $4." If UPS were compelled to do that they sure as shit wouldn't be spending more money on new trucks, software, etc. They'd get out of the infrastructure business and become like, in this example, Fedex.
If that's the case, then ultimately what is the only entity left to own and manage the infrastructure? That's right, the US Gov't.
Last edited:
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
Thread Jack!
I saw this and had to add it.
One of the rules of Advertising I have developed is, when ever anyone says something abut how "Wonderful" it will be, you can be assured that it is bullshit.
Particularly if it is a politician.
"Net Neutrality" is one of those euphemisms that could go either way. Should Comcast allow their clients to maximize BW for say a Bank back up taking 500 Mb/s for minutes, they should be allowed to charge for it, but if it means that they can eliminate all requests for say "Wikileaks", then there is a 'censoring' issue.
The FCC is not immune to being influenced by businesses.
I saw this and had to add it.
One of the rules of Advertising I have developed is, when ever anyone says something abut how "Wonderful" it will be, you can be assured that it is bullshit.
Particularly if it is a politician.
"Net Neutrality" is one of those euphemisms that could go either way. Should Comcast allow their clients to maximize BW for say a Bank back up taking 500 Mb/s for minutes, they should be allowed to charge for it, but if it means that they can eliminate all requests for say "Wikileaks", then there is a 'censoring' issue.
The FCC is not immune to being influenced by businesses.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
reply to m twain and jbj
in response to your arguments below. they lack balance. i've not made up my mind, but you seem to assume that letting the internet service providers set rates and interact in a free market (ha!) will be more to the public's benefit.
lets go with jbj's highway analogy. Geogle fills it up, he says. well, look at ordinary highways: one may as well say Allied Van Lines can fill them up. yes, allied could if they were the only truckers, but EVERY truck complany has the same privilege. the point is ALL have equal access. this is good for all of us who use Allied Van Lines (Google).
CONTRAST with what you seem to propose. suppose the highways had a czar or owner and he could say. "Lumber transporters shall now pay 50% more than oil transporters" This sort of favoritism migh have obvious reasons: kickback from the lumber industry.
FURTHER, of most relevance to us, the czar/owner could say "Large trucks have MAIN use of the highways, and shall be charged a small amount, say, $5 per journey. but private cars who want to use the road shall pay 5$ per mile." in effect, set up the thing for the benefit of large industrial users.
It seem in either case, 'net neutrality' or not, the people may be screwed, lacking proper regulation by the Gov't. which system might be best regulated. i'm not sure, but i'd guess the 'net neutrality.'
===
M Twain: What net neutrality, sadly, is really about is political bedfellows. Companies, but mainly one company, Google, are at the whim of the companies that own the infrastructure. Google, who wants to be all things (nothing wrong with that in a capitalist society), has cozied up to the democrats and Obama. What they want in return for their coziness and $$ is net neutrality. They want the guarantee that they can push as much information over other people's networks as they want, regardless if that means the network's owners can't even push their own information. And, they want the gov't to regulate (set) the wholesale price for them.
It is a way to cripple the companies that actually make investment in the infrastructure for the benefit of companies that consume that infrastructure.
---
JBJ: Like the man said: You build the road, Google fills it up, and pays you what it wants to pay to use your road.
in response to your arguments below. they lack balance. i've not made up my mind, but you seem to assume that letting the internet service providers set rates and interact in a free market (ha!) will be more to the public's benefit.
lets go with jbj's highway analogy. Geogle fills it up, he says. well, look at ordinary highways: one may as well say Allied Van Lines can fill them up. yes, allied could if they were the only truckers, but EVERY truck complany has the same privilege. the point is ALL have equal access. this is good for all of us who use Allied Van Lines (Google).
CONTRAST with what you seem to propose. suppose the highways had a czar or owner and he could say. "Lumber transporters shall now pay 50% more than oil transporters" This sort of favoritism migh have obvious reasons: kickback from the lumber industry.
FURTHER, of most relevance to us, the czar/owner could say "Large trucks have MAIN use of the highways, and shall be charged a small amount, say, $5 per journey. but private cars who want to use the road shall pay 5$ per mile." in effect, set up the thing for the benefit of large industrial users.
It seem in either case, 'net neutrality' or not, the people may be screwed, lacking proper regulation by the Gov't. which system might be best regulated. i'm not sure, but i'd guess the 'net neutrality.'
===
M Twain: What net neutrality, sadly, is really about is political bedfellows. Companies, but mainly one company, Google, are at the whim of the companies that own the infrastructure. Google, who wants to be all things (nothing wrong with that in a capitalist society), has cozied up to the democrats and Obama. What they want in return for their coziness and $$ is net neutrality. They want the guarantee that they can push as much information over other people's networks as they want, regardless if that means the network's owners can't even push their own information. And, they want the gov't to regulate (set) the wholesale price for them.
It is a way to cripple the companies that actually make investment in the infrastructure for the benefit of companies that consume that infrastructure.
---
JBJ: Like the man said: You build the road, Google fills it up, and pays you what it wants to pay to use your road.
Last edited:
bronzeage
I am a river to my people
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Posts
- 49,685
The core question which must be resolved before "net neutrality" either wins out or disappears is whether or not the internet is a public utility.
The Phone company held a legal monopoly for many years. A consumer could only use a Bell System Phone, if they wanted to use the privately owned phone lines. The government regulated the business and limited rates and prevented competition.
The phone company held domain over the wires in a person's house.
This changed when someone took it to the Supreme Court and the absurdity of it was exposed.
The internet service companies do not want to become the phone company, which must give all businesses and consumers equal access to their resources. It will require the same kind of government regulations, which at one time favored the phone company and later favored their competition.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,689
Paul Krugman wrote about this almost ten years ago.
Digital Robber Barons
As he points out he term information highway is a very bad metaphor. Railroads work better. Without net neutrality ISPs, phone and cable companies will be able to decide what you can and cannot access on the internet.
But I suppose they're so much smarter that we mere mortals it would be a good idea. /sarcasm
Digital Robber Barons
As he points out he term information highway is a very bad metaphor. Railroads work better. Without net neutrality ISPs, phone and cable companies will be able to decide what you can and cannot access on the internet.
But I suppose they're so much smarter that we mere mortals it would be a good idea. /sarcasm
LettersFromTatyana
Pessimistic Pollyanna
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Posts
- 1,457
The economist had a good article back in December. It's short. Give it a read.
In a nutshell, and with regards to the argument over net neutrality:
"...both sides are half right. Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services. But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation."
I think this is a classic, "which do you fear most" question: the cable companies blocking your access to sites (or, only offering slow service to certain sites while providing fast service to others), or the lack of innovation?
It's also a bit of a short term-long term conundrum. In the long term, yes, innovation would be great (in whatever guise it takes). But in the short term, having witnessed the cable companies have little tiffs with networks and, at times, pull them from their lineup, I have no doubt that they'd pull these sorts of shenanigans with our internet.
(The short run/long run debate is also impossible; we don't know what that innovation would be, so we can't weigh the pros and cons.)
But in the short term, if, I don't know, Comcast owns NBC, and NBC is a part owner of Hulu, it would make sense for Comcast to offer fast service to Hulu while blocking or slowing down access to other sites that stream videos, like Comedy Central.
I mean, we were without ESPN3 where I live for years, and that's just one site. Imagine giving a cable company even more power over your internet!
And, um, this is a porn site, no? How many threads have discussed Amazon not selling incest over the past couple of months? Or, better yet, how many people whine about lit's story rules? What makes you think a privately owned cable company is any different? Why wouldn't they just block low-readership/high-controversy sites that make the family values people wring their little hands?
In the end, the article's unknown author points out that the real problem in the debate is,
"...the failure in America to tackle the underlying lack of competition in the provision of internet access. In other rich countries it would not matter if some operators blocked some sites: consumers could switch to a rival provider.... Getting America’s phone and cable companies to open up their networks to others would be a lot harder for politicians than prattling on about neutrality; but it would do far more to open up the net."
In a nutshell, and with regards to the argument over net neutrality:
"...both sides are half right. Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services. But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation."
I think this is a classic, "which do you fear most" question: the cable companies blocking your access to sites (or, only offering slow service to certain sites while providing fast service to others), or the lack of innovation?
It's also a bit of a short term-long term conundrum. In the long term, yes, innovation would be great (in whatever guise it takes). But in the short term, having witnessed the cable companies have little tiffs with networks and, at times, pull them from their lineup, I have no doubt that they'd pull these sorts of shenanigans with our internet.
(The short run/long run debate is also impossible; we don't know what that innovation would be, so we can't weigh the pros and cons.)
But in the short term, if, I don't know, Comcast owns NBC, and NBC is a part owner of Hulu, it would make sense for Comcast to offer fast service to Hulu while blocking or slowing down access to other sites that stream videos, like Comedy Central.
I mean, we were without ESPN3 where I live for years, and that's just one site. Imagine giving a cable company even more power over your internet!
And, um, this is a porn site, no? How many threads have discussed Amazon not selling incest over the past couple of months? Or, better yet, how many people whine about lit's story rules? What makes you think a privately owned cable company is any different? Why wouldn't they just block low-readership/high-controversy sites that make the family values people wring their little hands?
In the end, the article's unknown author points out that the real problem in the debate is,
"...the failure in America to tackle the underlying lack of competition in the provision of internet access. In other rich countries it would not matter if some operators blocked some sites: consumers could switch to a rival provider.... Getting America’s phone and cable companies to open up their networks to others would be a lot harder for politicians than prattling on about neutrality; but it would do far more to open up the net."
I saw this and had to add it.
One of the rules of Advertising I have developed is, when ever anyone says something abut how "Wonderful" it will be, you can be assured that it is bullshit.
Particularly if it is a politician.
"Net Neutrality" is one of those euphemisms that could go either way. Should Comcast allow their clients to maximize BW for say a Bank back up taking 500 Mb/s for minutes, they should be allowed to charge for it, but if it means that they can eliminate all requests for say "Wikileaks", then there is a 'censoring' issue.
The FCC is not immune to being influenced by businesses.
But here is the difference...All of the arguments FOR net neutrality rely on future, hypothetical circumstances. Should we construct laws because there is nothing currently preventing pigs from driving? See my point. And, even to play forward your hypothetical, who is censoring whom? In other words, if Comcast doesn't deliver wikileaks because they are using their bandwidth for a bank backup isn't that their choice? I mean, it is their equipment. It is a private business. Maybe the bank will pay more, or maybe the wiki dump prevents Comcast from offering it's On Demand service for a few hours. Your position put's wikileaks in charge of Comcast's own network so long as they start their dump. And, to boot, they can hijack the network and only have to pay what the gov't tells them they have to pay. Comcast gets royally screwed. I think that that is blatantly wrong unless, of course, Wiki wants to pony up the billions and billions of dollars to build infrastructure.
Also, the FCC is influenced by whatever party controls the FCC. Currently, net neutrality and 'localization' (new term for fairness doctrine) have support in the FCC because Obama controls 3 of the 5 seats.
Last edited:
The only Czars are in the Obama administration 
Your highway argument has a fatal flaw. The highways and roadways in America were built and are maintained by the government for the purpose of unfettered access. In this case Sprint, Comcast, etc. have spent 10s or 100s of Billions of Dollars building these "roads". Should they not, since they've spent the money, have some say what can or cannot go on them, or when vehicles can use them? At the very least, shouldn't they be guaranteed that their trucks could use the roads whenever they want? Furthermore, even the gov't (state level) builds or turns roads into tollways.
Wiki, Google, or whatever company HAS NOT been denied access to anything up to now. Net neutrality is a way for Google to get cart blanche and, ultimately, a way for the gov't to (following your example) regulate (read:tax) the internet. It's pretty simple. You say "ha" to the free market, but I say "ha" to the gov't being able to fairly (without political interference), efficiently, and innovatively run anything.
Your highway argument has a fatal flaw. The highways and roadways in America were built and are maintained by the government for the purpose of unfettered access. In this case Sprint, Comcast, etc. have spent 10s or 100s of Billions of Dollars building these "roads". Should they not, since they've spent the money, have some say what can or cannot go on them, or when vehicles can use them? At the very least, shouldn't they be guaranteed that their trucks could use the roads whenever they want? Furthermore, even the gov't (state level) builds or turns roads into tollways.
Wiki, Google, or whatever company HAS NOT been denied access to anything up to now. Net neutrality is a way for Google to get cart blanche and, ultimately, a way for the gov't to (following your example) regulate (read:tax) the internet. It's pretty simple. You say "ha" to the free market, but I say "ha" to the gov't being able to fairly (without political interference), efficiently, and innovatively run anything.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
ROB, of course, thinks his computer phone call to mom oughta have the same priority and rates as financial data transfers.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
Given how much money Google has/makes, if they were really worried about access, couldn't they just buy up Comcast?
Why Not?
The financial data transfers are probably derivative traders ripping off the visible universe.
The financial data transfers are probably derivative traders ripping off the visible universe.
That would be one way to do it - and, with their billions it would be a very fair way to guarantee themselves access
But, why spend the money if the gov't is going to grant them the "right" to it for next to nothing? That's really the debate: the companies that spent the money get screwed to the benefit of the companies that did not.BTW, the "little guy" isn't even involved in this debate. Truth be known both sides throw out how the other's position will hurt you, me, and the individual or small business. Those arguments - from both sides - are much ado about nothing. This is really a fight over the consumption of massive bandwidth by multi-billion dollar companies, not whether you'll be able to download your next movie.
Nah, they've already turned all that into anti-matter. They're on to parallel universes. String theory baby, and Goldman Sachs pulls the strings.
One more point on your road analogy. Even the gov't, which owns the roads, limits what goes on them and at what speed. For the safety of users and the health of the roads the gov't limits the weight a truck can be. In net neutrality, Comcast, etc. would be prohibited from limiting the size/amount of bandwidth anyone uses even if it is threatening the network. So, as you can see, even if you are more inclined to 'trust' the gov't (which I am not), the gov't also regulates, or censors, traffic on it's roadways.
manyeyedhydra
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Posts
- 1,014
Eliminating net neutrality is a really stupid idea.
It would hand the whole internet to the big corporations on a gilded platter. Of course Boehner wants to eliminate it. He's a politician. He's paid to shaft you in the ass.
It would hand the whole internet to the big corporations on a gilded platter. Of course Boehner wants to eliminate it. He's a politician. He's paid to shaft you in the ass.
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
LettersFromTatyana
Pessimistic Pollyanna
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Posts
- 1,457
I think Andrew Sullivan's reader said it best:
"No. I will not pronounce Koch "Cock." I will not pronounce Boehner "Boner." I like those two things too much."
LettersFromTatyana
Pessimistic Pollyanna
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Posts
- 1,457
Whoops, double post.
Last edited:
Zeb_Carter
.-- - ..-.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 20,584
Oh, you mean those companies and corporations that paid for it to be used by you? The internet is already owned by those big corporations you hate so much. So how would not enacting "Net Neutrality" be a boon to them?
