Help Preserve Net Neutrality

Post Reply New Topic

Find out more about the "Internet Slowdown" scheduled for September 10 at the link below.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/

I'm all in favor of ISPs being able to manage their own networks to make them work more effectively.

Alright, then. You're totally good with an ISP Mafia controlling the internet. One supporter of the oligarchy heard from.

There is NO ISP Mafia and ISPs do not control the Internet.

In most of the US, people have multiple options about providers. If you don't like one provider, then dump them and sign up with another.

Out in the country where I live, there are three separate local providers plus satellite. In the nearby town, there are all those plus another plus DSL.

Twenty miles from the nearest town in a community of 70 people in 50 square miles, our Internet speeds are generally around 20 to 30 megabits per second with peaks to about 50 megabits per second. Even the worst of the three local internet sources in the area is about 6 megabits per second.

Instead of griping about some theoretical problem that hardly exists, why don't you take advantage of the near-Free Market that we have in Internet and find a provider that you like.

I think so too. It's fundamentally a property rights issue.

What this is about is trying to stop the FFC from handing internet service providers the right to charge websites for faster service. It would make it far more expensive for the average person to start an internet business ? and much harder to succeed. Larger companies, of course, can absorb those costs much easier.

Yeah, I really do see this as an ?ISP Mafia.? And our government is about to give them free reign to shake anyone down.

I didn't really put up this thread to start a debate, to be honest. I put this here to get the word out to anyone who understands that if this proposal is not stopped, it will have dire consequences for the internet in the years to come.

Last edited by VegetableMan on 09 Sep 2014, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have news for you -- the companies that the ISPs want to charge for faster service are those big companies that use an extraordinary amount of bandwidth with Netflix as the prime example. They aren't particularly interested on charging a non-customer startup that uses very of their bandwidth.



They aren't shaking you or anyone else down. You are absolutely free to change other providers if you don't like the one you have. That a provider cannot afford to give you everything you wish for a cheap price does not give you any right that the government force them to provide you with everything you wish.



I see it as just the opposite. If ISPs are required to provide what you wish, the ISPs are going to have to end up raising prices in many cases and we all will have to pay for it.

When I was in grad school over 30 years ago, one of the big discussions going around the library profession was who controls access to the information. Tom Childers, who taught reference services for many years in the school of library science and information systems at Drexel University, started voicing his concerns about access to information back about that time. His take was we're in a big heap of trouble if the conglomerates control both content and conduit. From where I sit right now, his predictions are coming true.

Frankly, all of us have been paying lip service to the free flow of information for years. This whole mess on the flow of information being more and more restrictive started with the Reagan Administration and continues up through today. As far as I'm concerned, any politician that tells you they support the free flow of information is a fscking liar! They support the free flow of information the same way the Soviets supported the free flow of information: they didn't.

But, this is just my opinion. I'm just a stupid-assed aspie, so what do I know?

Yes, I know what the lobbies and the supporters of this proposal want you to believe, eric76. You are just reiterating their position.

Like I said before, I did not start this thread to debate the issue. I believe strongly that if we want to preserve a free and open internet, we need to fight this.

Also, I forgot to mention in my initial post that the FCC is allowing public comment about the proposed guidelines until September 15. Go to https://www.dearfcc.org/ to learn more.

I think you are absolutely correct, Meistersinger. It is detrimental for those in power to allow the free flow of ideas and information. We can't have an informed citizenry capable of critical thinking, can we?

Obama has been a huge disappointment on net neutrality. He was all in support of defending it during his election -- and up until earlier this year, even -- but has now gone silent on the issue. It should be clear to everyone that politicians are pretty much irrelevant, at this point. We know who really runs the show.

Well it is the 10th, and I don't notice my internet being any slower....so not sure this whole thing is quite as severe as people have made it out to be. I don't entirely understand the issue I admit....but based on what I've observed so far the internet does not seem slower. I think it would be pretty sh*tty for people running/designing websites to have to start paying an extra fee just for fast internet, they would have already got without the fee....if they significantly slow sites down and require a free for them to get the speed they had before that would be BS...just not sure that is how it would work. If its just paying extra for extra high-speed or whatever I guess I don't see what the problem is but yeah not all that knowlegeable on what exactly the issue is or how its being put into law or how it will actually effect the internet as a whole.

Sweatleaf, the "slowdown" is merely symbolic of what opponents fear would happen if ISPs are allowed to create "fast" and "slow" lanes in the internet. If you go to any website that is opposing the FCC measure, you'll see a spinning icon that represents a perpetual state of loading content. You can click on those icons to go to http://www.battleforthenet.com.

i'm out in the sticks in appalachia, but way more densely populated than your area, and i have ONE isp available..... well, ok, i could get satellite if i put up a ~100ft mast (which i can't afford) or get the neighbor to let me cut down/top about 50 trees (ain't gonna happen, and still might not get line-of-sight on the satellite). highest speed we can get is an unstable 3Mb/sec of DSL.

i'm happy for you that you have such great options, and enough funds that you don't need to worry about whether or not ISPs are common carriers.

If the ISPs here were required to become common carriers, only the large ones would survive. The smallest ISP in the area easily at present is well known in the area for offering the best service. Require them to become common carrier and they would have no option but to fold. The result would be higher prices and lower services.

That would pretty much be true with small ISPs across the country. In some places that would mean that the only non-satellite ISP servicing an area would be out of business.

Instead of helping their customers, it would reduce choice, increase fees, and result in much crappier service.

no, no... they are now common carriers - they have to treat all traffic moving over their network the same. with the end of net neutrality, they will no longer have to be common carriers and will be able to give preferential bandwidth to content providers (websites) based on business agreements. if you have a website you will be able to pay ISP's to give your content higher speeds, or to give your competitors crap connections.

The term "common carrier" is a legal term. In the case of telecommunications, ISPs are not included in the term.