Net Neutrality what is it

[Brickjectivity]

"Net Neutrality is all about treating packets the same. Nobody is saying you should not pay more for using more, but the idea is that providers shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the source, destination, or content. Providers shouldn’t be able to filter the data you see, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to modify the site data they deliver to you." -- from An FAQ for Defending Net Neutrality – Hacker Noon

So Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech.

 

[Quetzal]

"Net Neutrality is all about treating packets the same. Nobody is saying you should not pay more for using more, but the idea is that providers shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the source, destination, or content. Providers shouldn’t be able to filter the data you see, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to modify the site data they deliver to you." -- from An FAQ for Defending Net Neutrality – Hacker Noon

So Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech.

Correct.

 

[Vee]

"Net Neutrality is all about treating packets the same. Nobody is saying you should not pay more for using more, but the idea is that providers shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the source, destination, or content. Providers shouldn’t be able to filter the data you see, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to modify the site data they deliver to you." -- from An FAQ for Defending Net Neutrality – Hacker Noon

So Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech.

True. And politics is about controlling people. What better way to control the people than to filter the information they receive?

 

[suncowiam]

There was another thread citing how and why other nations limit internet. And it all boils down to limit of information which is censorship. It has little to do with business.

 

[suncowiam]

This will be a talking point for many politicians. I like to see how the GOP candidates squirm their way out of this considering most of the population is against this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

True. And politics is about controlling people. What better way to control the people than to filter the information they receive?

It really does smack of the way Russia works currently. Its more of a capstone than a beginning.

Already every Intel computer has a secretive internal processor lodged inside of the main one and secret instructions not listed in the handbook for the processor. This secret system is an unneeded device with its own mac address that can use the built in network card and read any open file. Intel calls it the Management Engine, and its basically a backdoor. Intel Management Engine - Wikipedia Whoever controls it can do whatever they want. It means at the moment nothing you do in front of your computer camera, and nothing you store on it or do with it is invisible. Its exactly like having a TV that watches you back.

 

[Vee]

It really does smack of the way Russia works currently. Its more of a capstone than a beginning.

Already every Intel computer has a secretive internal processor lodged inside of the main one and secret instructions not listed in the handbook for the processor. This secret system is an unneeded device with its own mac address that can use the built in network card and read any open file. Intel calls it the Management Engine, and its basically a backdoor. Intel Management Engine - Wikipedia Whoever controls it can do whatever they want. It means at the moment nothing you do in front of your computer camera, and nothing you store on it or do with it is invisible. Its exactly like having a TV that watches you back.

Russia is a country where there is no respect for individual freedom and that's not something other countries should want to imitate. Instead of evolving, society is going backwards.

 

[bobhikes]

There was another thread citing how and why other nations limit internet. And it all boils down to limit of information which is censorship. It has little to do with business.

Yes but in the US the government is not going to limit the internet in any way. They are giving business's the right to do so if they can prove it benefits the consumer. The government is going to interpret the definition of benefit, so if Verizon can guaranty 1000 new jobs if they block NetFlix and Netflix is going to only lose 100 jobs then it may be approved.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The internet was the the way it was. When the government, or the FCC which is a government within the government decides to change that it's bad. Gee I wonder what they plan to do? Could it be that they will make the cost go up and the quality go down? Like clockwork!

 

[Quintessence]

It's also about recognizing when something is a public utility, something that America has thus far failed to do. The internet is a public utility; it's high time it be regulated as such. Failing to recognize the internet is a public utility - as a modern version of the telephone - allows this crap to happen.

Can you imagine people standing for the equivalent of this with phone service? "We're sorry, your call could not be completed because you are attempting to connect to a non-corporate entity. We prioritize corporate services and are free to deny you conversations with your family at any time."

 

[bobhikes]

It's also about recognizing when something is a public utility, something that America has thus far failed to do. The internet is a public utility; it's high time it be regulated as such. Failing to recognize the internet is a public utility - as a modern version of the telephone - allows this crap to happen.

Can you imagine people standing for the equivalent of this with phone service? "We're sorry, your call could not be completed because you are attempting to connect to a non-corporate entity. We prioritize corporate services and are free to deny you conversations with your family at any time."

That's how I explained it to my kids. I compared it to using the phone and having different providers.

 

[sun rise]

This will be a talking point for many politicians. I like to see how the GOP candidates squirm their way out of this considering most of the population is against this.

The GOP does not care. They are rewarding their donors.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes but in the US the government is not going to limit the internet in any way. They are giving business's the right to do so if they can prove it benefits the consumer. The government is going to interpret the definition of benefit, so if Verizon can guaranty 1000 new jobs if they block NetFlix and Netflix is going to only lose 100 jobs then it may be approved.

There is no benefit to the consumers if the costs go up. Your situation only benefits Verizon and the 1000 new jobs.

Tell me how an ISP is benefiting ME when it throttles or even ends my connection with Netflix?

Try again?

 

[Quintessence]

That's how I explained it to my kids. I compared it to using the phone and having different providers.

It's a decent comparison, though it has its flaws. It's worse to throttle content with the internet since the infrastructure isn't publicly owned. That infrastructure is very expensive to install, which means most consumers are lucky if they have a choice between two different ISPs. Thus, it goes beyond "we're sorry, we can't connect this phone call to your family because our service prioritizes corporate customers" but a "we're sorry, not only can't we connect this phone call to your family, but you are $#@% outta luck if you ever want to because we have a monopoly in your area."

 

[bobhikes]

There is no benefit to the consumers if the costs go up. Your situation only benefits Verizon and the 1000 new jobs.

Tell me how an ISP is benefiting ME when it throttles or even ends my connection with Netflix?

Try again?

You miss the point "benefit" is going to be decided by who Donald Trump has running the FTC. If Donald isn't benefiting or Doesn't like the company "CNN", "NFL" they are going to not be beneficial. If Trump industries gets a big project from the company, they will be doing something beneficial.

 

[Nakosis]

True. And politics is about controlling people. What better way to control the people than to filter the information they receive?

Honestly, this is what has been happening for years. You rely on your religion, your political leaders your local news media.

I imagine this ability to sidestep all that which came with the internet really pissed off the powers that be.

Now they want to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's a decent comparison, though it has its flaws. It's worse to throttle content with the internet since the infrastructure isn't publicly owned. That infrastructure is very expensive to install, which means most consumers are lucky if they have a choice between two different ISPs. Thus, it goes beyond "we're sorry, we can't connect this phone call to your family because our service prioritizes corporate customers" but a "we're sorry, not only can't we connect this phone call to your family, but you are $#@% outta luck if you ever want to because we have a monopoly in your area."

That is a keyword. Monopoly.

I think any business that falls in this category would justify government regulation. In that respect, I support net neutrality.

On the other hand if there's healthy competition available, cost impacts will be minimal to the consumer because of it. Provided of course, enough choices are available. In such a case, I would oppose net neutrality and would side with the FCC decision.

Personally I'm on the fence about the whole thing. It's hard to tell which direction things will go now although I understand the concerns.

I don't trust companies to be honest if they have the lion's share of any single service or product. If the gaming industry is any kind of indicator, its certainly feasible to see services and products inevitably placed behind paywalls where there used to be none before. Companies look at market data. Not people's concerns or wants.

I think as consumers we should do the common sense thing and adapt to whatever happens. Keeping in mind that if you continually spend on a product it's just going to continue, but if you boycott, things will change.

I'm not a big proponent of government regulation. In fact, I think there needs to be far less regulation in a fair number of areas but there are exceptions.

The problem is if we are going to be paying for this exclusivity for which additional costs are levied upon the consumers, making everything even more expensive than ever is going to become the standard.
I think companies view this as people are going to gripe at first and complain, then adjust and life continues on the same as ever.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

 

[David T]

"Net Neutrality is all about treating packets the same. Nobody is saying you should not pay more for using more, but the idea is that providers shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the source, destination, or content. Providers shouldn’t be able to filter the data you see, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to modify the site data they deliver to you." -- from An FAQ for Defending Net Neutrality – Hacker Noon

So Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech.

No its not its about money. Please already.

 

[idav]

"Net Neutrality is all about treating packets the same. Nobody is saying you should not pay more for using more, but the idea is that providers shouldn’t be able to discriminate on the source, destination, or content. Providers shouldn’t be able to filter the data you see, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to modify the site data they deliver to you." -- from An FAQ for Defending Net Neutrality – Hacker Noon

So Net Neutrality is about freedom of speech.

Net neutrality is about asking them to quit monkeying around and why US are not anywhere near top ten on this list.
List of countries by Internet connection speeds - Wikipedia

 

[Falvlun]

Yes but in the US the government is not going to limit the internet in any way. They are giving business's the right to do so if they can prove it benefits the consumer. The government is going to interpret the definition of benefit, so if Verizon can guaranty 1000 new jobs if they block NetFlix and Netflix is going to only lose 100 jobs then it may be approved.

I haven’t heard anything about ISP’s having to prove that their actions benefit the consumer. Where are you getting this from?