The chief of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), Julius Genachowski, has outlined a plan on Monday with a new net neutrality plan to help keep the Internet open.The new purposed plan would prevent all Internet service providers from blocking content or services to customers. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other broadband companies are among the affected companies, while online content providers like Yahoo and Apple will remain unaffected.
Many companies and people still oppose the proposed plan because it prevents companies from blocking harmful content on the Internet. Many others see net neutrality as a positive thing because it encourages creativity, innovation and economic growth.
"We cannot afford to rely on happenstance for consumers, businesses, and policymakers to learn about changes to the basic functioning of the Internet," Genachowski said. "Greater transparency will give consumers the confidence of knowing that they're getting the service they've paid for, enable innovators to make their offerings work effectively over the Internet, and allow policymakers to ensure that broadband providers are preserving the Internet as a level playing field."
The proposed plan would also prevent companies from throttling peer-to-peer protocols, making it harder for RIAA and MPAA to bring cyber pirates to justice.
+1
The internet isnt a public road. You pay ISPs (a private company) to use a service they provide to you. You may not like the way they operate, but then again, you can just go to another company.
And what ISP is controlling what you look at? Go ahead and type the most outlandish thing in a search engine, and you wont find a single instance where an ISP pops up and say you cant look at that.
Give me a break from this adolescent-socialism garbage being spewed here. This has nothing to do with ISPs hurting anyone here. This is pure and simple, a group of tools that wants to use the weight of the government to force private companies to allow bandwidth hogs to essentially run the internet into the round.
The internet isnt a public road. You pay ISPs (a private company) to use a service they provide to you. You may not like the way they operate, but then again, you can just go to another company.
And what ISP is controlling what you look at? Go ahead and type the most outlandish thing in a search engine, and you wont find a single instance where an ISP pops up and say you cant look at that.
Give me a break from this adolescent-socialism garbage being spewed here. This has nothing to do with ISPs hurting anyone here. This is pure and simple, a group of tools that wants to use the weight of the government to force private companies to allow bandwidth hogs to essentially run the internet into the round.
The problem is that ISP's want to control what you should and shouldn't have. They already have premiums are fast connections and how much you download, how about a price on what services you can use? It's asking for abuse and this is why people are trying to push net neutrality.
For example, you might have an internet connection and pay $30 for a certain amount of speed and bandwidth, but you may not be allowed to go on YouTube, if you want to view videos, download music, IPTV and so on they might turn around and say "Well, that'll cost you more."
The internet should be kept open and fair.
Where I live, as well as plenty of other places, there may only be one or two suitable high speed operators. In my area, we have Charter Cable that runs up to 10Mb/s, and we have AT&T, which only has 786k DSL. We have five computers in our house (including two gamers), and I remote desktop into work very frequently, so 786k is just not acceptable. We're stuck using Charter.
Many people are in a similar situation - they only have one logical high speed choice, rather it be by no competition, or the competition being too slow.
Many people are in a similar situation - they only have one logical high speed choice, rather it be by no competition, or the competition being too slow.
Ok, and your point? You live in a place where only one ISP bothered to set up shop. Whoop de s*it!
I fail to see what this has to do with Washington forcing ISPs to accommodate every power users desire to burn through bandwidth like it's toilet paper doused in gasoline.
Some places dont have 3G service, can we have DC force cell companies to make 3G available over every square inch of the U.S.?
Actually, the internet itself IS a public road. ISP's do NOT own or control it, they only provide an access point to that road. Once you are on the road, they should have no right to say which destinations along the road you can visit.
I fail to see what this has to do with Washington forcing ISPs to accommodate every power users desire to burn through bandwidth like it's toilet paper doused in gasoline.
Some places dont have 3G service, can we have DC force cell companies to make 3G available over every square inch of the U.S.?
Do you work for an ISP or something? I've never heard someone so against net neutrality for no other reason than you hate the government. Ok, you don't want uncle Sam or "Big Brother" dictating what private companies can do. I get that. But in this instance they're tyring to prevent these private companies (the ISP's) from abusing their power. They're not trying to give bandwidth hogs free reign, they're trying to prevent people from getting screwed because they live in a region with one ISP (or two as mentioned above) who decides what they can view. Can you imagine AT&T blocking access to Comcast because they consider it competition and don't want their customers "wasting" bandwidth on the competition? In a very simple form - that's what they're trying to protect us from.
I fail to see what this has to do with Washington forcing ISPs to accommodate every power users desire to burn through bandwidth like it's toilet paper doused in gasoline.
Some places dont have 3G service, can we have DC force cell companies to make 3G available over every square inch of the U.S.?
Do you work for an ISP or something? I've never heard someone so against net neutrality for no other reason than you hate the government. Ok, you don't want uncle Sam or "Big Brother" dictating what private companies can do. I get that. But in this instance they're tyring to prevent these private companies (the ISP's) from abusing their power. They're not trying to give bandwidth hogs free reign, they're trying to prevent people from getting screwed because they live in a region with one ISP (or two as mentioned above) who decides what they can view. Can you imagine AT&T blocking access to Comcast because they consider it competition and don't want their customers "wasting" bandwidth on the competition? In a very simple form - that's what they're trying to protect us from.
Do you work for the FCC or something?
Again with the big bad monster ISPs that haven't done jack to you, but you want to pretend that they might (maybe, perhaps, you aren't really sure) do something bad to you.
GIVE ME A GO*DAMN EXAMPLE OF AN ISP PREVENTING YOU FROM VIEWING SOMETHING, NOT YOUR VAGUE CONSPIRACY THEORY.
The only example people keep giving is some dingbat idea that Comcast is going to prevent you from going to Google unless you pay extra, is so stupid that it doesn't even warrant a serious discussion.
AT&T advertises on Comcast cable for crying out loud. If this type of crap actually happens, I wouldn't see an ad for them!
This boils down to a bunch of bandwith hogs and power users that dont like that they cant just eat up their ISPs bandwidth so they want big brother government to FORCE ISPs "all in the name of fairness" to accept all bandwidth-clogging traffic so they can game, bit-torrent, and stream HD, until their ears bleed.
Dont like the way the ISP in your town works? How about being a big boy and do the following:
Use a different company.
Live with it.
Move.
Go without the internet.
I fail to see what this has to do with Washington forcing ISPs to accommodate every power users desire to burn through bandwidth like it's toilet paper doused in gasoline.
Some places dont have 3G service, can we have DC force cell companies to make 3G available over every square inch of the U.S.?
Do you work for an ISP or something? I've never heard someone so against net neutrality for no other reason than you hate the government. Ok, you don't want uncle Sam or "Big Brother" dictating what private companies can do. I get that. But in this instance they're tyring to prevent these private companies (the ISP's) from abusing their power. They're not trying to give bandwidth hogs free reign, they're trying to prevent people from getting screwed because they live in a region with one ISP (or two as mentioned above) who decides what they can view. Can you imagine AT&T blocking access to Comcast because they consider it competition and don't want their customers "wasting" bandwidth on the competition? In a very simple form - that's what they're trying to protect us from.
The defamation in US of A is pretty unoriginal (if not simply a copy and paste) but effective in some group of citizen. It is always related with communism, big brother or involving a enemy country (such Nazis, Muslim and so on).
For most people, In the same basis that Obama = Muslim = Commie = Democrat = Liberal = Big Brother = Conspiracy everywhere = Baby eater, then net neutrality = communism = a bad thing.
I fail to see what this has to do with Washington forcing ISPs to accommodate every power users desire to burn through bandwidth like it's toilet paper doused in gasoline.
Some places dont have 3G service, can we have DC force cell companies to make 3G available over every square inch of the U.S.?
Do you work for an ISP or something? I've never heard someone so against net neutrality for no other reason than you hate the government. Ok, you don't want uncle Sam or "Big Brother" dictating what private companies can do. I get that. But in this instance they're tyring to prevent these private companies (the ISP's) from abusing their power. They're not trying to give bandwidth hogs free reign, they're trying to prevent people from getting screwed because they live in a region with one ISP (or two as mentioned above) who decides what they can view. Can you imagine AT&T blocking access to Comcast because they consider it competition and don't want their customers "wasting" bandwidth on the competition? In a very simple form - that's what they're trying to protect us from.
Do you work for the FCC or something?
Again with the big bad monster ISPs that haven't done jack to you, but you want to pretend that they might (maybe, perhaps, you aren't really sure) do something bad to you.
GIVE ME A GO*DAMN EXAMPLE OF AN ISP PREVENTING YOU FROM VIEWING SOMETHING, NOT YOUR VAGUE CONSPIRACY THEORY.
The only example people keep giving is some dingbat idea that Comcast is going to prevent you from going to Google unless you pay extra, is so stupid that it doesn't even warrant a serious discussion.
AT&T advertises on Comcast cable for crying out loud. If this type of crap actually happens, I wouldn't see an ad for them!
This boils down to a bunch of bandwith hogs and power users that dont like that they cant just eat up their ISPs bandwidth so they want big brother government to FORCE ISPs "all in the name of fairness" to accept all bandwidth-clogging traffic so they can game, bit-torrent, and stream HD, until their ears bleed.
Dont like the way the ISP in your town works? How about being a big boy and do the following:
Use a different company.
Live with it.
Move.
Go without the internet.
Obvious troll is obvious..
You failed.
*This does not mean I have heard and disapproved of everything they have done, it simply means of the things I have heard of the FCC doing, this is one of the few (if not only) things they have done that I agree with.
With IP6, infrastructure provides have extensive ability to manipulate speeds to different segments, or sites. Comcast could come with it own search engine, criple access to google, and try and charge google $$$$$ for normal access to is sites via it's network.
You are asking to use a nuke to kill a fly in the Arctic that no one has ever seen, but think may show up one day.
Right, so you do want it hijacked by corporate interests?
Besides, what is it you think government actually does?
You are asking to use a nuke to kill a fly in the Arctic that no one has ever seen, but think may show up one day.
Doesn't matter, it could happen. Comcast might get money from Microsoft to only allow search results through Bing or Yahoo. That's an extreme example of what can happen, but I wouldn't want people to be dictated what and what they can't do on the Internet, at least, not when it comes to business interests. If people download child pornography for example, I hope they caught and burned in hell.
You are asking to use a nuke to kill a fly in the Arctic that no one has ever seen, but think may show up one day.
Doesn't matter, it could happen. Comcast might get money from Microsoft to only allow search results through Bing or Yahoo. That's an extreme example of what can happen, but I wouldn't want people to be dictated what and what they can't do on the Internet, at least, not when it comes to business interests. If people download child pornography for example, I hope they caught and burned in hell.
MIGHT, IS NOT IS!
You guys are running on theories and assumptions about some company cutting off access to a website for whatever reason you can pull out of your a*s. But the point is that it hasn't happened and no one is reasonably expecting it to. The fact that people can and do download child pornography should serve as proof positive that the ISPs aren't remotely restricting jack.
When ISPs are doing something nefarious, then talk with your dollars, but don't play this dangerous game of thinking that the FCC is going to be totally above board and not use your ignorance as a golden opportunity to scrape some more freedom off of the constitution.
Just because Obama is your friend on Facebook, does not mean isnt above this
You guys are running on theories and assumptions about some company cutting off access to a website for whatever reason you can pull out of your a*s. But the point is that it hasn't happened and no one is reasonably expecting it to. The fact that people can and do download child pornography should serve as proof positive that the ISPs aren't remotely restricting jack.
When ISPs are doing something nefarious, then talk with your dollars, but don't play this dangerous game of thinking that the FCC is going to be totally above board and not use your ignorance as a golden opportunity to scrape some more freedom off of the constitution.
Just because Obama is your friend on Facebook, does not mean isnt above this
Yes it HAS happened! Comcast and Charter, two huge ISP's, HAVE been caught throttling certain types of traffic so YES, it HAS happened.
Your arguments are simple-minded and juvenile. If you would comprehend what's being said instead of screaming "down with the government" then you might just understand. You CANNOT talk with your dollars when there is only one show in town! It's that simple. That's the whole point. These ISP's are far and few and they have monopolies in many areas where there is either no competition or weak competition forcing consumers to go to one company. These laws are to protect consumers from these monopolistic ISP's. It has nothing to do with freedom being stolen from the constitution. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
You fail
Your arguments are simple-minded and juvenile. If you would comprehend what's being said instead of screaming "down with the government" then you might just understand. You CANNOT talk with your dollars when there is only one show in town! It's that simple. That's the whole point. These ISP's are far and few and they have monopolies in many areas where there is either no competition or weak competition forcing consumers to go to one company. These laws are to protect consumers from these monopolistic ISP's. It has nothing to do with freedom being stolen from the constitution. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
You fail
Oh bull*hit.
Funny how you never explained what "caught throttling certain types of traffic" meant. Gee I wonder why?
They throttled BIT TORRENT and other high-bandwidth usage from people that do it constantly!
NO KIDDING SHERLOCK!
Try running an ISP and field calls from thousands of irate users who have a slow connection only to tell them that it's a group of 14 people running monster bit-torrent servers, and that they are legally forbidden from throttling their bandwidth to speed up your now slow connection.
So what do you want the ISPs to do? They are always laying bigger pipe, but that stuff costs money, and unless you are willing, or your mom and dad, to pony up the cash to get it done quicker, I suggest to turn Vuze off most of the day, and learn that bandwidth isnt infinite and isnt your right.
And what the h*ll does having one ISP in your area have to do with this subject anyway? If you are so PO'd by the lack of choices, get together with your neighbors and lobby another provider to set up shop in your town.
Oh, let me guess, that involves effort, right?
"Besides, what is it you think government actually does?"
/////////STUFF THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO///////////
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Yeah, nothing about "net neutrality".
Yeah, nothing about "net neutrality".
Net neutrality is a part of regulating commerce between the States and with foreign nations.
As with your earlier comments, you fail because you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject.
Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it never will. This is simply a proactive step to prevent it. It's like a vaccine against a deadly disease that could kill billions, except that it doesn't quite exist yet, but similar viruses have been spotted.
If you want an example of ISPs interfering with websites, look at Canadian ISP Rogers Cable. They trialed a program where ads were injected into downloaded websites, interfering with the websites' content.
Thankfully, they've stopped doing it, but it's just a scary glimpse of where we could have gone.
Yeah, nothing about "net neutrality".
Net neutrality is a part of regulating commerce between the States and with foreign nations.
As with your earlier comments, you fail because you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject.
And you fail at understanding what commerce is.
You viewing a web page isn't commerce. You downloading a picture from a server in Boston is not commerce.
An ISP saying to a user "look, your constant high-bandwidth use is making it harder for everyone else to use our service, so we have to throttle your speed down or we cant operate" does not fall under the Commerce Clause of the constitution no more than preventing a person from buying one plane ticket, but being so large that the two people sitting next to him can sit in the seats they paid for, but the large man doesn't want to pay more for an extra seat.
Remember the uproar from people when states try to charge sales tax on items bought on the internet?
"I bought it over the internet. I'm not really in that state so I dont have to pay their taxes!!!!"
Even though your "commerce" allowed you to buy in state A and have it shipped to you.
So don't get so righteous about net neutrality, because their is a real can of worms being opened that's more real than Comcast supposedly not allowing you to use Google.
Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it never will. This is simply a proactive step to prevent it. It's like a vaccine against a deadly disease that could kill billions, except that it doesn't quite exist yet, but similar viruses have been spotted.
If you want an example of ISPs interfering with websites, look at Canadian ISP Rogers Cable. They trialed a program where ads were injected into downloaded websites, interfering with the websites' content.
Thankfully, they've stopped doing it, but it's just a scary glimpse of where we could have gone.
Welcome to the world of pre-crime!
You may not rob my house, but I'm going to have you handcuffed because I just dont like you and you might.
"If you want an example of ISPs interfering with websites, look at Canadian ISP Rogers Cable. They trialed a program where ads were injected into downloaded websites, interfering with the websites' content. "
Take it up with Stephen Harper then. Canada =/= U.S.A.
Finally someone understands the way people think when it comes to the world of the Internet. Beat that Comcast! WOO!
Yes us in the boonies or country get the crappy end of the deal just because cable, dsl, or fiber companies won't extend their services any further and we are only about 5 - 7 miles outside the city.
I could go on, but I'm pressed for time right now.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.