Net neutrality act .. squashed !

August · 04-06-10, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

Exactly.

Wolfehunter · 04-06-10, 03:13 PM

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow...

Aramike · 04-06-10, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow...

...or the third option; anarchy.

The government doesn't need to regulate the internet. They merely need to regulate the providers.

August · 04-06-10, 06:47 PM

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

tater · 04-06-10, 07:02 PM

Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down."

Oh, and all negotiations were supposed to be on CSPAN (all of the above per direct statements by the President).

It will do none of the above, and we were instead told by the Speaker that it needed to be passed so we (the People) could see what was in it.

Again, what was the text of the law? Was it longer than what I posted above? If it was, it likely did a lot more than you say was the goal.

Platapus · 04-06-10, 07:05 PM

tater, you twice asked what the wording of the proposed law was. Why don't you research it and read it for yourself?

If you are really interested in the wording of legislation, it is best to go to a reliable source instead of asking on a video game forum.

tater · 04-06-10, 07:07 PM

True, I was being lazy, though. I assumed that anyone who cared that passionately about it (I never really paid attention to it) would know the law by heart.

August · 04-06-10, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down."

Well yeah, but however failed or misguided the effort was, it does not mean the need for reform doesn't exist.

tater · 04-06-10, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Well yeah, but however failed or misguided the effort was, it does not mean the need for reform doesn't exist.

Passing bad, counter productive reform is not better than doing nothing at all.

First, do no harm.

What was passed does rather a lot of harm.

Aramike · 04-06-10, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

I don't disagree with that premise, and I'll admit I'm only vaguely familiar with the issue in question. However, I also don't disagree with the idea of covering pre-existing conditions (with some considerations, of course) regarding healthcare, but that does not mean that ObamaCare was a good thing.

I think the Act could have been simplified to prevent the "problem" while avoiding the more intrusive government impositions.

mookiemookie · 04-07-10, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

We don't often agree, but we do on this issue.

The scary part of this is that as it currently stands, the outcomes are very bad for consumers. The ideologues will try to paint this as the big bad gubmint trying to control things on the internet, but they misunderstand the argument.

As it stands now:

Quote:

A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

But the last laugh may be on the ISPs. The FCC could potentially reclassify them as telecoms, bringing them under the FCC's purview. And that comes with a lot of regulation that the ISPs probably wouldn't like.

Read more here: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/

Aramike · 04-07-10, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

We don't often agree, but we do on this issue.

The scary part of this is that as it currently stands, the outcomes are very bad for consumers. The ideologues will try to paint this as the big bad gubmint trying to control things on the internet, but they misunderstand the argument.

As it stands now:

But the last laugh may be on the ISPs. The FCC could potentially reclassify them as telecoms, bringing them under the FCC's purview. And that comes with a lot of regulation that the ISPs probably wouldn't like.

Read more here: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ...

But they don't.

In any case, it isn't up to the FCC to make those determinations.

Zachstar · 04-07-10, 02:06 PM

But they don't? Comcast already throttled bittorrent traffic back when they werent 100 percent sure they were in the clear.

Not up to the FCC? Again read up on the history of the internet. The backbone of it all is from the gov.

There are some GOP pro net neutrality congress critters so moving ISPs back to telecoms would be easy. My guess is tho congress is going to take a pass right now and watch.

Right now its MAD If comcast tries somthing again Net Neutrality will likely be passed. They ought to have accepted the punishment it would have been less likely to have NN passed.

mookiemookie · 04-07-10, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ...

But they don't.

But for how long? I'd like to see it regulated in stone that they can't.

04-06-10, 03:13 PM	#2
Wolfehunter Crusty Capt. Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,752 Downloads: 40 Uploads: 25	Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow... __________________

04-06-10, 06:47 PM	#4
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,226 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors. This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

04-06-10, 07:05 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,396 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	tater, you twice asked what the wording of the proposed law was. Why don't you research it and read it for yourself? If you are really interested in the wording of legislation, it is best to go to a reliable source instead of asking on a video game forum. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-07-10, 02:06 PM	#13
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	But they don't? Comcast already throttled bittorrent traffic back when they werent 100 percent sure they were in the clear. Not up to the FCC? Again read up on the history of the internet. The backbone of it all is from the gov. There are some GOP pro net neutrality congress critters so moving ISPs back to telecoms would be easy. My guess is tho congress is going to take a pass right now and watch. Right now its MAD If comcast tries somthing again Net Neutrality will likely be passed. They ought to have accepted the punishment it would have been less likely to have NN passed. __________________

04-06-10, 07:02 PM	#5
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down." Oh, and all negotiations were supposed to be on CSPAN (all of the above per direct statements by the President). It will do none of the above, and we were instead told by the Speaker that it needed to be passed so we (the People) could see what was in it. Again, what was the text of the law? Was it longer than what I posted above? If it was, it likely did a lot more than you say was the goal.

04-06-10, 07:07 PM	#7
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	True, I was being lazy, though. I assumed that anyone who cared that passionately about it (I never really paid attention to it) would know the law by heart.