Ist amendment and internet neutrality

This is a discussion on Ist amendment and internet neutrality within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; BBC reports Now, it's not meant to be political... But it could... No, it will affect all of us who use this and other internet ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Ist amendment and internet neutrality

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,060

    Ist amendment and internet neutrality

    BBC reports

    Now, it's not meant to be political... But it could... No, it will affect all of us who use this and other internet forums to discuss current events, whether it be gun related or not...

    Without net neutrality, we risk losing some more of our free speech rights...

    if it's too political, mods, go ahead and remove it...
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    BBC reports

    Now, it's not meant to be political... But it could... No, it will affect all of us who use this and other internet forums to discuss current events, whether it be gun related or not...

    Without net neutrality, we risk losing some more of our free speech rights...

    if it's too political, mods, go ahead and remove it...
    Really? How do you "lose" a "right" to access or use someone else's property? Sorry, you bring up "net neutrality" I'm going to start shooting back post haste. You're rights end where they infringe on mine. It's the same whether it's firearms or communications.

    If I start a service and say I'm going to charge $5 for you to use my service and $10 for extra fast service, that's my right. You, nor the government should have no say in the matter other than to decide whether or not you want to pay for the extra service. It's my lines, my infrastructure and I damn well paid to put in said infrastructure and already did all the legwork. You want to use it? Pay me what I require. Otherwise...find the door and "don't let it hit ya where the good lord split ya".

    It's the same if Bumper were to start charging for access to this site. Don't like it? Fine. Go elsewhere or make a compelling argument to bumper as to the cost/benefit analysis and change his mind. What's the alternative you ask? Oh right...net neutrality...in other words, illegally use the government's legal monopoly of force to either force or coerce them into servitude.

    Edit: More on this from the Brit side...
    http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadban...-the-slow-lane
    It's a sad state when the Brits are the only freedom loving sane one's in the argument.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,071
    Net neutrality laws are a bit weird. They might seem like a good idea, until you realize it's just another chance for the government to force someone to do things the way they want.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,060
    I see the points against any regulation. And I might have been a bit thrown by the "neutrality" label... but I still don't want the Internet censored, or parts of it made inaccessible. If I pay for Internet acess, I do not want to be denied DC, or any other forum/site because it offends the sensibilities of those who control the access.

    I have no problem with paying for service, I already do pay for an ISP... But what if some of the ISPs in certain areas, such as mine, are the only game in town (rural DSL)... what if they start blocking certain sites as employers are wont to do now? I cannot vote with my feet without changing an entire lifestyle.

    I also have no problem with a forum or site charging for access... that is the option of the site owner... I can choose to subscribe or not... but if I cannot even see it due to some coding by the owners of my DSL lines... then I am not getting internet access, I am getting limited internet access.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=oakchas;1772848]I see the points against any regulation. And I might have been a bit thrown by the "neutrality" label... but I still don't want the Internet censored, or parts of it made inaccessible. If I pay for Internet acess, I do not want to be denied DC, or any other forum/site because it offends the sensibilities of those who control the access.

    I have no problem with paying for service, I already do pay for an ISP... But what if some of the ISPs in certain areas, such as mine, are the only game in town (rural DSL)... what if they start blocking certain sites as employers are wont to do now? I cannot vote with my feet without changing an entire lifestyle.

    I also have no problem with a forum or site charging for access... that is the option of the site owner... I can choose to subscribe or not... but if I cannot even see it due to some coding by the owners of my DSL lines... then I am not getting internet access, I am getting limited internet access.[/
    QUOTE]

    At which point you are free to invest in a new start-up internet provider offering unfettered access that will drive your sole competitor out of business.

    I know, easier said than done, but who ever told you freedom was easy?

    Seriously, though, there are options in most of this country, even the rural areas. They may not be the options we would like, but if the demand is there, someone will provide the service/product.
    "Mind own business"
    "Always cut cards"

  7. #6
    Member Array Bhamrichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Birmingham, AL.
    Posts
    234
    Not sure ya'll are understanding this correctly. So far, anyway, noone has been saying (the ISP's) that they'd block users from reaching various sites. What they ARE talking about, is slowing down, or perhaps offering a fee service for sites like Youtube, Netflix, Google that would allow their content to reach users faster than say, MSN. You pay the fee, they give you unfettered access to their bandwidth, you don't, and your competitors site may load up a lot faster than yours. So if Yahoo paid the fee, and Google did not, Yahoo's site would be transmitted with a higher priority, and your Google experience could conceivably suck.

    So far, AFAIK, Time Warner cable (if memory serves) is the only ISP that has been caught red handed in blocking or slowing down internet traffic from high bandwidth services. I believe in TW's case, it was P2P services like Limewire. I haven't yet seen any ISP's mention anything about blocking specific services, in which case I'd probably sue for charging me for a service and then not providing it, but they are looking at ways to generate additional revenue by charging content providers.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

    Alabama Constitution of 1901 - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

  8. #7
    Member Array BurgDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    130
    Tack a ennobling name on some legislation and everyone falls in line supporting it without even needing to read what it actually does or think of the unintended (or actually intended in some cases) consequences. The feds want to regulate methods of network management. Time Warner wasn't blocking or slowing a specific source, it was slowing down a type of network traffic that was causing disruption to other users.

    I have a 1Tbps pipe running into my house from the cable company. They have dedicated 99.5% of it to streaming video content that they provide and let me have only 20Mbps for all other content sources like their competitor Netflix. They are giving a huge advantage to themselves. Why does the government want to prevent the cable company from using their distribution the way the want - what gives the government that right.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,970
    This one's really a no-brainer: If you like the Internet the way it works now, then you support Net Neutrality. The term "neutrality" here means that as far as the service provider is concerned, all the 1's and 0's that move along the pipe to your home are the same. If it's e-mail, music, video, a game, doesn't matter. It's all just megabits per second.

    It was very strange and bizarre to see some of the big business politicos twist that around until suddenly it meant "government intrusion" and similar hoo-hah. Anybody thinks that, they have been well and truly played.

    Here's an analogy that should sort it out for you if you're confused: The water company would like to charge you more - a LOT more - for the water you use, so they propose special pricing. They'll charge one rate for water you drink, more for water you put on your lawn, and super high price for water you put in the swimming pool. This way, they'll make lots more money selling you the same stuff they sell you today.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,060
    Burg dog and shockwave are presenting different perspectives of the same regulation... I'm getting more confused. Great, now I have to study up and figgur it out.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  11. #10
    Member Array BurgDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    This one's really a no-brainer: If you like the Internet the way it works now, then you support Net Neutrality. The term "neutrality" here means that as far as the service provider is concerned, all the 1's and 0's that move along the pipe to your home are the same. If it's e-mail, music, video, a game, doesn't matter. It's all just megabits per second.
    Like my example, I get digital video streaming to my house, it is all 1's and 0's, from the cable company service provider at terabits per second and other network stuff at megabits per second. Cable TV gets a much higher bandwidth than other traffic on my connection. Net neutrality would prevent this preference. The cable company build their network to provide streaming video and only later added other types of data services from other companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    Here's an analogy that should sort it out for you if you're confused: The water company would like to charge you more - a LOT more - for the water you use, so they propose special pricing. They'll charge one rate for water you drink, more for water you put on your lawn, and super high price for water you put in the swimming pool. This way, they'll make lots more money selling you the same stuff they sell you today.
    They already do that with water. Non-potable water is used for lawn watering and is priced significantly cheaper per gallon than drinking water. This is similar to a quality of service tier for network traffic. Wanting to run voice over IP or video streaming can't tolerate out of sequence delivery and dropped packet/retrys so offer a service with better delivery guarantees that costs more as it is more expensive for the network to do. Net neutrality would prevent differential quality of service guarantees.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    A good example of how it will work...Both Google and Verizon want to offer a 'premium' service for additional bandwidth. They would restrict the speed for say, Netflix or YouTube. For an additional fee they would offer a high speed highway to those who can afford it.

    I do find it interesting that Google, who has made their fortunes by an open internet, now want to control and restrict it.(do I smell greed?) The government wants it to be an open information highway without any toll plazas. But the 'party of no' sees anything the government tries to do as bad and says this bill would "inhibit investment".

    There is much to gain by promoting an open internet and developing broadband. By the Republicans blocking this bill does only one thing...gives way for giant, profitable companies like Google to put on restrictions to make even more money. Can anyone think of anything positive that could come from these restrictions?
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    The idea that government should stay out of it because it is private business is utterly ridiculous. The telecoms are public utilities. The public has a right to regulate them. When they can run their lines without using government to obtain rights of way, without using eminent domain to obtain rights of way, without the satellite launch capabilities of uncle, without using our collective airspace, our collective outer-space, and our collective radio spectrum, without irradiating all of us with signal (whether harmful or not), maybe they can come back and tell me they are private enterprise and government has no right to regulate them. The cable companies too, run wire down our city streets. They get a monopoly in our city and we get a right to regulate. And we do too darn little of it. My cable rates have gone up more than 10 fold but my city doesn't encourage another company to serve our area. It should.

    Moreover, just because you are private, doesn't mean you don't get regulated. Run a food industry; grocery store or restaurant, you bet there will be health inspectors coming in. Too bad you think you can do whatever, but the folks buying your product are going to use government to make sure you don't poison us.

    We have a collective right to make certain we don't all get ripped.

    Now, I don't know what any of this has to do with net neutrality. But, I agree with the comment that if you like the internet as it is you should be opposed to the idea that the telecoms can handle different traffic differently. Pay per bit is a ridiculously bad idea. It is the modern technology equivalent of bait and switch. First you bring 'em in with the internet as it is, then you try to change the rules. Can you imagine the consumer fraud we will all be subjected to when you start getting confusing internet charges for x bits at y and z rates, based on time of day and content? You'll never know what you are paying for.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Thanks for the internet
    By boscobeans in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 29th, 2010, 01:58 PM
  2. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  3. 1st Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment in private forums
    By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  4. Do you buy over the Internet?
    By SIGP250 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: December 31st, 2009, 02:25 PM

Search tags for this page

ist amendment

,
ist amendment and the net
Click on a term to search for related topics.