Explain the "Net-Neutrality" thing to me

[z31maniac]

I've read a few articles, but all I've gathered is it would "prevent companies from favoring other companies/technologies."

Anyone have the inside scoop on this?

[Danny]

omg SOCIALISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Now that that is taken care of, carry on.

[z31maniac]

I thought you were a mod to help prevent trolling, not contribute to it.

[Raxe]

As far as I can remember the goal is to prevent companies (let's say, Google) from paying an ISP (say, Comcast) to block all other search engines on the internet so that Comcast subscribers can only use Google.

This also works on a further level where any website would have to pay Comcast in order for it's users to be able to visit the website. However instead of purely blocking the website they can screw around with loading speeds and allocated bandwidth. You pay; your website loads faster and is more favorable.

Basically net neutrality is trying to prevent a "pay to play" thing from happening with the internet. The debate is users (who want neutrality and freedom) vs. corporations (who want money money money.)

[Danny]

I thought you were a mod to help prevent trolling, not contribute to it.

Oh hush up. I was getting it out of the way early.

[z31maniac]

As far as I can remember the goal is to prevent companies (let's say, Google) from paying an ISP (say, Comcast) from block all other search engines on the internet so that Comcast subscribers can only use Google.

This also works on a further level where any website would have to pay Comcast in order for it's users to be able to visit the website. However instead of purely blocking the website they can screw around with loading speeds and allocated bandwidth.

Basically net neutrality is trying to prevent a "pay to play" thing from happening with the internet. The debate is users (who want neutrality and freedom) vs. corporations (who want money money money.)

Ahhh ok, thanks for the explanation.

Oh hush up. I was getting it out of the way early.

[LBJefferies]

With a few exceptions, the way things are right now, when someone pays their monthly internet fee, they have equal access to all content and unlimited amounts of it. It may be in the business interests of some companies to start restricting or redirecting what their users do on the internet based on how much the user pays and how much their advertisers pay. For example, a company like Comcast may not want you to visit the website of one of their competitors or someone who does not pay them for advertising. Or they may not want you to watch tons of streaming movies unless you pay a higher fee. Some companies want to turn the internet into what cable tv is. Not all companies, but some.

Supporters of Net Neutrality want to keep things the way they are where access to the internet is essentially equal across the board. Opponents of Net Neutrality argue that the internet should not be regulated and Net Neutrality laws will lower profits and stifle innovation.

I say that we paid for the internet backbone with our tax dollars and corporations should not do with it as they please. I want things to be equal. We don't need regulation as long as corporations understand that the people deserve equal access to all content. Think of public highways, do we allow corporations to install toll booths along these highways and collect all the profits? Of course not. We shouldn't allow them to do this with the internet.

[kronus]

Opponents of ______ regulation argue that ______ should not be regulated because _____ regulation will lower profits and stifle innovation.

How many times have we all heard this before?

note - I agree with you, that phrase just stuck out to me as something that it very frequently said about anything that someone at the head of some company ever disliked.

[Raxe]

"Stifling innovation" is complete garbage when it comes to the Internet. In the real world of Apple and Sony you might be able argue that, but on the Internet where any 16 year old kid in his parents basement can make the next Facebook it's only helping innovation, not hurting it.

[einhander]

Is it coming? It might be coming...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/tom-wheeler-fcc-net-neutrality-defend-106894.html

[einhander]

Pfff, you sensitive Sallies get all bent out of shape over imagined government tyranny about your guns, but when the threat is clear and present you're nowhere to be found.

Terrible.

[Thizzelle]

this explains it

[einhander]

You'd think these fearful Franks would be throwing their arms up at corporate and government tyranny...they're too busy fantasizing about the one in a billion chance of some crack fiend breaking into their homes so they can blow his brains out.

[mrsleeve]

Ummmm thats not what its going to do that was the original intent and original law that was struck down.


the current FCC plan is to allow "Fast lanes" and basically neuter this original intent, thus allowing more big corp/Govt collusion and cronieism that we all hate.....

[evandael]

i need my porn and cat videos at lightning fast speeds and if comcast fucks this up for me there will be blood.