|
Post by raphael on Sept 19, 2009 11:22:55 GMT -5
The government wants to change the rules of the internet. I have no clue what they are proposing. Can anyone decipher this in easier terms as what this might mean? The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.
The move would make good on a campaign promise to Silicon Valley supporters like Google Inc. from President Barack Obama, but will trigger a battle with phone and cable companies like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.
The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn't block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.online.wsj.com/article/SB125329467451823485.html
|
|
|
Post by bret on Sept 19, 2009 21:13:24 GMT -5
It's simple. Obama wants to make it so your ISP cannot dictate what you can send or receive over your internet connection.
Wireless carriers, which have been among the fiercest opponents of such regulation, continue to restrict what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. For example, earlier this year, AT&T restricted an Internet-phone service from Skype so iPhone users couldn't place calls on AT&T's cellular network. At the time, AT&T cited network congestion concerns.
Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency's "net neutrality" principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files.
|
|
|
Post by ShellBell on Sept 21, 2009 12:13:22 GMT -5
I dunno .. I smell a new mega tax on the horizon.
edit: as in usage ....anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by jay on Sept 21, 2009 14:17:21 GMT -5
The article explains it well..
This means that Comcast won't be able to stop or slow down traffic coming from let's say...EPB Fiber.. It has to treat all content the same.. This is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Sept 21, 2009 15:42:17 GMT -5
I find what Obama says here VERY troubling!!! And this may have nothing to do with net neutrality but it's clear that the powers that control our media are getting VERY restless. It must be controlled you know!!! Across the country, newspapers are struggling to maintain readership and advertising revenue that has been lost to the Internet. Thousands of journalists have been laid off, and over the last year several newspapers have closed.
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles TimesMr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said. "What I hope is that people start understanding if you're getting your newspaper over the Internet, that's not free and there's got to be a way to find a business model that supports that."www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090920/NEWS16/909200326
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Sept 22, 2009 9:01:11 GMT -5
The article explains it well.. This means that Comcast won't be able to stop or slow down traffic coming from let's say...EPB Fiber.. It has to treat all content the same.. This is a good thing. I heard a little radio blurb about it yesterday and it sounds like net neutrality is a good thing. There would need to be some minoe exceptions, I think, but the premise seems sound. Given that we've allowed a few companies to, essentially, control our internet accesss it's only reasonable to put some guarantees in place. I wouldn't want to see my ISP start to restrict my access to web sites based upon their ability to pay, or their friendliness to comcast.
|
|
|
Post by ShellBell on Sept 22, 2009 9:15:45 GMT -5
Well, I still sayeth the old WIFM doth applies ... (whats in it for me) .. as the media rallies behind it.
Expansive- taxes on usage charges, no different than our long distance charges, cellphones, cable service and all other forms of communication.
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Sept 22, 2009 9:17:38 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to see my ISP start to restrict my access to web sites based upon their ability to pay, or their friendliness to comcast. Or their moral, ethical, religious, or political leanings!
|
|
|
Post by bret on Sept 22, 2009 10:13:20 GMT -5
I find what Obama says here VERY troubling!!! And this may have nothing to do with net neutrality but it's clear that the powers that control our media are getting VERY restless. It must be controlled you know!!! I think Obama makes a good point that there is no accountability in the blogosphere. That's the problem now .... people can post whatever outlandish lies they can think of and other people will stupidly believe them. "I heard on the internet that Obama was a Muslim and wants to take out guns away and give the country to the Arabs. Oh yeah, he was born in Kenya."Back to the topic of net neutrality ..... It must really pain you, Raph, that Obama has come down on the side of freedom rather than censorship or "control" as you put it. You keep crying about the big bad government wanting to control everything, and yet here is our President fighting for our freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by bignana on Sept 22, 2009 10:27:14 GMT -5
But how does anyone know what the media is reporting is the truth and not just what they want you to hear? There is always a debate going on about the different networks and news papers only reporting for one side or the other. So how would we know?
|
|
|
Post by jay on Sept 22, 2009 11:00:56 GMT -5
At least w/ net neutrality, we're free to go on the web and research things ourselves. We won't be limited by our internet service provider.
|
|
|
Post by bret on Sept 22, 2009 12:17:31 GMT -5
At least w/ net neutrality, we're free to go on the web and research things ourselves. We won't be limited by our internet service provider. Good point. Otherwise, it would be like EPB telling us how we can use our electricity or TAWC telling us what we can use our water for. Or Comcast telling us what channels we can watch. Oh wait, they still do that.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Sept 22, 2009 12:34:42 GMT -5
Back to the topic of net neutrality ..... It must really pain you, Raph, that Obama has come down on the side of freedom rather than censorship or "control" as you put it. You keep crying about the big bad government wanting to control everything, and yet here is our President fighting for our freedoms.If it means what YOU say it does then I'm all for it. That's why I asked the question because I didn't know where this is going. I'm still confused about it. I'm not a geek like some of yuns!
|
|
|
Post by bret on Sept 22, 2009 14:42:46 GMT -5
As Jay said, "The article explains it well.'
Which of the big words were you having problems with?
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 24, 2009 22:40:03 GMT -5
This legislation paves the way for further gov't regulation of the internet.
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 25, 2009 9:52:06 GMT -5
Ok, so this is bugging me...
Conservatives preach about less gov't. Wouldn't it be more consistent to oppose this regulation even though it is beneficial to the internet using public?
I see a potential for abuse if the gov't is allowed to tell private companies what content or how much bandwidth to offer on their web services. This is a slippery slope. The market should drive this kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Sept 25, 2009 10:20:31 GMT -5
Ok, so this is bugging me... Conservatives preach about less gov't. Wouldn't it be more consistent to oppose this regulation even though it is beneficial to the internet using public? I see a potential for abuse if the gov't is allowed to tell private companies what content or how much bandwidth to offer on their web services. This is a slippery slope. The market should drive this kind of thing. The only problem with that is that we have allowed 2 or 3 companies to, essentially, control all internet access. If we're going to allow such a lack of competition, then we have to have some consumer protections in place.
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 25, 2009 11:06:37 GMT -5
Ok, so this is bugging me... Conservatives preach about less gov't. Wouldn't it be more consistent to oppose this regulation even though it is beneficial to the internet using public? I see a potential for abuse if the gov't is allowed to tell private companies what content or how much bandwidth to offer on their web services. This is a slippery slope. The market should drive this kind of thing. The only problem with that is that we have allowed 2 or 3 companies to, essentially, control all internet access. If we're going to allow such a lack of competition, then we have to have some consumer protections in place. Would you apply the same logic to health insurance? Also, I would argue that the market is demanding better service as evidenced by EPB and other companies. Then there's a pleathra of wireless choices. Gov't creep is always a concern. It is humorous to me that Republicans are always for more gov't when it benefits them but not when it benefits others.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Sept 25, 2009 11:14:16 GMT -5
The only problem with that is that we have allowed 2 or 3 companies to, essentially, control all internet access. If we're going to allow such a lack of competition, then we have to have some consumer protections in place. Would you apply the same logic to health insurance? Also, I would argue that the market is demanding better service as evidenced by EPB and other companies. Then there's a pleathra of wireless choices. Gov't creep is always a concern. It is humorous to me that Republicans are always for more gov't when it benefits them but not when it benefits others. Health insurance is certainly another area where increased competition could help. Every time I try to wade into the facts on that front, I'm confronted with ream after ream of government regulations. It's so voluminous that I have trouble making any sense of it. All I can say on that front is that the car and homeowner's insurance industries do pretty well and competition is strong with decidedly less governmental oversight. It's my impression that most non health insurance regulation is handled at the state level and that helps keep it a little more reasoned. The closer to the people we keep regulation, the more likely it is to be functional.
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 25, 2009 11:33:47 GMT -5
Would you apply the same logic to health insurance? Also, I would argue that the market is demanding better service as evidenced by EPB and other companies. Then there's a pleathra of wireless choices. Gov't creep is always a concern. It is humorous to me that Republicans are always for more gov't when it benefits them but not when it benefits others. Health insurance is certainly another area where increased competition could help. Every time I try to wade into the facts on that front, I'm confronted with ream after ream of government regulations. It's so voluminous that I have trouble making any sense of it. All I can say on that front is that the car and homeowner's insurance industries do pretty well and competition is strong with decidedly less governmental oversight. It's my impression that most non health insurance regulation is handled at the state level and that helps keep it a little more reasoned. The closer to the people we keep regulation, the more likely it is to be functional. Net neutrality is federal regulation. I suppose they are putting it under interstate commerce. All I'm saying is that this is a slippery slope and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Sept 25, 2009 12:10:52 GMT -5
So, in other words, you don't care if your internet service provider slows or blocks access to whatever sites or services they want?
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 25, 2009 12:50:42 GMT -5
So, in other words, you don't care if your internet service provider slows or blocks access to whatever sites or services they want? I didn't say that I don't care. However, if my internet provider becomes inadequate, then I will dump them for another. I am not against some gov't regulation in the markets. I'm merely pointing out the hypocracy in some people's viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Sept 25, 2009 12:56:55 GMT -5
Health insurance is certainly another area where increased competition could help. Every time I try to wade into the facts on that front, I'm confronted with ream after ream of government regulations. It's so voluminous that I have trouble making any sense of it. All I can say on that front is that the car and homeowner's insurance industries do pretty well and competition is strong with decidedly less governmental oversight. It's my impression that most non health insurance regulation is handled at the state level and that helps keep it a little more reasoned. The closer to the people we keep regulation, the more likely it is to be functional. Net neutrality is federal regulation. I suppose they are putting it under interstate commerce. All I'm saying is that this is a slippery slope and unnecessary. You would be correct if there were meaningful competition ion the marketplace, but there isn't. If you want high speed internet in Chattanooga what options do you have? 1. Comcast 2. Maybe EPB sometime in the future. 2 players doesn't constitute meaningful competition.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Sept 25, 2009 13:01:43 GMT -5
There's not always a lot of choice... For me, it's either Comcast or AT&T DSL, and I haven't heard good things about AT&T DSL...
|
|
|
Post by sugarcane on Sept 25, 2009 13:18:38 GMT -5
What about the wireless services offered by your local wireless providers such as Sprint, ATT, and Cricket? There is some competition in Wi-fi.
|
|