This opinion piece from 2009 is based entirely on the false premise that eliminating NN will force carriers to charge by the bit for bandwidth which will, in turn, based on the increased cost of peering (or an unwillingness of carriers to absorb that cost), result in carriers choosing not peer at all, which will….wait for it…….kill the internet.
.
Good grief. Just because Obama supported NN does not mean it is bad and must be eliminated.
.
The (continued) desire to eliminate NN has nothing to do with trump reversing failed policy and rescinding unnecessary government regulation. It has everything to do with pandering to large corp interests that see more money, FOR THEM, left on the table as long as NN is maintained.
.
Net neutrality prevents carriers like ATT/Verizon/Comcast from selectively choosing what parts of the internet we the people get to access, based on how much more money the carriers think they can selectively charge certain content providers.
.
And the people who will be hurt first, and the most, if carriers are allowed to throttle bandwidth to/from whatever parts of the internet they choose (so THEY can make more money), will be the people for whom their ONLY option for internet service might be Comcast or Dish (ATT); meaning people in more rural areas----like Trump core supporters. YOU.
.
But it’s ultimately terrible for anyone who wants to access the Internet----which is----pretty much everyone.
With net neutrality rules in place (thanks Obama), internet service providers were required to treat all web traffic equally. But Trump is bound and determined to undo everything Obama did, regardless if it's good for the country or not. To that end, his FCC chairman, Ajit V. Pai, wants to repeal net neutrality. Here is how Pai is described (at this writing) on Wikipedia:
"Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is an American rat who serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC)." Pai, the rat, was originally appointed as a commissioner by Obama, but after a marathon fellatio session, Trump elevated Pai to Chairman with the proviso that Pai was to be Trump's puppet...just like Trump is Putin's puppet.
Net neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked. But if it's repealed, internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon could slow down or block any content, applications or websites you want to use. Websites like TER for example. Stupid fucking TER righties - your thumper Republican buddies will pressure ISPs to stop carrying TER using the "trafficking" boogeyman. But brain dead righties (like quad) will keep repeating their MAGA mantra. SMH.
http://www.freepress.net/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
These guys know what there talking about. Net neutrality means taking the MONEY out of the internet. Luckily for us, trump is reversing that failed policy and rescinding unnecessary government regulation.
This opinion piece from 2009 is based entirely on the false premise that eliminating NN will force carriers to charge by the bit for bandwidth which will, in turn, based on the increased cost of peering (or an unwillingness of carriers to absorb that cost), result in carriers choosing not peer at all, which will….wait for it…….kill the internet.
.
Good grief. Just because Obama supported NN does not mean it is bad and must be eliminated.
.
The (continued) desire to eliminate NN has nothing to do with trump reversing failed policy and rescinding unnecessary government regulation. It has everything to do with pandering to large corp interests that see more money, FOR THEM, left on the table as long as NN is maintained.
.
Net neutrality prevents carriers like ATT/Verizon/Comcast from selectively choosing what parts of the internet we the people get to access, based on how much more money the carriers think they can selectively charge certain content providers.
.
And the people who will be hurt first, and the most, if carriers are allowed to throttle bandwidth to/from whatever parts of the internet they choose (so THEY can make more money), will be the people for whom their ONLY option for internet service might be Comcast or Dish (ATT); meaning people in more rural areas----like Trump core supporters. YOU.
.
But it’s ultimately terrible for anyone who wants to access the Internet----which is----pretty much everyone.
Net neutrality is a nice term for government control and regulations. And we all know that government involvement sucks the life "private money" out of the internet and replaces it with tax payer money, sub par workers and utility-type service.
Is that Cult 45 is drinking it up. As long as they get to say, “suck it libs” they could care less about what amounts to the death of the internet as we know it.
What’s even worse is that Cult 45 folks are largely lower income in rural areas, so they’ll be the first one hit and also hit the hardest.
Upside, at least brietbart and other hate sites disappear because you know when they’re in control of what webpages get traffic, they’ll bend to whatever internet users complain loudly about.... and the largest majority of net users are millennials, who are largely liberal in thought and politics ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is a bought-and paid for corporate shill for the telecom monopolists, who's dicks he sucks for money. His only mission in life is to destroy net neutrality, a favor for which his corporate overlords will reward him with more fat sacks of cash. If this is allowed to happen, the freedoms we now have on the web will cease to exist. He is the first Indian American to abuse his office. He also has an incredibly punchable face."
That's because he had a grudge for Obama ,a black man that is way more intellegent than his dumb ass. They wanted to make Obama a one term President. They might get their "one term wish "come 2020.
This 'washed up' old fart ,who got ' no swag' just keep fucking everything up.Thanks to his dumb ass TER supporters,the dumb asses down South and across the country.
Many of the dumb asses (got some in my town) don't even know what's really going on - how this liar is fucking everything up.They hear about tax cut but don't question who is PAYING for the cut, what other programs have to be cut in order to get a tax cut. Is it programs that benfit the poor and needy ,including many struggling Veterans. Oh..maybe they are just lazy ,or just loosers.
Idiot Pay wants to put it up for election. Opposition from tech companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, HULU and others is going to be huge.
AT&T, Verizon, Comcast on one side and the above listed on the other. Going to be interesting.
This is the reason, this country doesn't anywhere. No one gives shit about what is good for the country, two step forward, two step back ward and we as country stay in place and can only vibrate!
But the Internet managed to survive all those years without it and many ISPs say they will provide with even without FCC rules. So remain calm. All is well.
The concept of Net Neutrality has been built into the internet, since its invention. What I think you are referring to are laws enacted to preserve it. The war on NN has always been about telecommunications companies trying to make more money by controlling what and how much of the internet is available to its end users. The inception of net neutrality is based on the idea that the end user controls what data is delivered to his own terminal and that there be no interference by the carrier over data transmission.
The end of net neutrality does in fact mean that a telecom like ATT can decide that Netflix is not paying enough for the transmission on its service and so ATT can charge it more than what it does for its own DirectTV service or just block Netflix all together, like DTV has done to CBS programs. Probably the worst example is North Korea, where the government restricts all net content - no NN there at all.
What net neutrality does is preserves the net as a common carrier like your water company. You can flood your. house if you want to, you pay for the amount of water (or data) you use. But the water company cannot arbitrarily decide to cut you off at three gallons or decide that you don’t get a water heater which is what the destruction of NN would allow on the net.
First of all, NN has NOT "been built into the internet since its invention." Carriers have always had the right to offer different speeds and some have done it. In the first decade of this century you also had numerous content providers complaining their product was being "throttled" while favored content (usually affiliated with the carrier) was not. In some cases, before network systems were fully upgraded, carriers also had the problem of "bandwidth hogs" sucking up capacity and slowing it down for other customers. I am no longer in that business and don't know if that is an issue today.
I sort of agree with your second paragraph except for the part about "just block Netflix all together (sic)." I don't think it would be in a carrier's best interest to block a popular service and drive customers elsewhere.
Dude, I was there when it was still DARPANET. This discussion was already had back in 1969 and the early 70s when commercialization was just beginning. Net neutrality was always there. It was the UCLA team that insisted it be ruled as a common carrier and everyone from Stanford to Carnegie Mellon to MIT agreed.
Over the years there have been cases where telecoms infringed on net neutrality and were fined by the FCC for trying it.
Yes telecoms can charge for more bandwidth as well they should. But that is simply not a net neutrality issue. What they should not be allowed to do is once you e oaidforyour bandwidth, telecoms should be able to throttle or block certain content in favor of other content. That is exactly what the net neutrality rules prevent.
Your argument that a company won’t block content because it’s against its interest is hardly compelling. Ask any Direct TV subscriber what happened on CBS last night. Oh that’s right, no CBS on DTV. Ask Spectrum subscribers what happens every few years when broadcast TV stations have to renegotiate their transmission contract.
I think I see where our differences lie. You are looking at the issue from the Telco/Common Carrier perspective. Your argument may be fine for telecoms but not for cable companies like Charter or Spectrum. Cable companies have not been regulated as Common Carriers so they were not subjected to the FCC's NN rules until 2015. I'm presuming the Telcos have previously been subject to NN, as that's what you seem to be suggesting.
Also, while cable companies have, on rare occasions, blocked broadcast signals they generally prefer not to cease carriage, especially over a retransmission consent issue. But, as you said, that's a separate issue.
-- Modified on 11/22/2017 5:49:38 PM
Senator Ron Wyden really does a great job explaining it.
-- Modified on 11/25/2017 4:54:34 PM
...Surprise to anyone, Trump is determined to throw consumers under the bus every chance he gets, Trumps disdain for the rights of common American citizens is so obvious how can ANYONE still support this jerk.
It's a way of life for these conservatives to give blow jobs to big corporations.