The Net Neutrality Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Looks like this is the next big policy they're going to be pushing. Gun control has no chance now. Immigration is coming down to Executive Orders. Why not pull in something the hipsters are craving? It's a topic that I don't think needs to be a "Left vs Right" issue... but, with how polarizing this administration is... it's now a Left vs Right issue. Partially to blame are the technologically un-savvy people on the Right.

    The President has made comments today on wanting to regulate the internet:

    Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    While I agree with many of the tenants of Net Neutrality supporters, I highly disagree with the government getting involved.

    Also:

    Ted Cruz comparing net neutrality to Obamacare causes collective flip-out | Twitchy


    Darrell Issa has responded here:

    Issa Statement on President?s Support for Regulating the Internet | Committee on Oversight & Government Reform


    Please post further news/releases regarding the President's actions on Net Neutrality in this thread.
     
    Last edited:

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    I don't know how net neutrality can stay without getting the government involved. Unless the ISPs do a 180 and put the interest of their customers over themselves, they'll spend every dollar they have to ensure we give them every dollar we have.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    I don't know how net neutrality can stay without getting the government involved. Unless the ISPs do a 180 and put the interest of their customers over themselves, they'll spend every dollar they have to ensure we give them every dollar we have.

    I honestly don't know what the solution is. Asking ISPs to treat all traffic the same should be enough.... but they're adamant to not do this.

    We need a new option. A new competitor to enter the ring and offer truly neutral internet. Then an exodus of customers from the top ISPs moving to the neutral competitor would likely fix this without the gov stepping in.

    Really wanting some sort of consumer fiber in my area... I'd LOVE to drop Comcast.
     

    hooky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Mar 4, 2011
    7,032
    113
    Central Indiana
    If I'm making the investment in infrastructure, why shouldn't I be able to charge based on usage? Why should Netflix (or any other bandwidth intensive business model) get a free ride?

    I know it's more complicated than that, but getting the .gov involved more heavily is only going to lead to bigger campaign donations politicians and worse service for customers. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here old enough to remember phone service prior to deregulation.
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    I honestly don't know what the solution is. Asking ISPs to treat all traffic the same should be enough.... but they're adamant to not do this.

    We need a new option. A new competitor to enter the ring and offer truly neutral internet. Then an exodus of customers from the top ISPs moving to the neutral competitor would likely fix this without the gov stepping in.

    Really wanting some sort of consumer fiber in my area... I'd LOVE to drop Comcast.

    I totally agree with you on that, however it is a market that is insanely hard to enter. Creating an ISP and servicing a number of customers is a difficult thing to do. Along with laying down lines (or paying to use someone else's). Many ISPs have contracts with local towns, which pretty much bars other ISPs from coming in. That means they can charge whatever they want for bad service simply because no one else can legally be in that business for that town. A good step would be to not allow any locality to create a contract. I believe in Chatanooga, TN they scrapped the ISP contract and the city built it's own service and it has done amazingly well there. Citizens can still get a private ISP, but they are much more inclined to offer decent service at a competitive price. The customer wins. Until then, I'll be waiting for Google Fiber to save me from the grasp of Uverse's Tonka toy Internet.
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    If I'm making the investment in infrastructure, why shouldn't I be able to charge based on usage? Why should Netflix (or any other bandwidth intensive business model) get a free ride?

    I know it's more complicated than that, but getting the .gov involved more heavily is only going to lead to bigger campaign donations politicians and worse service for customers. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here old enough to remember phone service prior to deregulation.

    So you're saying you'd be okay with the power company throttling your electricity because they think you should pay some arbitrary amount they pulled from their butts?
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    So you're saying you'd be okay with the power company throttling your electricity because they think you should pay some arbitrary amount they pulled from their butts?

    Better analogy - Stop using our electricity for television and baking food. I mean, we know it's all the same electricity... but stop doing those specific things with it.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    So you're saying you'd be okay with the power company throttling your electricity because they think you should pay some arbitrary amount they pulled from their butts?

    They have that already in some places---like my coop. It's time of day billing. Use electricity at certain times of the day--you pay more for it. Shift your patterns to off peak times--you can save $$$$.
     

    pudly

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Nov 12, 2008
    13,329
    83
    Undisclosed
    I honestly don't know what the solution is. Asking ISPs to treat all traffic the same should be enough.... but they're adamant to not do this.

    We need a new option. A new competitor to enter the ring and offer truly neutral internet. Then an exodus of customers from the top ISPs moving to the neutral competitor would likely fix this without the gov stepping in.

    Really wanting some sort of consumer fiber in my area... I'd LOVE to drop Comcast.

    The answer is for ISPs to charge per megabyte delivered and not the current all-you-can-eat model. Unfortunately, their customers won't stand for a usage-based fee model. ISPs have problems because companies like NetFlix putting huge loads on their networks without creating additional revenue to cover their expenses. Given the situation, the ISPs are trying an alternate scheme to pay their way and no one is satisfied.
     

    downlinx

    Expert
    Rating - 90.9%
    10   1   0
    Nov 24, 2012
    900
    28
    Lafayette, IN
    1383859_10101450674568913_5463393305126035404_n.jpg
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    The answer is for ISPs to charge per megabyte delivered and not the current all-you-can-eat model. Unfortunately, their customers won't stand for a usage-based fee model. ISPs have problems because companies like NetFlix putting huge loads on their networks without creating additional revenue to cover their expenses. Given the situation, the ISPs are trying an alternate scheme to pay their way and no one is satisfied.

    the problem is that it wouldn't just happen with Netflix. If the ISPs had their way, you'd have to pay a flat fee to use certain websites. As in, if you have the wrong package, they can make it so you can't even access Yahoo as an example. I'm okay with paying more for better internet as long as my choice of content isn't diminished.
     

    pudly

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Nov 12, 2008
    13,329
    83
    Undisclosed
    the problem is that it wouldn't just happen with Netflix. If the ISPs had their way, you'd have to pay a flat fee to use certain websites. As in, if you have the wrong package, they can make it so you can't even access Yahoo as an example. I'm okay with paying more for better internet as long as my choice of content isn't diminished.

    Under a usage-pay model, the ISPs don't care (beyond legal issues) what you transfer through their network. They don't have an incentive to limit your usage in any way as more traffic generates more revenue. NetFlix (and INGO) traffic become revenue generators rather than simply being viewed as costs to be minimized.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    We're not entitled to internet service. If you really believe in free markets, you should not be demanding government interference. I would imagine there are rules and laws in place that make it prohibitive for new ISPs to enter the market. To that extent, we should be demanding those government barriers be lowered rather than new ones be raised in what is always turns out to be a mistaken hope that they will get it right for once.
     
    Last edited:

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    Any and every (that choose to do so) ISP should be available in any and every market, no monopolies.

    It's 'curious' that in almost every other service provided, as time goes by it gets cheaper. Cell phones cost less per minute than they did, say, 20 years ago. But not internet service. The rates are raised consistently, while consumers are forced to purchase packages they don't want or need.

    Why should consumers 'have' to take, for example, a cable package with 10 Spanish speaking stations when those particular consumers do not speak / understand Spanish? Why aren't these packages 'ala carte'?

    And with internet, at least in this area, even if you pay for the 'highest speed level' (which can be quite expensive JUST for internet), there's NO guarantee or warranty that service won't be slowed down at the whim of the ISP.

    For as long as cable and internet service have been around, it should be cheap. Real cheap. But it sure isn't.

    Is .gov the solution? Other than de-regulation, eliminating monopolies, and creating an 'open borders' type of competition, it's unlikely. The government has a horrendous track record with virtually every business it attempts to meddle in.
     

    92LX

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 20, 2012
    150
    18
    We're not entitle to internet service. If you really believe in free markets, you should not be demanding government interference. I would imagine there are rules and laws in place that make it prohibitive for new ISPs to enter the market. To that extent, we should be demanding those barriers be lowered rather than new ones be raised.

    Agreed 100%. Getting the government involved can only screw stuff up. You think ISPs will mess up INGO, go try to get INGO from a government computer. Once government get's it's foot in the door, you don't get it out ever. The net nuetrality sounds good on the surface, so did ObamaCare to most. Incrementalism will make the internet a tool of the government, not a service to you. Hmmm. Also like health care. The reason the government wants to get it's foot in the door is to eventually control content. You can see that with it around a good portion of the world already. This is a sales job much like Obamacare. It is build on skittle and unicorn farts (lies) that we will make service fair and better, soon you find you have to pay a tax every mouse click.

    Let the free market and capitalism (consumers) dictate what they want and what they will pay for. Let the government in and will be slower for everybody, cost more, will only work tuesdays between 1 and 3 AM, and then only for 5 minutes at a time.
     
    Top Bottom