Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[drone]

It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay.

If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Youtube does pay for bandwidth. The more hits it gets, the more it has to pay.

Yes, they pay for some more servers. They don't pay for any of the cable connections or bandwidth or infrastructure beyond that.

Comcast has already tried packet filtering on P2P traffic and is getting slapped for it. At the moment, the broadband ISPs are whining because they have falsely advertised "SuperBandwidth X" to their customers, and are now hitting their actual limits because peak usage is up.

Yes, and they were slapped down without any net neutrality rule. And the new FCC rule? It allows ISPs to throttle access to 'combat piracy' - AKA it would seem to allow the one and only example of a company doing something the neutrality supporters said needed to be prevented.

True to a point. But a cartel is worse.

If an ISP can't handle the traffic, they need to either upgrade their network, charge per byte, or cap overall bandwidth per user. And be upfront about it.

Oftentimes these cartels are set up by the government. The smart thing to do is force the government to allow more competitors, not enforce more regulation.

Everybody in the US.

Utilities are regulated monopolies.

See the above.

Oh, and the cable companies will start charging more. Streaming video and services like Hulu are going to take up more and more bandwidth. With neutrality, ISPs will be unable to prevent overuse of those services from affecting and slowing their entire network. And why would they be encouraged to build more bandwidth if the high bandwidth sites are going to immediately use it all?

We need net neutrality to be enforced immediately. In the past 5 years companies have finally adapted to the times and are now recognizing the power of the internet in furthering their goals, example: television channels finally putting their shows online in 2008 through Hulu.

The "free market" that the internet has been so called, has not been a free market but an ignored market and now that the companies have an interest in it, like in all markets there will be a need for government to put limits and restrictions on the companies that are now attempting to manipulate the market.

Why, WHY? There's no real reason for it. There is no problem like what neutrality people say will happen, but even they concede has not happened yet. How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet? Tell me, one of you neutrality supporters, what company is currently managing bandwidth to certain sites?

The internet as we know it, that wonderful thing of communication and commerce, came about without any government regulation, and thank God for that. Government interference would have undoubtedly resulted in a less useful internet. Regulations and diktats would have skewed the economic incentives behind the internet to favor some special group or crack down on what some congressman didn't like.

And thank goodness the internet has been an ignored market, which is often the same thing as a free market. It has been the free market that has allowed for such spectacular innovation in the internet. And now you want to regulate it? You want government restrictions to start on what the internet can and cannot do? My goodness, that's like crying out for the internet to be chained to an iron ball!

If this rule passes it will only be the start of regulation. Every two-bit congressman will see it as a chance to pass some law or regulation to help or hurt some special cause of his, like not selling booze online on Sundays, or prohibiting out of state companies from selling certain items in order to protect some in state company.

The ISPs aren't attempting to manipulate anything - they are attempting to ensure that their limited bandwidth is able to serve all their customers. That's a normal business practice.

Net neutrality would take away from ISPs being able to run their businesses efficiently, because of an imagined problem. Good grief, people, government regulation of this type will stifle innovation because it will limit how ISPs can run their business.

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me - I would not want to have an internet where the government limits what a business can do! It is because of the freedom of the internet that it is so useful today. If you limit the ability of companies to do what's best for their networks, you will limit the entire future of the internet!

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why, WHY? There's no real reason for it. Yes there is. There is no problem like what neutrality people say will happen, Yes there is, I mentioned the scheming of the music and movie industries. but even they concede has not happened yet. Not me, and I doubt the majority has. How is a government regulator from an age before color television supposed to adequately write a rule about something that hasn't even occurred yet? Well, I tend to try to improve my government instead of letting rot and using that as a justification for my ideology. Tell me, one of you neutrality supporters, what company is currently managing bandwidth to certain sites? For the most part, ISP's are not bold enough to block a specific site (with the exception of maybe 4chan), they simply manage bandwidth over us all with a "unlimited" bandwidth usage package that includes a bandwidth cap.

The internet as we know it, that wonderful thing of communication and commerce, came about without any government regulation Correlation does not mean causation., and thank God for that. Government interference would have undoubtedly resulted in a less useful internet. Opinion. Regulations and diktats would have skewed the economic incentives behind the internet to favor some special group or crack down on what some congressman didn't like. Opinion.

And thank goodness the internet has been an ignored market, which is often the same thing as a free market. No, I specifically recognized a distinction. A free market has companies competing for your money with certain limits and restriction to prevent an abuse of customers in the transaction process. An ignored market is a market that has not been tapped by companies yet for marketing, advertisement and direct selling of their products. It has been the free market that has allowed for such spectacular innovation in the internet. Markets had nothing to do with it, most innovation on the internet has been from tech enthusiasts that attempt to create a better and more enjoyable internet experience for free, hardly a free market, more close to a communist society if anything. And now you want to regulate it? yes, that is my position. You want government restrictions to start on what the internet can and cannot do? No, this is a scarecrow and/or you are purposely misrepresenting me. I want the government to regulate what power companies have over the supply and freeness of the internet we are receiving so our greatest tool for a truly educated and knowledgeable populace is not in the hands of the RIAA, MPAA, IBM, Microsoft, etc... My goodness, that's like crying out for the internet to be chained to an iron ball! Not really, your hyperbole is dampened by the fact that you have taken "giant corporations and interest groups" and instead have replaced it with a generic "internet" which is completely silly.

If this rule passes it will only be the start of regulation. Biased speculation. Every two-bit congressman will see it as a chance to pass some law or regulation to help or hurt some special cause of his, like not selling booze online on Sundays, or prohibiting out of state companies from selling certain items in order to protect some in state company. Biased speculation.

The ISPs aren't attempting to manipulate anything - they are attempting to ensure that their limited bandwidth is able to serve all their customers. That's a normal business practice. here is where we probably have completely different ideologies regarding the internet. I see the internet as a utility that every man, woman and child should have, to be put in the same category as water and power. It is absurd for us to be content with having our water limited by half or only allowed to power our house for a half a day so some other person have it for the other half. We demand that everyone in this country have the basics to survive in our modern world, water and electricity we recognize but I and many others recognize the internet as another one.

Net neutrality would take away from ISPs being able to run their businesses efficiently, because of an imagined problem. Not imaginary. Good grief, people, government regulation of this type will stifle innovation because it will limit how ISPs can run their business. What innovation? ISP's bring internet to us, thats it. Edison brings electricity to its consumers, thats it. What innovations has government regulation stifled within the electric companies? If it wasn't for that evil government, would we be all running things on wireless electricity by now?

Keep your accursed 'consumer protection' away from me Ok, you can go back to 1900 and relive "The Jungle" if you want, others like our seat belts and lack of human fingers in our meat. - I would not want to have an internet where the government limits what a business can do! It's not going to do that. It is because of the freedom of the internet that it is so useful today. Which is now threatened by corporations. If you limit the ability of companies to do what's best for their networks, you will limit the entire future of the internet! Companies do not decide what is best for their networks, they decide what is best at getting and keeping more money in their pockets. If an electric company decides its best for their network to dismantle that expensive 30 mile stretch of infrastructure that runs from the main city to that small town of 5,000 are we to be ok with that?

Talk about limiting the future of the internet, why is it that the greatest things on the internet are the ones being criticized and threatened by large companies with complete control over all other aspects of our lives. The news aggregate websites that are now providing hundreds of millions of people with free and uncensored information are being threatened by Big News, the greatest tools for sharing data across the world is being threatened by Big Music and Big Movie, there are so many other examples. You get my point, unless that is, you forget to take the Glenn Beck glasses off and misunderstand my position again.

CR

My words in bold.

[a completely inoffensive name]

TADA! prime example!
Hundreds of organizations had their internet service turned off last night after the US Chamber of Commerce strong-armed an upstream provider, Hurricane Electric, to pull the plug on The Yes Men and May First / People Link.