Republicans: Net Neutrality is an attack on our "basic freedoms"

[DaShi]

Good. Good. So we can use the internet to foment the revolution against our alien oppressors. The Middle East is the beginning of the Human Revolution!

[Wezil]

Come on guys not everything is about aliens. The "aliens" would be way too powerful to care about whatever we're doing on our archaic internet.

Did they tell you to say that?

[Hauldren Collider]

Net Neutrality is a joke. Between trying to solve a problem that so far doesn't exist and interfering in something that has been wildly successful despite a noted lack of government interference, it's a stupid case of the FCC (which may as well be called the Department of Media Censorship) making a power grab. Asher, Ars and Slashdot are not the places to go for politics

[Asher]

Have there been instances of this happening?

Somewhat. Many ISPs intentionally slow down peer to peer traffic (which is obviously mostly illegal, but the technology itself is legal and many legal things are distributed on it, like Linux).

Several large ISPs are trying to force Netflix to pay extra as well, which would not be legal under net neutrality.

No one has really done it yet because they're not sure if it'll be legal, so they're loathe to invest in technologies until the know for sure. But the ISPs are chomping at the bit to start.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh no! Internet companies are charging people based on the value of the service they provide? Uncle Sam, DO SOMETHING!

[-Jrabbit]

What I like is Boehner's implication that net neutrality somehow impacts broadcast television.

Can't wait for all my Tea Party FB friends to start parroting this crap and posting Newsmax "analysis."

[Asher]

Net Neutrality is a joke. Between trying to solve a problem that so far doesn't exist and interfering in something that has been wildly successful despite a noted lack of government interference, it's a stupid case of the FCC (which may as well be called the Department of Media Censorship) making a power grab. Asher, Ars and Slashdot are not the places to go for politics

It's not a joke, you're incredibly naive, and you've no idea what you're talking about.

It's not a problem YET in obvious ways because the companies are waiting to see if it'll be legal before investing in technologies to start balkanizing the internet. This isn't even a political discussion, it's a technical and philosophical one.

And let me tell you, HC, this IS a serious problem. Canada is farther ahead down the wrong road here (lack of net neutrality) since the big cablecos/satellitecos own the biggest ISPs and all of the pipes as well. They're actively ****ing over companies like Netflix which threaten their business model, and it's legal to do so. It should be incredibly obvious to anyone why the big ISPs do not want network neutrality. There are NO rational reasons for there not to be network neutrality, and it absolutely IS within the realm of the FCC:

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

How the **** does that not cover the internet?

It needs to be regulated (in the sense that it is a FREE PASSAGE OF INFORMATION and not restricted by the corporate interests of the ISPs), for quite obvious reasons. You are simply a tool for "disagreeing", because there's no ****ing way you could construct a sensible argument otherwise than "wha wha, I don't like big government except in the following list of other excesses I've randomly defended before because they serve my authoritarian bent".

[Asher]

Oh no! Internet companies are charging people based on the value of the service they provide? Uncle Sam, DO SOMETHING!

You VERY clearly have no concept of what net neutrality is.

[Hauldren Collider]

I HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR NETFLIX? THIS IS CENSORSHIP! I'M SWITCHING MY ISP!*

*why we don't need regulation

You have no understanding of markets. You've demonstrated this in previous threads and you're demonstrating it now. Furthermore, the fact that ISPs can restrict your internet access is not the same thing as Orwellian government censorship. Period.

[Asher]

Consider, HC: Who supplies the internet pipes into the vast majority of homes? Do those companies tend to have some interest in, say, television? How about telephone?

Considering you don't really have any other choice than those lines into your house, you're at their mercy.

Could you not see the value in the cable ISP deciding they'd block or cripple Netflix, Hulu, etc to make it unsavoury?
Could you not see the value in the telephone company blocking VoIP providers on their lines?

Businesses see the value. You're a complete fool with no understanding of the industry if you think this is not already happening in places without established net neutrality, like Canada.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not sure I understand; if Netflix uses more of an ISP's resources, shoudln't it pay more? I know users can have caps and surcharges, why not providers?

[Asher]

I HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR NETFLIX? THIS IS CENSORSHIP! I'M SWITCHING MY ISP!*

No, you idiot. Of course YOU have to pay extra for Netflix.

The ISPs are trying to demand NETFLIX pay a ton extra ON TOP OF THE USER PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH.

Want to guess what other business that ISP is in? Hint: It involves TELEVISION.

Guess their motive.

You have no understanding of markets.

HC, I'm schooling you here. You're not understanding even the basics of what we're talking about.

[Asher]

I'm not sure I understand; if Netflix uses more of an ISP's resources, shoudln't it pay more? I know users can have caps and surcharges, why not providers?

Because Netflix does not use the ISP's resources, the consumer does. And the consumer already pays for bandwidth. Why should they double bill?

Netflix buys their bandwidth from an ISP, the consumers buy their bandwidth from an ISP.

The ISPs want to charge Netflix again. Coincidentally, Netflix is very much hurting their business in other areas so there's tremendous incentive to handcuff Netflix by making them raise their prices. An easy way to do that is an arbitrary surcharge.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm not sure I understand; if Netflix uses more of an ISP's resources, shoudln't it pay more? I know users can have caps and surcharges, why not providers?

Asher, I can also see the value in being the ISP that doesn't block those websites. And the fact it has been getting easier and easier to switch ISPs before now, and it's getting easier and easier still. We already have the FTC for things like trusts and other anticompetitive stuff, so why give the FCC responsibility over ANOTHER part of our media?

[Asher]

So you also don't understand. Sad.

Asher, I can also see the value in being the ISP that doesn't block those websites.

'****. Really.

Your DSL and cable provider both decide to block those websites or force the websites to pay surcharges for the privledge of being on their network, such that the service becomes far more expensive. Who do you turn to now?

This is EXACTLY what has ALREADY HAPPENED in Canada with absurd bandwidth caps to cripple online video streaming. You're a fool to think this could never happen, BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRABLY ALREADY IS.