Forums → WEPR → Net Neutrality
| 15 | 7897 |
This is a very concerning thing. This could have an impact an any site on the net including this one. I think it's necessary to make as much noise about this as possible.
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords
Why This Ruling On Net Neutrality Is A Disaster
(minor amount of expletives) Net Neutrality: You Should Be Concerned
Is Internet Net Neutrality Really Dead?
- 15 Replies
I saw this on CNN just today actually... I think this might be a bad thing in the future without Net Neutrality but I don't think it will effect this site as it isn't doing anything against any of the major ISPs and is more under the radar in my opinion.
Yeah I read an article about it last night.
Those corporate weasels decided that they own the Internet therefore they can abuse it.
We already pay for our Internet so If we decide to watch movies online those greedy corporate will charge a fee to whoever provides the service.
Which means that they will charge us for the Internet then charge Netflix, Hulu Plus or whatever movie or music company that provides us with a service.
The customers will get screwed in the end because those Internet businesses will have to charge us more for the service. >:O
yeah greedy little !@$&@ (nothing else i can use mobile) seriously I don't know much but I saw it on CNN and the idea is just ARGH!
a very serious problem indeed. The thing about the problem, is that no one can touch this "corporate weasels", so to speak. maybe the solution is breaking the companies into pieces, or make a string of international organization that solely deal with the monopoly of the Net neutrality
Signing this petition is a good first step to restoring net neutrality. Roughly 30,000 more signatures are required in just two weeks, and the petition is available to be signed by anyone over the age of 13 from anywhere in the world.
I haven't read too much into the whole net neutrality mess, so correct me if I'm wrong.
This could have an impact an any site on the net including this one.
Isn't this website already not being protected by net neutrality?
Is net neutrality protecting us from something that already is a problem, or something people fear will become a problem? If the latter, adopting net neutrality might be far too hasty a move.
There will most likely be negative effects that stem from net neutrality. We must determine if the negative is outweighed by the protection it grants us. But if internet providers were never planning on abusing their powers, then all we do is adopt negative consequences without any gain or any actual protection.
But, again, I'm not very informed about net neutrality. There might be cases where internet providers have abused their powers. If so, please link them to me or point them out (in case I missed an example in a source that's already been linked).
Call me reckless, but let's wait until there's actually a problem before we act. Something along the lines of, "innocent until proven guilty". Net neutrality, for all we know, could stifle innovation.
IF, and only IF, the following happens, will I support Net Neutrality.
If every big internet provider becomes "unfair", resulting in a monopoly of unfair internet providers, and IF there isn't a "fair" internet provider that becomes readily available within the next two to three years, then I'll support Net Neutrality.
If the latter, adopting net neutrality might be far too hasty a move
It wouldn't be adopting net neutrality, it would be reverting to the net neutrality (or something close to it) we had experienced up until January 15th 2014.
There might be cases where internet providers have abused their powers.
Indie ISPs Accuse Big Telecom Of 'Anti-Competitive Behaviour' - with Net Neutrality, ISPs have to treat all content you access online 'roughly the same way'. Now that net neutrality is gone, there will be more instances of the first story where large ISPs can delay or outright block competitor's websites or anything that cuts into their profits.
Many ISPs are also cable television providers, and streaming or peer-to-peer sharing sites reduce their potential consumer base. Comcast has seen reason to block access to the latter and French ISP "Free" along with Time Warner Cable have been accused of slowing access to YouTube and Netflix (this one is rather long).
Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will have no reason not to favour their partners. Time Warner Cable and Comcast might provide CNN and MSNBC respectively with high speed access and delay access to competitors like Fox News or independent news networks. However, these independent sites are not going to get any special treatment from any ISP, so when considering other mediums such as music sites, social media, sites like Armor Games, web publishing, etc it's clear to see that destroying Net Neutrality is bad for small business and effectively allows large corporations to dictate how the internet is run. AT&T and Google have both blocked content produced by competitors, and Google struck up a sort of agreement with Verizon (dirty double crossin' *******s) in the hopes of dictating internet access and allowing discrimination against competitors.
There are other issues, such as large ISPs (potentially) charging large fees to websites which want fast content delivery and leaving long load times to poorer (smaller, independent) sites which are unable to pay up. ISPs can now (since Jan 15) make even more money off their existing customer base without improving the quality of their service or the internet, by charging content providers for faster delivery and charging customers for faster access.
Once again, the petition is here and I encourage you all to sign it.
Given the nature of today (Internet Slowdown day) I think a revival of this thread is in order.
Internet Slowdown
Example
Short video explanation
This suggestion is really not thought out.
First: internet is already governed by mamoth-corporations. Everyone use windows as OP, facebook as social-network, and google as search-engine just to start with.
So building a giant from nothing is already likely impossible.
Second: this news is not about who YOU pays, but who some multinational industries pay. Wo-hoo, noone cares.
Third: copyright-issue has to be cleared finaly, as no matter how I like everything free and fresh on the net, it ruins everything. There must be a limit, a framework finaly. They r the clever guys, time to make that up.
Fourth: illegal stuff has to be under control too. There'll always be ways on the net to "be there" as a sub-culture, or shady stuff, but there must be some way to prevent really bad stuff giong legal just by its sheer amount of existance.
Five: host-sites already discriminate against you. If you didn't notice almost all "terms&agreement" can be shortened into this:
"Users have no rights. Moderators/administrators/whateveryoucallthem can do anything without any notice."
I am glad that I live in the EU, we've already passed our net neutrality laws. It was funny, the day I found out about the whole net neutrality issue was the day the Europe was voting on the matter. The next day it was passed.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtiIazfoQM]
This is a good explanation of the situation I feel.
Everyone use windows as OP, facebook as social-network, and google as search-engine just to start with.
You have the option to not use them, and instead use other sources.
this news is not about who YOU pays,
If Net Neutrality is destroyed as is being lobbied up in D.C., then you will eventually end up paying for simple services online.
Something like this
third and fourth points
Policing the internet is a plain idiotic idea. Plain and simple.
As for the fourth point, actions people take, if they are illegal, are then illegal in their own right. Being on the internet shouldn't make a difference nor should the internet be affected by it. There are ways to find out if a person is doing illegal activities without having to police everyone.
Five: host-sites already discriminate against you. If you didn't notice almost all "terms&agreement" can be shortened into this:
"Users have no rights. Moderators/administrators/whateveryoucallthem can do anything without any notice."
And then you have the option to disagree with those terms & agreements and therefore not be locked into such a binding contract (because that is what those are, a contract).
I am glad that I live in the EU, we've already passed our net neutrality laws.
If these laws pass in America they will end up affecting you as well.
It seems Google has decided to be a supporter of Net Neutrality.
Google Breaks Its 4 Year Silence On Net Neutrality
This is a good thing to have such a giant supporting Net Neutrality in order to keep it since the government listens to money more than people these days..
This is a good thing to have such a giant supporting Net Neutrality in order to keep it since the government listens to money more than people these days..
The Senate and House are so corrupted nowadays, I hope Google's support will help tip the balance over to the good guys for a change.
The Senate and House are so corrupted nowadays, I hope Google's support will help tip the balance over to the good guys for a change.
The government currently is bought and sold by big corporations like Google. So having a large corporation who likely has some of these officials bought off not wanting this to happen is a good thing for us.
If these laws pass in America they will end up affecting you as well.
I don't think so. The laws should only affect connections made from web servers to computers in the US, rather than connections made from web servers in the US to international computers.
You must be logged in to post a reply!