The internet does cost money, but after you pay for it, what you do on the internet is up to YOU. It is feared that service providers will start to control what sites you may or may not go to. It is also feared that these companies may start to charge people for the amount of bandwidth they use rather than have a flat fee.
Net neutrality sounds fair, but is it really? The FCC, responsible for censorship and fining people who slip nipples and profanities on live TV, will be the enforcement of net neutrality.
What do you think? Do we need net neutrality laws now, or should we wait until we actually see some more problems? Should we ever enforce net neutrality laws? Do you think the FCC would allow the internet to govern itself or do you feel the FCC will censor certain sites?
i think it needs to stay the way it is. With the way things are now, I think it would do more harm to censor some cites. Once censored, these cesspools would organize and take their rage out on whoever they felt would sate their thirst for revenge.
plus i see the whole pay for your bandwidth thing going over poorly as well... like my hughesnet
http://consumer.hughesnet.com/plans.cfm
i live like 20 miles north of the end of cable/dsl internets ... >_> so as a fix for the terribad dial up we had for like 10 years we opted to get hughesnet (satellite internets for those who don't know). It is in fact faster than dial up but there is 1 drawback... the limit ur allowed to download is horribly small. 200MB in a 24 hour period is the plan we have (the base plan). what happens once Sonata goes over said limit you might ask? well... you take the speed of dial up... and then you divide that rate by 10 (making it up but it seems like it). yea... it gets horribly slow. you might say..."well that's not too bad.... just wait till it revamps after the 24 hour period is finished"... WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You wait for a full 24 hours from the moment you exceeded your FAP limit... (fair access policy limit). so if it was 30 seconds till the revamp and you had just downloaded your 200.000001 MB for the 24 hour period you have to wait 24 hours from that moment to have fast internets again. but there is one thing.... from the hours of 1am till 6am you can download as much of whatever you want at the normal speed... but once that period goes away you have to still wait out the rest of that slow 24 hour period till you get your internets back
you might say 200MB is a large number... quit your whining...
200MB runs out about 2-30 minute videos. If we're limited i see all the others following suit with how hughesnet does it... they don't take into account that you do more than just check your email and watch more than one video a day. plus... limiting usage or charging extra would severely cripple gamers... i don't know the numbers but i'm sure it wouldn't take too long to pass the limit while playing MWF 2... and I used to be able to play that game all day long.
For those that don't use the internet for much, this won't be a bad thing... but for those that have integrated it into their lives (whether for fun or business) it will be almost like punishing them b/c by definition they'll have to pay alot more then those that only need the base plan... refer to hughesnet's different levels of usage... Dsl is cheaper w/ faster/unlimited download
for those that don't believe the riots i discussed will take place... google "AT&T blocks" it'll be the first option that comes up w/ the predictive text..
I have an anology for net neutrality. It's like an amusement park. You pay at the gate and you get to go on all the rides except perhaps a few special things like bungee jumping or what not (think of those as special member costs some sites have). However, big companies want to treat the internet like a carnival where they charge you at the gate and then charge you again at the ride. Oh sure they'll make it sound pretty, but it's really just a ploy to gain control over the flow of information. I visit a select number of sites, one of them being youtube. I DO NOT want to pay so that I may be able to access youtube at a MONTHLY rate. It would be like my hydro company charging me different amounts for washing dishes in the sink compared to the dishwasher.
Furthermore, we NEED net neutrality. This for of censorship, and yes it is a form of censorship is terrible! This takes the flow of knowledge and limits it for big business to charge as they see fit. The internet should be free to access as we please after we pay our service provider.
I have an anology for net neutrality. It's like an amusement park.
If you only pay at the gate, then the tickets become more expensive for everyone. If you pay per ride, then the cost depends solely on how many rides a person went on. The more rides you go on, the more you pay.
But understand, this is only a fear. Remember that, like cell phones, many companies will still cater to people who want to pay per month. In fact, that's how it is right now in most cases is it not?
If net neutrality laws come into effect, say goodbye to thepiratebay. Hell, maybe no more 4chan. Freedom is the ability to go to whatever site you want. But when the government controls the net, freedom is the ability to go to whatever site you want that the government deems worthy of being uncensored. Asking for net neutrality laws today is jumping to conclusions.
I believe one of the biggest mistakes we can make is allowing the government control over the internet.
I think the FCC should have some role in censoring the internet, just to prevent the child-molesters as well as those who use the internet to prey on others. The big problem is deciding where the limit is for government intervention or 'rotection', do you get rid of all pornography as well? What about things that offend people? (Merry Christmas and 'racism' come to mind). I know that we do not want to end up with the Chinese government's internet restrictions.
I think the FCC should have some role in censoring the internet, just to prevent the child-molesters as well as those who use the internet to prey on others.
Even without the internet child molesters would still prey on others. In some cases having access to just the imaginary could be enough to prevent some of them from seeking to do something in real life. Of course I am not condoning the production and distribution of pictures and videos of real children in such situations. But I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to fantasize about such content. If you mean people using the net to meet children in real life and prey on them then you have to remove or strictly monitor all social functions of the internet, which could be a very costly to do.
I for one see no point in even having the FCC to begin with.
I for one see no point in even having the FCC to begin with.
..really? -.-
IMO, net neutrality is stupid. Give them a figurative inch to censor inappropriate content and next there will be a scandal or something on something political (or anything..) censored.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the FCC will try to control what websites we may or may not visit. Internet providers are giving us fair deals when it comes to hooking up to the internet, and the FCC claims they will turn on their customers and try to screw them over. I have linked videos to friends over seas that have been blocked by their government. Let's not have that happen to us!
Even if the predictions about these companies creating tiered service do come true, will it really become too unaffordable to pay for? Even if the prices of the internet do go up,
Net neutrality is a threat we should all be aware of. If our internet providers do screw us over, remember that it's easier to protest against them than it is to protest against the government. If you complain long enough, the internet providers will make a plan especially for you. If the FCC takes control and you protest, you'll sit there forgotten at the steps of the white house.
At first glance, tiered internet seems fine; companies that pay more get faster services. However, this goes against the âend-to-endâ paradigm that the internet was built on. Few people may have ever heard of this term but all users of the internet rely on this principle. The general gist of this is that all control of what goes on through the internet should be controlled by the producer and the end user, not the intermediary network provider that controls them. By being able to regulate who gets to use the faster more reliable service, they would create what Tim Wu from the Colombia Law School calls âthe Tony Soprano business modelâ. The network owners stand in between the content provider and the end user and elicit money from any bit of information that wants to pass. After that, one of two things can happen. The content provider can choose to pay the fee, the network owners make liberal profit, and the content provider passes the cost onto the consumer. Conversely, the content provider can opt out of paying and the end user is left with slow-loading and possible even degraded content. Either decision spells trouble for the average consumer. Regardless of which scenario takes place, the result will be monetary loss to the consumer and, even worse, the rise of an internet âgatekeeperâ.
Please look for the truth behind these words! There's a fear the internet providers will take advantage of consumers to make a profit by controlling the internet, and we are expected to allow the FCC to control the internet so the internet providers can't? The FCC is a business, and they are no more trustworthy than the internet providers. In fact, they are less trustworthy. They work as a business but they are allowed to take actions no one else has the legal right to take.
We need to prepare ourselves for the worst and we need to remember that we may have to speak out soon against internet control.
When some people hear about net neutrality, the first thing that comes to mind is government regulation. These people want to preserve the internet in its present state, a state in which people can freely express their ideas in a forum as open and egalitarian as possible. These people think that regulation would only impede the freedom associated with the internet when that is desired is to maintain the status quo. To a degree, these people are right
Let's not allow them to shrug off our internet freedoms as a small sacrifice for the bigger good!
