cixelsyd Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Net Neutrality will be a good thing and if anything it should help DCI's streaming services because they will get just as much priority from ISPs as any other big time website like Youtube, Netflix, and YouPorn. The only people making this out to be some government takeover are those who carry an agenda. If freedom is an "agenda", then I am guilty as charged. Sorry, but the OP is correct to be concerned. Give an unelected bureaucracy the authority to regulate the Internet, and in time they will tax it like they already do with telephone service, and control its content like they already do with TV. Net Neutrality is how the internet used to be before, this doesn't mean the internet will be regulated rather the internet will remain vast, decentralized, and endlessley innovative. It would just mean that the people who connect you to the internet would have to make their profits by connecting you to the internet, not by holding your connection hostage. Here's a comic for further explanation: https://web.archive.org/web/20140921160330/http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/ The only people making professionally produced comics about "net neutrality" are those who carry an agenda. And please keep in mind many are trying to politicize the issue and make it a Republican vs Democrat issue. That assumes one of these parties opposes the idea. Too soon to know that. Anyway, "net neutrality" is not necessary for DCI, as their service was getting through to us without DCI having to pay confiscatory rates. And if there ever was a problem of that magnitude, it could have been addressed specifically via legislation, not by giving the FCC vast new powers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrownBariDad Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 If freedom is an "agenda", then I am guilty as charged. Sorry, but the OP is correct to be concerned. Give an unelected bureaucracy the authority to regulate the Internet, and in time they will tax it like they already do with telephone service, and control its content like they already do with TV. The only people making professionally produced comics about "net neutrality" are those who carry an agenda. That assumes one of these parties opposes the idea. Too soon to know that. Anyway, "net neutrality" is not necessary for DCI, as their service was getting through to us without DCI having to pay confiscatory rates. And if there ever was a problem of that magnitude, it could have been addressed specifically via legislation, not by giving the FCC vast new powers. You can almost guarantee there will be new Federal fees on your Internet bill -- gotta pay for all those regulators looking out for us. And then there will be those fees for all the feel good projects that just never pan out, so the money just goes into the coffers in DC. Hope you can tell I'm a skeptic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 If freedom is an "agenda", then I am guilty as charged. If your definition of "freedom" is giving a service provider the right to determine what you watch, read, and listen to, then you're the cable industry's kind of patriot. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 I feel certain the cable industry has been doing just fine destroying itself, and internet access has been what has most helped that along. I must agree, too, additional taxes and fees are sure to follow. In my neighborhood, the only cable provider is RCN. The original developer sold exclusive rights to RCN for a 100 year period. We have no FIOS available. My cable internet speed always drops in proportion to how many neighbors are online at the same time. I always believed that was a purely technical issue of bandwidth limitations of the cable itself. In other words, no matter who legislates what, the science behind it all rules the moment. I probably would pay for the highest speed on Earth, but how will I receive that through cable, with new government intervention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I probably would pay for the highest speed on Earth, but how will I receive that through cable, with new government intervention? The meat-packing industry tried using that same logic in protesting the Safe Food and Drug Act back in the early 1900s. Made no more sense then than it does now. To bring this back to DCI, by having neutrality rules in place, it at least guarantees that no ISP could tell them to pay up for the privilege of streaming their content at speeds comparable to what Amazon and Netflix get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 The meat-packing industry tried using that same logic in protesting the Safe Food and Drug Act back in the early 1900s. Made no more sense then than it does now. To bring this back to DCI, by having neutrality rules in place, it at least guarantees that no ISP could tell them to pay up for the privilege of streaming their content at speeds comparable to what Amazon and Netflix get. Your analogy doesn't do much for me. I am interested in speed and cost to enable the best internet experience into my home. If you have no answer for me, maybe someone else will come forward and give my concerns input I can actually use. Thanks for trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) If your definition of "freedom" is giving a service provider the right to determine what you watch, read, and listen to, then you're the cable industry's kind of patriot. Yes I'd much rather have a faceless bureaucrat make that decision for me Edited February 27, 2015 by HockeyDad 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So it sounds like you are saying they can't give a better price to customers who don't need super fast internet? And companies with critical needs for fast and highly reliable service including those many people depend on can no longer acquire such service? Check out this helpful infographic about Net Neutrality if you're confused and/or trying to make this a nonsensical political debate (note: this is mostly a bipartisan issue, being fought mostly by billion dollar companies and politicians on their take) http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 If your definition of "freedom" is giving a service provider the right to determine what you watch, read, and listen to, then you're the cable industry's kind of patriot. And more importantly, what you CAN'T watch/read/listen to as well as throttling service to "punish" those who oppose said billion dollar company's power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Any ISP does have a right to decide what comes through their bandwidth and into your home, and you also have a right to not give that company your money. It's not like you have a Constitutional Right to have internet. If you did, then the Gov't would decide what comes through your connection, and then you would not have the choice to not give them your money - they would steal it, just like they decided you have a right to (forced) healthcare, and that you have to pay for it whether you like it or not, even if it means they punish you by stealing it from your paycheck. If you want to talk about monopoly, look at D.C. They have a monopoly over everything and everyone. Get the bureaucracies out. A bunch of unelected people who arbitrarily make laws for the rest of us with no consequence to them. And just so you know, you really think bureaucracies are not bought and paid for, just like at the FDA. Most of the top people in charge there are from Monsanto and pharmaceutical companies. You know, the ones that profit by poisoning us. 80% of the corn is now a pesticide. It's not even real food. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts