Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 5 Next >>
Topic: Net Neutrality Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Karl Wiebe
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 December 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 172
Posted: 25 November 2017 at 6:55pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Totally valid points.  I guess another way to phrase the debate is arguing about what IS vs. arguing about what SHOULD be.  So I agree, the highway has different vehicles.  But if each of us could wave a magic wand and make it the way each of us think it SHOULD be, there are some people who feel that cars should never have a capability to exceed the speed limit.  Or some people think that highway speed limts should be removed.  Or your car can't start without an activated seat belt and a breathelizer.  In other words, public safety trumps freedom in some people's perfect world, or freedom trumps safety.

So with the internet, the argument could be seen as what it should be--how the internet was originally conceived and designed, rather than what it really is.  The internet may be an elitist system now, but that doesn't make it right (at least if you are one of the guys arguing that access to the internet is a human right, especially to protect the little guy).


Edited by Karl Wiebe on 25 November 2017 at 6:57pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 115491
Posted: 25 November 2017 at 7:17pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

So with the internet, the argument could be seen as what it should be--how the internet was originally conceived and designed, rather than what it really is. The internet may be an elitist system now, but that doesn't make it right (at least if you are one of the guys arguing that access to the internet is a human right, especially to protect the little guy).

•••

The internet was created so a bunch of scientists could share data. The printing press for today's generation. But unlike the printing press, the internet was not controllable. The genii escaped its bottle and spread out at the speed of thought, blasting thru the rules and regulations that governed the "free press". To protect the little guy? With hacking? Cyber-bullying? Foreign governments influencing our elections? Fake news? And all those "little guys" too dumb to know when they're being manipulated?

Maybe some doors DO need to be closed, some channels diverted -- and maybe a greater level of responsibility should be brought to bear. Freedom, not license.

Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4887
Posted: 25 November 2017 at 9:57pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Back to the ‘highway neutrality’ scenario. We actually do not have full parity at the moment.
While in the U.K. we all have broadband, there is a range of broadband types/speeds available - broadband, fibre broadband, super fast broadband and cable.
Depends where you live as to what max speed you can get. But once you have your speed, the content all comes at that speed. So there is a highway market based on which lane you can afford.
But that’s based on hardware and not the content.
I’m a bit uncomfortable with someone else dictating what I can and cannot have access to with a few caveats and I totally understand the implications of both parts of that sentence and that it makes me a hypocrite.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3498
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 5:57am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has written an op ed encouraging the public to resist the repeal of net neutrality. I think it is tough to avoid thinking the worst if it is repealed. When has an advantage ever NOT been taken in a capitalist society? "It's just business" is the mantra of anyone wanting to obsolve guilt while they screw you. Net neutrality treats all data the same. The packets are not restricted by their place of origin, content, or any other possible difference. The potential to restrict data based on anything is scary.

Op Ed: LA Times
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3498
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 9:43am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Regarding the "highway" analogy, consider if all roads currently in existance had their accessibility changed based on where you wanted to go, what you wanted to do, etc. Imagine a road/route you were allowed to travel in order to get to the grocery store, but if you wanted to go to the restaurant next to the grocery store you had to take a different, longer route. Also, imagine these pathways and their accessibility changing on a monthly basis based on whether or not the place you wanted to go had paid a premium. In the highway analogy the origin, destination, type of vehicle and content of your vehicle all influence what route and speed limit you are allowed to travel. If a new road is built it may be a toll road, dedicated to local travel, etc., but we are talking about giving service providers the ability to change how your data is delivered based on almost anything conceiveable with the existing infrastructure on a monthly basis

Edited by Eric Ladd on 26 November 2017 at 9:45am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Russ
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1901
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 3:15pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

What is amazing about American citizens, is that we have a lack of understanding and involvement on issues that will impact us.

I dread to imagine what would happen if  net neutrality is dismantled.  Sharing and getting information, truthful or not, your point of view or not, is at a disadvantage. 






Edited by Eric Russ on 26 November 2017 at 3:23pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Murphy
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 201
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 4:17pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

I think some are getting too hung upon the highways analogy.

Say Verizon is my ISP. Verizon, through AOL, owns the Huffington Post. Verizon decides that they only want their subscribers to visit the news outlets they own so they slow or restrict access to other news sites. Net neutrality does not allow this behavior, the loss of it would make it ok for ISPs to engage in that behavior.

Comcast owns NBC. Loose net neutrality and they could slow or restrict access to on NBC news sites (NBC, MSNBC, CNCB etc) and any entertainments services they don't like. NBC has a streaming service and part ownership in Hulu. They decide Hulu needs to get all of your viewing so they slow or restrict access to Netflix and HBO Now.

It is not just about making more money from "fast lanes" it means that your ISP can choose what you have access to. There is not true competition between ISPs, where you live determines your provider and in many places there is only one choice. With the loss of net neutrality that provider now gets to control what you can do with the internet.



Edited by Michael Murphy on 26 November 2017 at 4:18pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: Macau
Posts: 4536
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

But if there is only one choice for a provider, and that provider became unpopular due to their restricting certain sites, wouldn't that mean there would be a market for another ISP to swoop in and take customers from the original provider?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12769
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 6:34pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

But if there is only one choice for a provider, and that provider became unpopular due to their restricting certain sites, wouldn't that mean there would be a market for another ISP to swoop in and take customers from the original provider?

——

Nope. Because the US lacks the broadband infrastructure. In most of the country, the choice is between whatever cable company monopolizes your area or slower DSL through the old phone lines. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Adam Hutchinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4483
Posted: 26 November 2017 at 7:37pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Jon Oliver gave the best explanation for the importance of Net
Neutrality, I believe. Here’s the segment from his show a few years ago:
Link. with an update from
a few months ago: here
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark McKay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1746
Posted: 27 November 2017 at 11:49am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Do anti-trust laws already cover these issues?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Russ
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1901
Posted: 27 November 2017 at 1:09pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Here is an article -

FCC will block states from passing their own net neutrality laws




Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 5 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login