| Author | Message | ||
     Swordsman |
Sign this petition to keep the Govt. from getting their grubby little hands on our Internet! http://americansforprosperity.org/stop-the-interne t-takeover ~SM | ||
| Greg_e |
You do understand what the net neutrality act is supposed to do don't you? It may be the only thing that keeps providers like the cable TV companies from limiting the bit rate that you can get from places like netflix because it competes with the cable TV on demand stuff. It's probably a good idea for this act, but like everything else there will be so many riders attached that the original idea will get lost in the clutter. | ||
| Swordsman |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality I tend to side with the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. ~SM | ||
| Milt |
Once it's broke, it will never get fixed. | ||
| Sifo |
From the Wikipedia link... "Vinton Cerf, considered as a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality." Who the heck is Vinton Cerg? Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet! On a serious note, do these kind of internet petitions carry any weight at all? Petitions that I'm familiar with (pretty much anything that has any political weight) requires a signature that can be verified. On something like this there's nothing to stop me from opening up a phone book and having at it. Just curious if anyone knows anything about what can be done with an internet petition? | ||
| Greg_e |
Chances are good that if I wanted to stuff the box, I could have 50,000 submissions to that form in an hour and all from different IP addresses, they carry zero weight in this case. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
I'm with Greg on this one.... I used to think the whole net neutrality was hipster/geek hyperbole. But they do make a good point... if Comcast was competing against Youtube and gave bandwidth priority to to their own video service (which judging by my own comcast use, would probably suck  ) and slowed down youtube, I'd be pissed. I like the internet how it is now, bandwidth is bandwidth and doesn't give priority to anything else. The problem is don't want the government overreaching like they always do (no matter who's in power). And consumer lobbyists seem to pale to the ISP lobbyists. Hands off my Badweb and facebook! And pr0n! | ||
| Milleniumx1 |
I support full net neutrality ... End of story. For any of you guys that believe incumbent carriers are going to provide innovation instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into it like usual, dream on. Mike | ||
| S1eric |
It may be the only thing that keeps providers like the cable TV companies from limiting the bit rate that you can get from places like netflix because it competes with the cable TV on demand stuff. It's probably a good idea for this act, And who owns the pipe line that netflix will use so you can get their product ? Who maintains that network ? Surely not net flix or youtube. Food for thought. S1Eric | ||
| Jaimec |
Funny comment about keeping the government out of "our internet." You DO know the government (Department of Defense) CREATED the thing in the first place, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET | ||
| Greg_e |
Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T most likely own the backbone that services Netflix, you could check if you were really interested. And I assure you that Netflix pays very well for the use of that backbone, totally based on the amount of data they move (or are allowed to move). That is what pays for the upkeep of the network. Now if Netflix found that TimeWarner was limiting the throughput to the Netflix customers, what could they do? Not a damn thing right now. ANd when your choices are RoadRunner or dial up where does that leave the customer? Most people do not have the option of jumping around from ISP to ISP when they find that something is wrong, most people are lucky if they have two choices of high speed and dial up as the last choice. | ||
| Geforce |
So long as the legislation remains pure and not crammed with a bunch of tossed in extras I'd be more than happy to support it. I happen to live in an area now that is dominated by Cable America and it SUCKS. You either get Century Link DSL, Cable America Crap Cable, or Hughs Net... Problem is, this will get mixed in with a ton of other nonsense and that's when I'll start getting angry... We seriously need to keep these bills under 1000+ pages. Sounds like a good idea to me. Make it so! | ||
| Swordsman |
For any of you guys that believe incumbent carriers are going to provide innovation instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into it like usual, dream on. Did I read the article wrong, or did it not say that when net neutrality goes into effect and carriers can't tier their services/prices, there will be no reason to innovate? If it's all going to cost the same, why bother coming up with anything new? ~SM | ||
| S1eric |
Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T most likely own the backbone that services Netflix, you could check if you were really interested. And I assure you that Netflix pays very well for the use of that backbone, totally based on the amount of data they move (or are allowed to move). That is what pays for the upkeep of the network. Not entirely true. That product goes through many providers to get to its destination. Netflixs does not pay them all. The end user - The customer pays for most of the upkeep. The money you pay your provider pays for these things. S1Eric | ||
| Ratyson |
curious if anyone knows anything about what can be done with an internet petition? Internet petitions carry absolutely no weight. They are about as affective as chain letters promising that if you pass this on to 5 friends, you will get free tickets to Disney.} | ||
| Dmmblaze |
Saying Internet petitions carry absolutely no weight is untrue. If it was, then conservative billionaire oil barons wouldn't allow their "non-profit" (americans for prosperity) to engage in such a meaningless act. It's like chain emails, it gets the word out to some people and drums up support and acknowledgement. Look's to be working...here we are talking about it. Oh, and most people who fill out the above petition get to give out their home address and email which improves the perceived validity of the petition.. and perception is key to any debate, even if it's b.s | ||
| Rwven |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules against the FCC on "net-neutrality". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-again st-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4 | ||
| Orman1649 |
Net Neutrality SHOULD happen! But....there would never be a bill that has 1 line stating that all net traffic is to be treated equally. There would also be a tax on combing your hair to pay for red carpets to be laid out at the border to make the illegals feel more welcome as they cross the border. Most government agencies, including the FCC, should be totally dismantled. Don't like whats on the TV/Radio? TURN IT OFF! | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
| ||
| J2blue |
Good grief. Yeah, I don't like government intruding in my private personal life either, but I don't like a giant corporation doing the same thing. What the big telecablecos want is to have you, the end user, regulated to only sucking what content they allow on their pipes. And they want the government to enforce it. It is the farthest from free enterprise you can get. It is the state of economics as it existed in the motherland 300 years ago. Americans for Prosperity? Joke. They co-opt libertarian ideals to help a small minority gain and maintain a monopoly. They are not really for free markets, they want protectionism big time. And they want the government to enforce it! These same people want all public roads to be converted to toll roads that only a few wealthy companies will operate, too. The analogy for net neutrality and the federal highway system is a very good one. |
