Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Net Neutrality

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 1:41:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hard not to. Businesses could reach an agreement among each other, but the nature of internet providers themselves would deem this a very unstable agreement, and one that wouldn't include everyone, especially those with comfy cornered markets in certain areas, of which there is a lot of.

With the government backing of a universal agreement on net neutrality, then all businesses, including those that wouldn't play nice with other ones, would be bound by law to ensure it.
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:51:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 1:41:48 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
We can't. The government could be beneficial in ths regard.

But this would require the government to have an eye on the internet to assure neutrality, which is an idea that a lot of internet users and internets professionals reject. The internet id the ultimate free market of ideas so to speak but now it seems that its demise is inevitable.
Do you like Mudkips?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 2:51:11 PM, ReganFan wrote:
But this would require the government to have an eye on the internet to assure neutrality, which is an idea that a lot of internet users and internets professionals reject. The internet id the ultimate free market of ideas so to speak but now it seems that its demise is inevitable.

Lol @ "internet is the ultimate free market of ideas." This has nothing to do with net neutrality, ReganFan. I'm assuming you don't actually know what it is.

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:20:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let me echo Volkov's lol -- LOL

Net neutrality does not mean that content on the net must be neutral, balanced, fair, or any other regulation. As Volkov quoted, net neutrality is only about keeping internet providers (or the government) from limiting access to certain site, pay-per-click service (i.e. you pay X dollars for Y number of websites visited), or slowing down access to sites that do not agree to pay a kickback to the provider, &ct.
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:27:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lol @ "internet is the ultimate free market of ideas." This has nothing to do with net neutrality, ReganFan. I'm assuming you don't actually know what it is.

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

Internet providers are trying to destroy the idea of of unrestricted access, for example AOL is a subsidiary of Time Warner which owns CNN. If internet providers all allowed to tamper with the rate of access, a CNN video may stream and load faster than one from MSNBC and Fox. The internet is the ultimate free market of ideas because it gives users unrestricted access to what ever content they want. But I don't like the idea that the government would have to have an eye on the internet to assure this, but I also dislike the idea of Internet providers restricting access to its users.
Do you like Mudkips?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:31:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:27:54 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Internet providers are trying to destroy the idea of of unrestricted access, for example AOL is a subsidiary of Time Warner which owns CNN. If internet providers all allowed to tamper with the rate of access, a CNN video may stream and load faster than one from MSNBC and Fox. The internet is the ultimate free market of ideas because it gives users unrestricted access to what ever content they want. But I don't like the idea that the government would have to have an eye on the internet to assure this, but I also dislike the idea of Internet providers restricting access to its users.

Well, what matters to you more then? The ability of people to gain access to fair internet use backed by a government capable of enforcing it, or letting providers f*ck you over for the sake of f*cking you over?
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:41:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here this better illustrates the point I am trying to make:

However my problem is that the government has responded in a terrible way. They have created a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). What this does is empower the FCC to ensure free traffic in legal content. So the FCC will clearly discriminate between legal and illegal (or what it deems to be illegal) content and will thus obstruct net neutrality.(1)
(1) http://www.opencongress.org...
Do you like Mudkips?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:42:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yay freedom of contract. If the contract says you get content-neutral access, yay. If not, yay. If someone interferes, boo.

Yes, you knew i was going to say that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:47:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:31:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 3:27:54 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Internet providers are trying to destroy the idea of of unrestricted access, for example AOL is a subsidiary of Time Warner which owns CNN. If internet providers all allowed to tamper with the rate of access, a CNN video may stream and load faster than one from MSNBC and Fox. The internet is the ultimate free market of ideas because it gives users unrestricted access to what ever content they want. But I don't like the idea that the government would have to have an eye on the internet to assure this, but I also dislike the idea of Internet providers restricting access to its users.

Well, what matters to you more then? The ability of people to gain access to fair internet use backed by a government capable of enforcing it, or letting providers f*ck you over for the sake of f*cking you over?

I don't like either call me an idealistic conservative but I don't want it to change, and I think we should look for a way to achieve real Net Neutrality not the faux neutrality that doesn't enable government intrusion.
Do you like Mudkips?
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unfortunately we have is a group of Internet providers in cahoots and sadly if they are allowed to have their way we will not have a content neutral provider. Its almost like a Multiopoly (oxymoron).
Do you like Mudkips?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:51:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:46:36 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Free Expression of Thoughts and Ideas.
More accurate and less bias information.

O boy...... That's ironic.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:01:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If people want internet service that slows down on certain websites, they are free to purchase it. However, these are few, so even after external incentives for companies to discriminate on this basis, most of the internet providers will choose not to slow one's service down.

I said it was ironic because someone is advocating that gov't make information less biased and more plentiful and that they don't censor anything and allow for free though and expression...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:07:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:01:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If people want internet service that slows down on certain websites, they are free to purchase it. However, these are few, so even after external incentives for companies to discriminate on this basis, most of the internet providers will choose not to slow one's service down.

The point is that other companies are purposely slowing down their competitor's lines in order to starve them of customers. It is an unfair practice that allows a company to get rid of its competition without competing.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:17:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:07:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 5:01:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If people want internet service that slows down on certain websites, they are free to purchase it. However, these are few, so even after external incentives for companies to discriminate on this basis, most of the internet providers will choose not to slow one's service down.

The point is that other companies are purposely slowing down their competitor's lines in order to starve them of customers. It is an unfair practice that allows a company to get rid of its competition without competing.

I can't see your logic here at all. Could you give an example?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:21:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:46:36 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Free Expression of Thoughts and Ideas.
More accurate and less bias information.

Isn't trying to be unbiased in itself a bias?
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:36:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:21:38 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 10/29/2009 4:46:36 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Free Expression of Thoughts and Ideas.
More accurate and less bias information.

Isn't trying to be unbiased in itself a bias?

The best way to bypass bias is to look at a variety of sources, but if companies are allowed to choose the content that is more readily available then it limits the amount of information one can find. I'll use my Time Warner CNN example from my previous posts, one would be able to access sites that have a pro CNN bias than those that have an anti CNN bias and thus you wouldn't be able to see both sides of the argument effectively.
Do you like Mudkips?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:41:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:36:58 PM, ReganFan wrote:
At 10/29/2009 5:21:38 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 10/29/2009 4:46:36 PM, ReganFan wrote:
Free Expression of Thoughts and Ideas.
More accurate and less bias information.

Isn't trying to be unbiased in itself a bias?

The best way to bypass bias is to look at a variety of sources, but if companies are allowed to choose the content that is more readily available then it limits the amount of information one can find. I'll use my Time Warner CNN example from my previous posts, one would be able to access sites that have a pro CNN bias than those that have an anti CNN bias and thus you wouldn't be able to see both sides of the argument effectively.

History has examples of when the government triest to make the media unbiased. An example would be Lincoln during the Civil War, Stalin during his reign, and China now.

Have paper-carrying companies ever slowed down their delivery for newspapers they don't support? Such discrimination constitutes a loss, which can not be permanent in a competitive market.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:42:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:17:02 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I can't see your logic here at all. Could you give an example?

The entire idea behind network neutrality is that the broadband networks which carry information to customers from service providers are owned by the same company that may provide those services, and those companies do what is called "throttling" of their rival's services which travel through those broadband lines which are owned by that company. People want to end this practice, because it gives some companies an unfair advantage over their rivals, and disallows proper competition.

It isn't that a customer wants a slower service from a rival company, its that they're forced to use it because of this unfair advantage, and backed into a corner if they actually need a faster service, because the company that owns the broadband lines now has a basic monopoly on the service. Its subterfuge, and especially illegal, considering that the rival companies that use those broadband lines do pay to rent them to that company.

Network neutrality seeks to make throttling illegal by giving the government oversight power. It has nothing to do with oversight of what people do on the internet.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:26:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 6:42:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 5:17:02 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I can't see your logic here at all. Could you give an example?

The entire idea behind network neutrality is that the broadband networks which carry information to customers from service providers are owned by the same company that may provide those services, and those companies do what is called "throttling" of their rival's services which travel through those broadband lines which are owned by that company. People want to end this practice, because it gives some companies an unfair advantage over their rivals, and disallows proper competition.

It isn't that a customer wants a slower service from a rival company, its that they're forced to use it because of this unfair advantage, and backed into a corner if they actually need a faster service, because the company that owns the broadband lines now has a basic monopoly on the service. Its subterfuge, and especially illegal, considering that the rival companies that use those broadband lines do pay to rent them to that company.

Network neutrality seeks to make throttling illegal by giving the government oversight power. It has nothing to do with oversight of what people do on the internet.

Under this situation, it seems just an issue of violation of contract and need no further interference.

The issue at hand is a distrust of a company in two different market fields, this one being the production and distribution of newspapers. The company that owns the distribution method naturally does have a monopoly on that distribution assuming there are no other possible internet providers, which is false unless this company also has a monopoly on distribution, which is unattainable.

Update Sig. Election is over.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:41:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 7:26:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Under this situation, it seems just an issue of violation of contract and need no further interference.

No... you don't understand. It isn't technically a breach of contract, because it isn't illegal for the broadband owners to throttle. Network neutrality is the push to ensure it is, and to have government keep oversight and allow a case to come to arbitration if needed
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:46:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 7:41:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 7:26:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Under this situation, it seems just an issue of violation of contract and need no further interference.

No... you don't understand. It isn't technically a breach of contract, because it isn't illegal for the broadband owners to throttle. Network neutrality is the push to ensure it is

I am now against Net Neutrality. Weeeeee~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:54:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 7:46:11 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I am now against Net Neutrality. Weeeeee~

You support will be sorely missed.

Anyways, in order to ensure fairness the companies and customers getting throttled want to put it into law to make it illegal. Essentially, they're renegotiatinng the contract through a third party for which the broadband networks can easily present their own case in favour of throttling. Its called an impartial judiciary, and its one of those pragmatic responses to the fact that people cannot survive in a panarchistic society where the only guarantees for safety and respect of contracts is apparently happy thoughts.
Grumpy
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2009 8:55:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I guess, by forming a citizen watchdog group to oversee fair access and usage of the Internet. Let's see...Chairman - Rush Limbaugh. Vice Chairman - Sean Hannidy. Enforcement Chairman - Bill O'Reilly.

There - situation totally under (?) control!
Cogito Ergo sum Quid sum - Cogito
I think, therefore I am what I am - I think
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2009 9:30:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/30/2009 8:55:54 PM, Grumpy wrote:
I guess, by forming a citizen watchdog group to oversee fair access and usage of the Internet. Let's see...Chairman - Rush Limbaugh. Vice Chairman - Sean Hannidy. Enforcement Chairman - Bill O'Reilly.

There - situation totally under (?) control!

The internets are too powerful of tubes to be trusted to a few men like that grumpy.
Do you like Mudkips?