Are sites like this one in danger of net nuetrality

Doom and gloom? Comcast and other ISPs absolutely were throttling services like YouTube, Netflix, torrents, peer to peer and the like.

Jack House said:

Doom and gloom? Comcast and other ISPs absolutely were throttling services like YouTube, Netflix, torrents, peer to peer and the like.

Click to expand...

And? This is the nature of a free market. We should be making it more free not less.
Quick anecdote. A few years back in a nearby town where my buddy lived the town and Walmart made a deal. The town increased the cost of everyone's water/sewage significantly in order to build the infrastructure to support a new Walmart in order for Walmart to agree to build there.
This is the kind of thing we will be seeing regarding the internet. The internet is now State owned.

Yes, doom and gloom propaganda. If you don't like throttling then get a contact that says no throttling. Get an SLA. Companies should be made by the courts to keep their contractual obligations, not much more. 'The internet' is not something you have any right to access, much less at an arbitrarily defined service level. You do understand that these companies build these infrastructures, and own these lines and networking equipment, right? It's not like they just found this **** in the wild. It's theirs. If you think there isn't enough competition check out exclusivity agreements, that's a government problem there and you aren't going to fix that problem with more government.

Nightmare said:

Waay back in the Eighties the expense of my IP was explained as my share of building the state's fiber network as I watched the T1 fiber crawl around the state. Even then I could access it only through my academic account. The people paid for the Internet infrastructure.

Click to expand...

What? Not sure what you mean by "expense of my IP" but I'm assuming you mean internet service of some sort. You could say the same for any business - the people pay for it. The question isn't where the money came from, the question is what agreement was made for the transfer. I pay my ISP, for their service. I could pay for their service for the rest of my life and I won't own any stake in their company, or any of their equipment or lines. Sorry if you feel like you've been duped, but you probably were if you ever believed that you'd own part of the networks that make up "the internet" just by paying for service. If the state had anything to do with it you probably should have known you were getting screwed. Again, sounds like a government problem there.

Honestly, "free speech" is not my biggest concern here. It's economics. Many of the issues with ISPs we face today are essentially enabled by government involvement and coercion, and now we want the FCC to fix it? Get real, figure out the actual problem and figure out a solution (which probably means government out of the game). The problem is that regulations like these will stifle the industry.

stealthyeliminator said:

Yes, doom and gloom propaganda. If you don't like throttling then get a contact that says no throttling. Get an SLA. Companies should be made by the courts to keep their contractual obligations, not much more. 'The internet' is not something you have any right to access, much less at an arbitrarily defined service level. You do understand that these companies build these infrastructures, and own these lines and networking equipment, right? It's not like they just found this **** in the wild. It's theirs. If you think there isn't enough competition check out exclusivity agreements, that's a government problem there and you aren't going to fix that problem with more government.

Click to expand...

ya know, ma bell tried that very same explanation and it failed in the courts...the infrastructure isn't theirs. getting a sla then trying to enforce it in the courts cost $$$ which you will not recoup! the big boys know that which is why throttling became fashionable...who's got the umph to challenge them...definitely not JqPublic, even in a class action suit.

ipse

Instead of ending the state granted monopolies the state convinces that it needs more control to to protect us from the beast it help create.

stealthyeliminator said:

Honestly, "free speech" is not my biggest concern here. It's economics. Many of the issues with ISPs we face today are essentially enabled by government involvement and coercion, and now we want the FCC to fix it? Get real, figure out the actual problem and figure out a solution (which probably means government out of the game). The problem is that regulations like these will stifle the industry.

Click to expand...

Side note using your post as talking point. With its very valid point on economics.

Economics and freedom go hand in hand. The free market without state interference is the epitome of freedom. Distorting that market causes harm to all our rights including that of free speech.

solus said:

ya know, ma bell tried that very same explanation and it failed in the courts...the infrastructure isn't theirs. getting a sla then trying to enforce it in the courts cost $$$ which you will not recoup! the big boys know that which is why throttling became fashionable...who's got the umph to challenge them...definitely not JqPublic, even in a class action suit.

ipse

Click to expand...

1. Cite case
2. Wouldn't be the first time "the courts" got something wrong
3. I experience issues of and with SLAs, you won't find sympathy in abandonment of principle via a desperate attempt at making government our savior by giving up freedom, from me.

I've seen SLAs honored without court involvement, and I've seen compensation given for poor performance to residential customers even without SLAs. Once again, gloom and doom propaganda leading to desperately seeking misguided government involvement in the market place.

Clearly not all lines are necessarily owned by an "ISP" per se - obviously the meaning of my statement was that lines are not collectively owned by "the people" just by virtue of the fact that they are used for "internet" access, as if internet access was a human right. It isn't. There's nothing special about "the internet" (a number of interconnected networking infrastructures) that exempts it from private property principles.

The arguments being used in favor of "net neutrality" are not that different from any other socialistic argument used to argue in favor of government control and central planning of any other industry, service or product.

Since the U.S. government invented the Internet, we were naturally ranked Number One when the first file was transferred back in 1969. We taxpayers financed the project through DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the DOD).
Fast-forward to 2011 and American Internet leadership was a historical relic, as we lagged far behind the rest of the modern world by every metric but one. South Korea took the world lead in Internet speeds. At that time, it averaged 18 megabits per second. Romania was second. U.S. was way back in the pack in 29th place. In Seoul, a file that would take one minute to download required four minutes in the U.S. We are ranked #1 in one catagory...Price. (kind of like healthcare)

Grapeshot said:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

Click to expand...

Yes, if you have the money and time you can go to "Court" and try to fight the FCC having already begun redacting things.

They can drag it on, so best have grandchildren to take up the cause.

The internet was already state owned. The government developed the internet in the first place. Until recently it was under DoD control and ownership. Nothing bad happened then.

The government already paid to expand internet access and capability. But you free market types didn't like that. So y'all allowed ISPs to abscound with two hundred BILLION dollars of tax payer money.

Free market would be fine, if there was a free market, but there isn't. The barrier for entry is impossibly high. Look at Google, they've been trying to roll out fiber to Austin for I can't remember how many years now.

FCC regulation is the only way to ensure a free and open internet, to ensure there is a free market.

Otherwise ISPs will control the market and how you can think that's any better than the government is beyond me.

Jack House said:

The internet was already state owned. The government developed the internet in the first place. Until recently it was under DoD control and ownership. Nothing bad happened then.

The government already paid to expand internet access and capability. But you free market types didn't like that. So y'all allowed ISPs to abscound with two hundred BILLION dollars of tax payer money.

Free market would be fine, if there was a free market, but there isn't. The barrier for entry is impossibly high. Look at Google, they've been trying to roll out fiber to Austin for I can't remember how many years now.

FCC regulation is the only way to ensure a free and open internet, to ensure there is a free market.

Otherwise ISPs will control the market and how you can think that's any better than the government is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Until when, specifically, was "the internet" (please define specifically what constitutes the internet per your definition, which networks and connections, cabling, networking facilities, networking equipment such as routers and switches, and nodes which provide content or services, etc.) under DoD control and please tell us specifically what transfer took place that removed their control.

Please tell us the instances you reference of government paying to expand internet access and capability, and show us that "free market types" didn't like it. Please show us the money trail of 200 Billion tax-sourced money being "absconded" with by ISPs. Please tell me how private companies absconding with tax-sourced money isn't a government caused problem. Please show me ANY "free-market" type that would support the government imposing a tax in the first place, much more imposing a tax and then allowing a private company to "make off" with that money without accountability. Please, oh please, show me any example.

Please explain how the barrier to entry for new competing ISPs is not at least partially a government regulation created issue (exclusivity agreements, use of eminent domain for infrastructure, etc. please explain how none of these are factors in the barrier to market)

To say FCC regulation is the only way to ensure ... a free market, is a contradiction. I really don't think you understand the meaning of freedom. I'm really shocked, I expected more from rights advocates. Socialist theory apparently has a way of making itself non-apparent in fields which people view only from a high level.

ETA: Note that I'm not saying that none of your statements have any truth to them, but I absolutely am calling into question the validity of your implications and the logic of your conclusions. We don't get to throw out basic property rights and principles just because it's "the internet"

Of course download speeds will increase for the average consumer when the variety of data available on the Interwebz is greatly reduced.

Some folks, just a few years ago, said Obama would not ban bullets either.

Who owns your life?

Free: free of cost?
Freedom of choice, of self ownership

Nothing is truly free of cost, just a matter of how much. "Free" in this context simply means there was a transfer of the true cost from some people to other people. Same with "free access" and a lot of other "free" stuff.

Freedom of choice is the logical position, because then each individual is free to choose what they want and how they will pay the cost with their own resources instead of stealing it.

There is a false idea that some people have a "right" to the resources of others, some authority to confiscate someone else's time and productivity for their own use.

Unfortunately, far too many people truly believe that this bogus authority is inherent in government, even those who object to the perceived "excesses."

Who owns your life? Do you think you (or your elected surrogates) should own you, or anyone else?

Why would that be?

The government didn't "invent" the internet.

Even if they did it doesn't mean they "own" it.


Socializing it even more, isn't the answer. Golly it worked so well with everything else.

MamaLiberty said:

Free: free of cost?
Freedom of choice, of self ownership

Nothing is truly free of cost, just a matter of how much. "Free" in this context simply means there was a transfer of the true cost from some people to other people. Same with "free access" and a lot of other "free" stuff.

Freedom of choice is the logical position, because then each individual is free to choose what they want and how they will pay the cost with their own resources instead of stealing it.

There is a false idea that some people have a "right" to the resources of others, some authority to confiscate someone else's time and productivity for their own use.

Unfortunately, far too many people truly believe that this bogus authority is inherent in government, even those who object to the perceived "excesses."

Who owns your life? Do you think you (or your elected surrogates) should own you, or anyone else?

Why would that be?

Click to expand...

+1

You set up a business to provide a service. There are high payers that you cater too, in doing so it allows some low cost services to others. The low cost people cry foul and want it to be free access and equal!

sudden valley gunner said:

The government didn't "invent" the internet.

Even if they did it doesn't mean they "own" it.

Click to expand...

They think they do, and Obama just shoved his "Obamanet" down our throats.

The former FCC chairmen said today, "This is going to get very expensive."

It's funny, you guys accused us of doom and gloom saying by pointing out that ISPs were throttling services they didn't like. But here you are declaring the end is nigh, without actually understanding what was done.

The only thing the FCC is doing is ensuring that ISPs treat all services equally.

Screwed the pooch