(09-10-2014 02:17 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: So someone GTS, Niner, Dixie, whoever, that has a grasp on this spell it out for your not well versed layman.
I understand the arguments on either side, BUT a name like "net neutrality" is no doubt another innocuous name for something borderline evil.
Who supports what side? If it is Comcast (I'll be predisposed to not be in favor of it then. ha) in favor of the net neutrality, what is it that they are in favor of? The tiered pricing? Does that get them more money? They can charge higher access fees? Higher prices for a bigger pipe depending on your usage needs or history?
Not sure if I'm in favor of something like this or not if I don't know who is on what side and what they are looking for.
Thanks, I'll take the answer off the air...
Websites tend to be in favor of net neutrality. ISP's (Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, etc) oppose it.
Net Neutrality basically means that ISPs must be neutral to the content that is being transmitted on the web. A megabyte from CSNBBS.com is equal to a megabyte from Netflix.com is equal to a megabyte from comcast.com.
The ISPs basically want the ability to say "your site uses a lot of bandwidth, so you either need to pay us for equal speeds (or your users need to) or we'll slow their internet speeds down to make using your site less enjoyable."
Basically, as people are dumping cable and getting more of their information from the web, the ISPs don't want to lose money, so they'll try to turn the web into a tiered solution like cable.
It will allow them to deem certain websites as "premium" sites if they want to. Sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Netflix are some of the largest consumers of bandwidth in the United States. Cable companies could essentially start selling premium tiers of internet that gives you full bandwidth for "premium" websites...or they could make those websites pay for equal speeds (which consumers will ultimately pay for in some way).
The biggest problem with it is that it stifles innovation. How many millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars have been created because of the internet? A system that was built on the back of taxpayer funded research and development and has always been free and equal for everyone.
ISPs basically hold monopolies which essentially allow them to "own" the internet and there is no legitimate option for competition. They have pushed regulations that have allowed them to have monopolies in many markets (because competition would make their business model unprofitable). Regulating themselves into being the only provider or one of only 2 or 3 providers (that all want the same thing) wasn't enough. Guaranteeing themselves billions in revenue by keeping competition out didn't satisfy them, now they want you (or website owners) to pay more to get the speeds they promise you when you sign up for service on EVERY website. If you don't, they can pick and choose and say "you can visit this site and get your full allotment of bandwidth speed" or "if you want to access this website at the speeds you're paying us for, you need to pay us more."
If they want to implement and enforce caps, fine, but all the data being transferred on their network should be treated the same. A megabyte is a megabyte. Whether that megabyte is in the form of a church newsletter or a high definition porn video shouldn't matter.
Allowing them to treat data from different websites differently is a horrible policy because that doesn't replace caps. A lot of people say "pay for what you use."
That's not what net neutrality is. Those people have a fundamental misunderstanding of net neutrality. If they do away with net neutrality, they'll have the freedom to charge you more for what they deem as premium level sites (just as HBO & Showtime are premium channels) and they can still (and will) put data caps in place. Caps and neutrality are not the same thing and they are not mutually exclusive.
/
CSN joins thousands of other sites in #InternetSlowdown Day
