T3H Official Net Neutrality Thread and Poll

[gnome]

Because nothing resolves an issue like a bunch of mostly amateurs arguing on an obsolete social media platform in a forgotten corner of the internet. This will settle it forever!

You can change your vote as the debate goes on.

BEGIN!

[gnome]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

[Grammatron]

Ok--I'll start.

Seriously in favor, because it seems clear to me that major players could nearly blacklist content they don't like, or extort money from content providers just because large segments of the population are connecting through them. I predict this would be to the detriment of users and overall quality of service.

I'm all for net neutrality, but IMO what you're describing is some sort of a post-apocalyptic end of a slippery slope that I just can't imagine coming to fruition.

[gnome]

Don't misunderstand--I don't see it as necessarily catastrophic, just a serious chilling effect on independent content as there will be artificial barriers to reaching an audience. Also intercompany wrangling causing QoS issues--like how satellite providers are always fighting over local channels, or how Netflix got throttled by Comcast.

[Rob Lister]

Ya know, I say I don't understand it but maybe I really do.

Your ISP gives you unlimited access. Well, most do. But they pay per block of access. All the sudden Netflix comes along. At first it is not a big deal and then 90% of their customers are using it. So that block of access they use is suddenly not enough and they have to pay for 5 blocks of access. And that's not enough. So they have to upgrade their routers and pay for 10 blocks of access.

Their solution, obvious or not, is to raise prices for all or find a way to parlay the access. They choose to parlay (charge the source) because they did not what to double the cost of access.

One can dither about the cost but it is clear there is a cost. What to do.

I would choose to pay the extra cost for access at the user end (net neutrality) . They chose to charge the providers, like netflix, for the burden.

That's net neutrality in a nut-fucking-shell.

Who is right?

[gnome]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

[Rob Lister]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

I agree. because if they can charge you [them] they can charge for anything. Let's keep it as is. Let's let the consumer pay. Just so you know, it won't be free.

[Grammatron]

I think the neutral side is the best way to go, mainly because of this--they can do the same thing for reasons having nothing to do with bandwidth cost. Let's say NBC wants to start a Netflix rival. If allowed, why would Comcast not make sure that NBC-clipse always performs better than Netflix. Not by making NBC-clipse more robust, but by borking Netflix's performance?

Competition isn't a reliable answer. Am I going to move out of my neighborhood because that pisses me off? Probably not. I just have to deal with it.

There's also the technological progress aspect of this. Today you have to move, tomorrow you might be getting serious broadband competition from cell towers and wifi access points.

[Nyarlathotep]

"Might" being the keyword. Maybe. Someday, eventually. Maybe not at all, not in any reasonable time frame anyway.

My job requires me to deal with a lot of clients in areas best described as "somewhere past the ass end of nowhere". They were still stuck using dial up like some kind of neanderthal as late as 2011 or so. Because that was their only choice up until then.

Net Neutrality is another one of those issues where as a matter of principle, I side with one side but as a pragmatist, I side with the other. I agree with the principle behind not enforcing net neutrality, but I fear the fallout of what will happen when you can essentially only go to those websites and use those services approved by your ISP. Which side I come down on depends on how I am feeling that particular day

[Grammatron]

"Might" being the keyword. Maybe.

I was speaking in the context of the possibility. I chose to be optimistic about potential outcome, no one else has to.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Because nothing resolves an issue like a bunch of mostly amateurs arguing on an obsolete social media platform in a forgotten corner of the internet. This will settle it forever!

You can change your vote as the debate goes on.

BEGIN!

Planet X.

The rest of your poll was tl;dr


At all times I take the opposite side from whoever is winning.

[Rob Lister]

I'm always winning. I take exception to you.

[gnome]

Ok, the results are in. Summarized... Planet X was the clear winner at 40%. "Whatever/Don't know" tied with "Yes" at 30%, 0% said no.

I am disappoint.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just changed my vote, but Planet X still wins.

What exactly is "obsolete" about SC?

Not everyone needs dick pics.

[gnome]

Just to be contrary, or in actual opposition?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just to be contrary, or in actual opposition?

No, it sounds good but...

I'd forgotten about this thread and didn't look at the date right away.

[gnome]

Well let's hear it, so that I can tell you why you're wrong

[Abdul Alhazred]

If we got "net neutrality" who would be enforcing it?

[Anaxagoras]

If we got "net neutrality" who would be enforcing it?

Top men.

[gnome]

I'm guessing the same people that enforce exiating laws.

Either direct regulation by the FCC, or being vulnerable to lawsuits in courtrooms. I would personally be fine with many different options. Heck, if NN persists without regulation just because the oligopoly finds it best to keep it so, that is fine too. Better than government, even.