›

Internet Neutrality Legislation (NRR)

RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
edited December 2010 in Strut Central
Can someone here present an argument on why this is a good thing??

  Comments

  • GrandfatherGrandfather 2,303 Posts
    It's not...but the main argument is the bandwidth being used up by data heavy transmissions. Like netflix, hulu, or gaming.
  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,899 Posts
    Well, in what way are you talking about? Complete Open Internet? Or Government control legislation with the ability to take over or block whatever a corporation or government decides?
  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    DOR said:
    Well, in what way are you talking about? Complete Open Internet? Or Government control legislation with the ability to take over or block whatever a corporation or government decides?

    What is being proposed in the US is a "tiered" system. Basically ISPs can prioritize traffic to certain areas. Likely area's that they own or are paid to prioritize. If two people on my block are watching comcast's video on demand and I try and download a video from a friend, my download will be slower. That is the top of the slope.

    Sounds great for big business.

    also see: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Leaked-Presentation-Shows-How-Carriers-Can-Deliver-Tiered-Internet-Services-544519/
  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,899 Posts
    Aren't they pushing for net neutrality and an open net for wired connections? But it's wireless which will be fucked over by corps?
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    DOR said:
    But it's wireless which will be fucked over was built out and provided to consumers by corps?

    'Caus federal regulators always do a better job.
  • GrandfatherGrandfather 2,303 Posts
    they lease the wireless spectrum from the gov., open nets should exists even in wireless. Let them charge wtf they want but trying to tier it is bullshit.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Grandfather said:
    they lease the wireless spectrum from the gov., open nets should exists even in wireless. Let them charge wtf they want but trying to tier it is bullshit.

    The spectrum just exists, its not like the government did anything to build it.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    sabadabada said:
    Grandfather said:
    they lease the wireless spectrum from the gov., open nets should exists even in wireless. Let them charge wtf they want but trying to tier it is bullshit.

    The spectrum just exists, its not like the government did anything to build it.

    Correct. But "airspace" exists too, without needing human intervention. That's not an argument against needing something like air traffic controllers though.
  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    mannybolone said:
    sabadabada said:
    Grandfather said:
    they lease the wireless spectrum from the gov., open nets should exists even in wireless. Let them charge wtf they want but trying to tier it is bullshit.

    The spectrum just exists, its not like the government did anything to build it.

    Correct. But "airspace" exists too, without needing human intervention. That's not an argument against needing something like air traffic controllers though.

    Are you suggesting that the internet needs an equivalent to air traffic controllers? Internet traffic by definition knows where it is going and how to get there without causing accidents. Or in other terms, not clogging the tubes.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Naw, I was simply pointing out that just because a resource exists "naturally" isn't an argument against regulation.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    mannybolone said:
    Naw, I was simply pointing out that just because a resource exists "naturally" isn't an argument against regulation.

    I think the question was to present an argument in favor. Just because something exists and can be regulated isnt an argument for regulation.
  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    sabadabada said:
    mannybolone said:
    Naw, I was simply pointing out that just because a resource exists "naturally" isn't an argument against regulation.

    I think the question was to present an argument in favor. Just because something exists and can be regulated isnt an argument for regulation.

    More-so, something that was designed as open/free/equal/neutral does not require legislation for it to continue to be free. Net Neutrality bills are (mostly) wolves in sheep's clothing.

    "Tiered" internet is no internet.
  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    Passed.

    "a batch of tepid new rules"
  • gambitgambit 906 Posts
    How weird is it going to be when we reminisce on the "good ol' days" of the Internet? When are the geeks going to come up with that next shit, so I can dump this commercial crap and go back off the grid?
  • Options
    Unknown
    This seems like a balanced discussion:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/net-neutrality-rules-pass_n_799775.html
  • covecove 1,566 Posts
    gambit said:
    How weird is it going to be when we reminisce on the "good ol' days" of the Internet? When are the geeks going to come up with that next shit, so I can dump this commercial crap and go back off the grid?

    hahaha (but sad/true?)
Sign In or Register to comment.