The issue is FREEDOM
Net neutrality came about simply because the dumb ass ceo's of the megacorps SAID that they wanted to double dip. Look back at any of their past comments, and you can see why people get so riled up. WE, the customer, see NO ADVANTAGE in that proposal. WE, the customer, PAID for the internet. We, the customer, DEMAND that we get what we paid for.
What did we pay for? Bluntly, I am paying for a pipe that is x/mb/sec. I expect it to provide me with an IP address, and that's IT. PERIOD. I don't want AOL. I don't want COMPUSERV. I want an IP address, that can get to any other ip address, at the speed I paid for.
What they are proposing? They are saying that I pay based upon how much they think they can charge me. They want to charge me if I download a video from utube. They want to charge me more if I use google to search. They want to charge me more if I download a movie.
Guess what, that's NOT what I'm buying. I pay for a pipe. I expect that pipe to run at it's specs. I pay based on the SIZE of the pipe, NOT what I use it for.
Net neutrality is required simply because what we pay for isn't what the CEO's of the megacorps think we should be buying. We KNOW what we want, and we WILL use the law to enforce it.
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
You pay for a commercial product that is subject to change at any point in time with sufficient notice from your provider to amend your contract (there is an implied month-to-month contract when you pay for any service). The provider should be held accountable to provide what was sold in accordance with their current terms of service (this is a separate issue). If you don't like the conditions of service provided to you, find a different provider.
Net neutrality legislation is not required at this time. Do you know of any provider that "double dips" or prioritizes their traffic over a competing service's traffic?
North Andover, MA
If they're not doing it, then the legislation won't effect them. The fact is, they said they were going to charge service providers for "using their pipes". They (whitacre) started the debate.
But nothing has been implemented. Do people not realize that legislating things that aren't broken more often than not tends to make situations worse. Less government is usually better Not to mention, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards things that are broken.
North Andover, MA
Umm, it is broken, that's the problem. This will keep it from getting wrecked more. It's broken because it's not possible to compete as an ISP, when your competition owns the network you're competing on.
I'm all for less government. Unfortunately, unless we let everyone who wants to build a network in public ROW's (which would blot out the sun) then less government, in this case, is not possible.
|reply to openbox9 |
i created an account just to correct you.
open box 9 says: "Net neutrality legislation is not required at this time. Do you know of any provider that "double dips" or prioritizes their traffic over a competing service's traffic?"
clearwire blocks voip ports unless you call them to open them up. a few months after they started this they introduced their own voip service.
|reply to openbox9 |
I totally don't follow your logic about it not being broken? That's sort of like Iran with nuclear capacities saying that Israel should be wiped from the map....but Iran hasn't done anything yet so let's not worry about it.
After we have lost netneutrality is not the time to address the issue. Hell, if we are loud enough on broadbandreports.com and we make enough noise then Verizon, AT&T and the telcos can literally stop passing traffic to the BBR website. What would stop them?
Losing netneutrality will have far reaching consequences that we haven't even realized yet.