I agree to Idea Net neutrality means NEUTRALITY as in everyone gets the same access
Voting Disabled

197 votes

I disagree to Idea Net neutrality means NEUTRALITY as in everyone gets the same access

Rank14

Idea#7

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech »

Net neutrality means NEUTRALITY as in everyone gets the same access

Opposing net neutrality because it "regulates the internet" is like opposing rape laws because they "regulate private relationships".

These laws are very clearly designed to keep privately owned internet providers such as Comcast or Time Warner from controlling what information you can access. In no way do they allow "evil government regulators" from "controlling the internet", regardless of what your Republican politicians have told you.

Submitted by ar103 4 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (26)

  1. What are you talking about?

    Have you read these laws?

    I'm pretty sure they have not been written yet.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. The laws will probably look a lot like: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5353/show

    Official Summary

    2/12/2008--Introduced.

    Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that it is U.S. policy to:

    (1) maintain the freedom to use broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators;

    (2) enable the United States to preserve its global leadership in online commerce and technological innovation;

    (3) promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, content, applications, and services of their choosing; and

    (4) guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet. Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to commence a proceeding on broadband services and consumer rights, including assessing whether broadband network providers:

    (1) refrain from unreasonably interfering with the ability of consumers to access, use, send, receive, or offer content, applications, or services of their choice, and attach or connect their choice of devices; and

    (2) add charges for quality of service to certain Internet applications and service providers.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. "4) guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet. Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to commence a proceeding on broadband services and consumer rights, including assessing whether broadband network providers:

    (1) refrain from unreasonably interfering with the ability of consumers to access, use, send, receive, or offer content, applications, or services of their choice, and attach or connect their choice of devices; and

    (2) add charges for quality of service to certain Internet applications and service providers."

    Those are the most important parts of the bill. They say the cost will be shifted on the consumer if they can't charge corporations like google for better bandwidth. However, that is completely false. If they do end up charging google that means google will have to pass the cost on to us. Either way we are gonna end up paying. I rather pay and have a free and open internet than pay and have a restriction on websites i can visit.

    Also the problem isn't providing the speed it's laying the pipe. However, the government has already given them huge tax incentives and deregulated their industry so they can provide better infrastructure, which the telecoms have yet to do. Noticed there aren't anymore bell companies?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. iisralph im not sure what your implying that the broadband market in America will cease to exist because they have to treat data uniformly. Not to favor products or services the Providers produce. As of 2008 according to Nelson's ratings 220 million Americans use the internet and out of those 64 million use broadband. According to the ICT the American market is the fastest growing broadband market on this hemisphere. Real innovation comes from using your current systems to increase throughput not controlling content.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. @Vandalin7

    Ok. So lets look at what this is saying.

    point (4) and (1) below it.

    I'll propose a fictional scenario.

    Obscure sports monthly.com comes up with a new internet app that provides 24/7 coverage of it's dodgeball tournaments in hi-def. Even though there are relatively few viewers, this takes up a vast chunk of bandwidth. Meanwhile, on the same leg of the network the Mayo is teleconferencing with a small hospital in BFE trying to talk a doctor through a procedure to save someones life.

    Shouldn't the medical procedure get preferential treatment? Should there be an option to spend a little more to ensure that the link isn't lost? Or are you saying that dodgeball must be ranked equal to lifesaving?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. @tony

    I agree with you about innovation. But this is happening without the proposed regulation.

    I don't believe we need this.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. @iisralph

    different protocols are in use for different systems. Protocols work like this there are generically two different protocol types. With one packets you send data at faster speeds but there is no gurantee that the data will not be lost along the way. This is ideal for your dodge ball example. In the other protocol packets are guaranteed to reach their end user with out loss of data. This would be in use for your Telecom heart surgery. Another, concept is that the internet provides many routes for the packet to take to get to intended destination. Also, simulcast broadcast don't quite work in the way you describe there. They are plugged into by the users its not quite like a TV broadcast.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. This doctor scenario is the worst corporate strawman in the whole debate. First of all, this does not outlaw buying preferential services for consumers, it just outlaws degrading services to users that have paid for them. The hospital can pay for better service on a different network which does not share bandwidth with other users. They should be doing that already, because MY ISP tends to go out at random intervals for no good reason already (probably because they have a monopoly on service to my community so there's nothing I can do about it).

    Furthermore, if the ISP's service is so bad that it drops this conference call, it's so bad that it's dropping everything else all it's consumers want to do, and they'll either upgrade their network (the US is basically a third-world nation in terms of network strength and reliability, because corporations that have monopolies on srving an area have no reason to upgrade the infrastructure) or go out of business. That's how it SHOULD work.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. @junkpit82

    I agree completely that there should be no monopoly controlling the internet. And the fact that we need more bandwidth. We should be focused on that issue, not regulation of access or bandwidth.

    I do not agree with your statement concerning my doctor analogy. Granted i probably could have come up with something better. If you had a better understanding of what a nework is and how it works, you would have seen my point. The hardware is in place. All traffic across a specific node competes for the finite bandwidth. All network administrators, public and private MUST prioritize packet flow. It's just the way it works. If we remove the ability of the network operators to do this, all communications will suffer.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. "All network administrators, public and private MUST prioritize packet flow. It's just the way it works. If we remove the ability of the network operators to do this, all communications will suffer."

    No that is not the case. The internet is regulated along the same exact way as telephones. You pick up the phone you can call any number without it being prioritized. You can call Joe's pizza just as easily as Dominos. Miraculously we are still able to get phone calls through to 911 even though theres all this other stuff operating without priority. The internet can and does work in the exact same fashion.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. The packet flow is finite only given the limitations of the currently implemented infrastructure. My point is that if ISP's can't handle the bandwidth requirements of their consumers, they should either upgrade their network or go out of business. The technology and money is certainly available for them to do this; all that is missing is the incentive. The attempt by ISP companies to convince us that they MUST stifle bandwidth is merely an attempt to keep all their income as profits and bonuses instead of re-investing part of it into infrastructure and R&D.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. @Vandalin7

    I beg to differ.

    Telephony is not the same animal. All standard telephone calls are the same 'size' from a bandwidth perspective. There are no 'hi-def' phone calls. On any network, including the internet, there are different bandwidth requirements for each type of communication. Text has a small footprint. Audio is larger. Video is larger yet. Add to that the fact that some things are sensitive to time as well as bandwidth and you have a network that will quickly become inefficient without packet prioritization.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. It's the same principle on a much larger scale. The hospital can get the bandwidth it needs. It just needs to get fiber optic cable to bring int he data. Once that is accomplished there is no problem getting the data to do the remote surgery. These companies have u believe that there isn't enough bandwidth out there for everyone. There is enough and they have been given large sums of money to make even more available. With deregulation of these principles they won't create more bandwidth they will simply favor specific connections without ever increasing the total bandwidth. It strips them of the incentive to grow their network. They will simply turn the faucets off or slow them down to a trickle instead of bring in more water.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. "Net neutrality means NEUTRALITY as in everyone gets the same access"

    I wish they would regulate cars too so I could get the same access to a Lamborghini.

    Long live the free-market.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. "Net neutrality means NEUTRALITY as in everyone gets the same access"

    "I wish they would regulate cars too so I could get the same access to a Lamborghini.

    Long live the free-market. "

    Well since the internet is regulated at this moment you can visit Lamborghini.com and their competitors website. I mean it would be a shame if you were to buy a Lamborghini, but didn't know you could of gotten a Porsche much cheaper and delivered to your door.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. The current situation is one in which you pay for a Lamborghini, but then the dealership tells you that they only had enough space on the delivery truck to give you a Hot Wheels. And you aren't allowed to go to a different dealer because only one serves your area. And they tell you that you shouldn't whine about it because if you do the government will take over and take away all the cars and give everybody one rollerskate.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. Considering that free speech is essentially banned from public television since international media conglomerates have monopolized the airwaves, the Internet is the American citizens', as well as our global communities', shining light for free speech and communication.

    Following the money to who exactly is behind any movement away from net neutrality always leads to corporations, which are almost invariably in conflict with the demands of the public.

    FCC, who do you work for? We The People, your rightful owners, demand your servitude. Vote Net Neutrality.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. The states already have rape laws. We don't need federal regulations on rape.

    In the same sense, states already have laws against fraud and breach of contract. We don't need the FCC to get involved.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. I already added this as a "Comment" but it is hidden too far back,I want this to show so others can see it.

    (Not Yelling;the Capitals are Emphasis on the words)

    Open" and "Neutral" are 2 Different meanings.... Neutral is Censored material. Open,that's the Freedom we want...UN-Censored,OR...DO WE???

    A problem,I personally,see with it being "OPEN" are the businesses. To keep them going,they have their rights as a company to keep private;also,there's always the copyrighted issues.

    Yet,As far as using internet as a "Tool" for learning,history,personal investigative studies;ancestry,personal use,blogging everyday life,socializing with family and friends,old and new,people we can't see on a regular basis,to keep in touch with them;I see nothing wrong with it staying "Open". To not have it "Open" takes away*Our Rights*,period.

    Yet,We have been/and ARE being,censored already.See?We've ALREADY been Violated of our Rights... There isn't one thing you can say anymore in an email,not even in a joking manner,you are taken as making a "Literal" statements about subjects.We Are Taken SERIOUSLY.Since we have the option,to HAVE the Net or Not? Right NOW? Let's take a min. to look back? It was announced that we are being PROTECTED,from plots going on,on the Net,they FAILED due to the Censoring. WHO? Realistically? Does the Government KNOW TO Censor? It's been stated MANY times now,they HAVE PREVENTED PLOTS FROM SUCCEEDING. Since they don't KNOW which direction TO look,WE NEED THEM. This is my opinion here,Neutral is best. Open is too Risky... Weigh the Pros and Cons? Just My 2 cents on this.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. First Question: Why SHOULD everyone (regardless of ability to pay or ability to WRITE IN ENGLISH or ability to provoke "denial of service" attacks or whatever) have the same access to the same Internet????

    Answer: As far as I can see, the idea is INDEFENSIBLE. "Net neutrality" would allow 'cyber-terrorists' unfettered access to the Internet because "we have to treat everyone the same". I say, HELL NO!

    Comment for Vandalin7 re: "The internet is regulated along the same exact way as telephones."-- That is why telephone service $ucks, especially wireless phone service. Because there are TOO MANY USERS and NOT ENOUGH BANDWIDTH TO ACCOMMODATE THEM at the same time (leading to 'dropped calls').

    This is why there SHOULD be tiered Internet service, tiered Phone Service, etc. -- It's the same reason why we have luxury cars and smaller cars.... Different people have different needs, and they should be accomodated DIFFERENTLY.

    I bet you also want "universal health care" with a "government option"-- the "government option" is NOT a true option, since it will crowd out the only thing standing between us and the greedy doctors-- the health insurance companies! "Net neutrality" will crowd out the ISP's ability to come between the cybercrooks and the people whom they serve!!!!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. Um can I give 6,000 votes to this?

    "Opposing net neutrality because it "regulates the internet" is like opposing rape laws because they "regulate private relationships"."

    Bullseye!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. Always look at the people behind the movement. Robert McChesney is the man working with Obama to develop these Internet regulations. McChesney is tied to the hip with Van Jones (self-avowed Communist) and Mark Lloyd (Marxist). McChesney founded a group called "Free Press" which was anything but free. He was the former editor of "Monthly Review" which he describes as "one of the most important Marxist publications in the world." He is also a backer of Hugo Chavez and thought the members of the news station who opposed him should have been arrested. He further states, "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow capitalism and rebuilding the entire system on a socialist platform. We need to regulate capitalist propaganda - regulate it, minimalize it and perhaps even eliminate it. This becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications." Just look at the person in charge - his intents are nefarious and the "neutrality" means putting together a system where government propaganda can rule uninhibited by protest!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. Comparing internet regulation to rape laws is tantamount to saying you're an idiot.

    The web costs money to maintain, and these laws effectively strip the providers of their ability to manage the infrastructure. If you want to see what happens when you "selflessly remove profits", swing over to wikipedia where they're constantly begging for money.

    As it stands right now, the internet is the most free form of communication on the planet. If you want to post your brains off about the "evil, repulican, corporate, satanic forces that be," feel free. I'll think you're a moron, but I won't oppose you.

    Neutrality rules have an ominous tone to them; especially since the people most gun hoe about them are the same people who would very much like it if I wasn't presently on this site calling you dumb.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. ar103 Idea Submitter

    "Always look at the people behind the movement. Robert McChesney is the man working with Obama to develop these Internet regulations. McChesney is tied to the hip with Van Jones (self-avowed Communist) and Mark Lloyd (Marxist). McChesney founded a group called "Free Press" which was anything but free. He was the former editor of "Monthly Review" which he describes as "one of the most important Marxist publications in the world." He is also a backer of Hugo Chavez and thought the members of the news station who opposed him should have been arrested. He further states, "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow capitalism and rebuilding the entire system on a socialist platform. We need to regulate capitalist propaganda - regulate it, minimalize it and perhaps even eliminate it. This becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications." Just look at the person in charge - his intents are nefarious and the "neutrality" means putting together a system where government propaganda can rule uninhibited by protest!"

    Look everyone McCarty's back from the dead! Hurray!

    "Comparing internet regulation to rape laws is tantamount to saying you're an idiot.

    The web costs money to maintain, and these laws effectively strip the providers of their ability to manage the infrastructure. If you want to see what happens when you "selflessly remove profits", swing over to wikipedia where they're constantly begging for money.

    As it stands right now, the internet is the most free form of communication on the planet. If you want to post your brains off about the "evil, repulican, corporate, satanic forces that be," feel free. I'll think you're a moron, but I won't oppose you.

    Neutrality rules have an ominous tone to them; especially since the people most gun hoe about them are the same people who would very much like it if I wasn't presently on this site calling you dumb."

    You are absolutely right. You have no idea how dumb I am. Every time I see a door marked "push" I try to pull it, and vice-versa. You should see it, it's hilarious.

    Anyways since you know everything, and I know nothing, maybe you could explain to me exactly how net neutrality would "effectively strip the providers of their ability to manage the infrastructure". Also when did anyone every even mention anything about removing profits?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. To AR103 - I think you probably meant McCarthy - not McCarty. Problematically, McCarthy was censored because he could not substantiate his accusations. Do some research on McChesney and the people he's tied with. My accusations can be proven!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. Firstly, I don't act on something because I'm told to by politicians, either Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

    It all depends on how these rules are used, whether they protect free speech or are used for other reasons. For example, this website is filled with comments which suggest that these rules would be used to end discrimination in terms of broadband access... that the government would force providers to increase bandwidth in under-served areas. The free market already forces providers to do so. Where there's money to be made, businesses invest. Or, do those who support Net Neutrality think that providers should be forced to put in additional bandwidth into areas that don't generate revenue? Does this mean that scarce taxpayer dollars will go to provide another entitlement to citizens? Or does it mean that the government will force providers to invest their own money into areas that will not generate enough revenue to pay for equipment. Either way you look at it, it's redistribution of wealth. Either taxpayer money going to provide service to under-served areas or the premiums paid by well-served areas going to pay for under-served areas. Taken to an extreme, the government could even force providers to become insolvent (and require government rescue because "The Internet is Too Big to Fail").

    Do you see how these two "harmless" additions to the FCC's charter could be used to harm our freedoms?

    I say we need LESS government intervention and the Internet is best without government meddling.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed