RunRyder RC
 4  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 727 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Net Neutrality
12-16-2017 01:53 AM  6 months agoPost 1
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I thought net neutrality was a good thing keeping big business from pushing around all the little guys.

I know, more rules, but this seems to be a good thing we lost.

splain it!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 06:14 AM  6 months agoPost 2
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Net neutrality is odumbo speak like the affordable care act, totally the opposite of the words used. It was meant to suppress any opposing view to the mighty odumbo agenda on the internet. Hate speech.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 11:26 AM  6 months agoPost 3
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't understand enough of the implications to have an opinion. I know I should but I don't. I don't know enough to know who are the winners and losers.

As is always the case, I would follow the money to the answers.

My impression is that gate keepers of the internet would like to charge more for access to those with the willingness and ability to pay. For instance, Amazon, Netflix, or Facebook would be given more bandwidth and greater speed than say, WikiLeaks, or Save the Wales, because they have greater funding. But again, I really am too uninformed to have much of an opinion (yet).

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:24 PM  6 months agoPost 4
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

wjvail
But again, I really am too uninformed to have much of an opinion (yet).
Me too but I think free market forces tend to trump excessive regulation. Was this two year old regulation, regulation for the sake of regulation? We will see.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:24 PM  6 months agoPost 5
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Amazon, Netflix, Facebook are for net neutrality.

Comcast, AT&T and telecom providers are against it.

Personally, I believe it should be treated like any other utility. The internet never would have succeeded without net neutrality.

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:28 PM  6 months agoPost 6
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
The internet never would have succeeded without net neutrality.
The reg is only two years old. The internet has been around for a very long time and succeeded without the regulation. Today the Internet is 10506 days old.
https://howoldistheinter.net/

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:34 PM  6 months agoPost 7
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It was the unwritten rule of the internet for many, many years. It was codified into law when the telecom companies began to show their plans for the internet's future.

What if they applied the same concept to water or electric utilities. As in if you pay more, you can have more reliable service, or better water pressure, often to the detriment of others?

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:39 PM  6 months agoPost 8
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
began to show their plans for the internet's future
So preemptive regulation is your cup of tea? All it does is stifle the economy. I think it is smarter to address issues here and now. Like the new tax regulation that's about to be signed into law. I know, the world as we know it is about to end.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:44 PM  6 months agoPost 9
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm not a fan of regulation for the sake of regulation. Also not a fan of corporations controlling basic utilities. It's why every state has a utility regulatory commission. They cannot be trusted to self-manage.

I've been using the internet since it was known as ARPANET, far before any commercial interests recognized it's value.

I promise you if the rules of net neutrality were not followed then, RunRyder would have never existed.

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:47 PM  6 months agoPost 10
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is the future without net neutrality...

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 12:50 PM  6 months agoPost 11
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
They cannot be trusted to self-manage.
Not the same. You have one choice for electricity but many choices for the internet. Time to light up some more dark fiber with our new found freedom.
Witch.Duk
RunRyder would have never existed.
I want market forces to rule, you want the government to rule. You might have to wait awhile to get your wish and get things back to your kind of normal.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 01:08 PM  6 months agoPost 12
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is exactly the type of thing government should control. Some things should not be driven by profits for corporations.

Soon, unless you or your users are willing to pay higher fees, traffic to RunRyder will be relegated to the lowest tier. Maybe it will be much slower, and won't support things such as images or video.

A competitor's site that has deep enough pockets, would support these features. Think back to when you started this site... the playing field was mostly level, and RunRyder grew based on the merit of it's content. You paid for bandwidth, no more or less than competitors. That won't be true in the future.

Sure, you can call that "market forces". I call it anti-competitive.

Conservative or liberal ideologies should not be applied in this discussion.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 01:15 PM  6 months agoPost 13
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
Some things should not be driven by profits for corporations.
We are at an impasse with that statement.
Witch.Duk
I call it anti-competitive.
Not yet.
Witch.Duk
Conservative or liberal ideologies should not be applied in this discussion.
That's an oxymoron.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 01:41 PM  6 months agoPost 14
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I want market forces to rule, you want the government to rule.
Agreed. The left once again is is so full of $hit on the subject. Same as the tax overhaul. All these idoits can just return any extra money they may see from it.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 01:55 PM  6 months agoPost 15
Pistol Pete

rrProfessor

Seffner, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

AS IS, we already pay for bandwidth-speed.

Be it cellphone, internet or that one way express toll road you know you can go at higher speed , I dont have an issue with paying a little more AS IS

The problem I do have is the blocking...aka gatekeepers.

I do understand that peer to peer connection such a bit-torrent streaming or downloading "illegally" is a problem for those that sell such products as video on demand. So indirectly speaking, they should be able to block or cancel the customer based on his "illegal" activities in the interest of business-self preservation. Comcast did it but they also lied about it...no clue why.

However, I do have a problem if your ISP blocks anything other than "illegal" activities, just_because_they_can. Say for example youtube or pandora.

For those that dont live near a city and dont have several ISP providers, such is definitely going to be a problem. So far its the usual competition.

~~Enjoying the hobby one flight at a time~~

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 02:00 PM  6 months agoPost 16
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My overly simplistic understanding is this. The Internet is just that - a network of interconnected computers. As a network, no specific portion of it is so important that it can't be removed without the rest of it still functioning.

The only way to "own" the internet would be to own all the physical hardware connecting all the individual points. While that seems impossible, that is exactly what has happened. The interconnectivity of millions of computers has been reduced to just a few individual entities. Comcast, Cox, AT&T, Paul Allen, etc now functionally own the World Wide Web.

Up until this point they have been federally forced to provide equitable service to all users of the http://WWW. My guess is that they would instead prefer to provide service as a fee based system.

Cable companies make the argument that they are building the web's infrastructure to the benefit of Amazon and Netflix. EBay and Facebook are using the internet for "free" at the expense of Charter Spectrum or GTT Communications. Shouldn't the largest users of the internet at least partially bare the cost of it's infrastructure?

I'll say it again, I don't know enough about this to have an opinion but I would follow the money...

https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers

https://www.forbes.com/1999/05/27/mu2.html#569205603bad

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 02:37 PM  6 months agoPost 17
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is exactly the type of thing government should control.
Really?, because all past history shows the gov. can't control anything, it screws up almost everything it touches. There was no problem before two years ago when it was implemented, and I suspect there will be no issues when its gone.

The gov. is great at developing solutions to non-existing problems.

Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 02:43 PM  6 months agoPost 18
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Really?, because all past history shows the gov. can't control anything, it screws up almost everything it touches.
Ain't that the truth. Why liberals ( or anyone for that matter) think big goverment is great escapes me.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:00 PM  6 months agoPost 19
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

We have been down this road before. There was a time in this country when the "web" meant the railroads. In the beginning they were an ungoverned and very profitable system of individuals. In the early 1900s the Federal government stepped in to regulate the railroads in the best interest of America and the American people. The ICC was formed. This Federal intervention was, of course, unwelcome to the owners of the railroads until it became apparent they would, in part, control the ICC.

I see an exact parallel with the Web, cable companies, and the "owners" of the web. It would be unthinkable to allow a few individuals to own something as fundamental as the internet. Regulation is an almost certainty. While Federal control of access to the internet is almost a necessity, federal control of the railroads was a long term loss.

Just because the federal government is historically bad at doing something, doesn't mean it doesn't have a responsibility to try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...erce_Commission

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:04 PM  6 months agoPost 20
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Please don't cloud this topic with political ideology.

Dictionary

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Government does screw some things up. They also do some things well. The government did invent the internet.

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2     NEXT    >> ] 727 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Net Neutrality
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 4  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, June 20 - 4:59 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online