Net Nuetrality...

Net nuetrality is the government inserting themselves and fixing a problem that does not exist but will once they have the authority to orchestrate fixable problems. The internet is as free as anything can be and is the only way you and I can publish information without having to pass through a gatekeeper who decides what should and should not be published. The government is basically saying, "We need the internet to work the way we want it to," with a promise that, "if we like our internet, we can keep our internet."

It will probably do no good, but if you would prefer not to have to buy a license and pay higher taxes for a centrally controlled product, sign a petition (yeah, like our government gives a crap about our stupid petitions) to try to pursuade our congress to keep the internet in private control. You can find a petition link here... Say 'NO!' to the FCC Internet Takeover | Political Media

You know how the old saying goes. If it ain't broke, the government will keep fixing it until it is broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wayne1956

You know how the old saying goes. If it ain't broke, the government will keep fixing it until it is broke.

---

More true words were never spoke

No matter what your political bend sooner or later with Net Nuetrality the party in power will be the one you don't want to have this power.

I love how they can take such a free speech killing act and name it a benign name.

This is an example for the younger folks to pay attention the politicians use of similar terms, ie fair, equal, justice now, etc. Mike

I don't think you guys really understand what Net Neutrality is, and you definitely have it backwards in regards to the censorship thing.

I'm actually at a loss as to how one could see Net Neutrality as a killer of free speech. If anything, it's the opposite. It actually prevents ISP's from restricting (or censoring) content and by no means is it a restriction of freedom of speech in and of itself.

You really should read this if you want a better idea as to what it actually is... https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

Internet service providers, in their great monopolies / duopolies, really do need to be classified as Title II. Like it or not, the internet is a utility. If there was more competition, we wouldn't need Net Neutrality rules, but unfortunately there's not and there likely won't be any competition for quite some time.

Answer me this... Are you ok with the idea of your ISP charging you an extra fee, on top of the already fairly hefty price you pay for internet, for access to different, individual websites you might want to visit?

Educate yourself on what Net Neutrality is and you'll find it's actually a good thing.

Here's some more good reading on it... Big Telecom tried to kill net neutrality before it was even a concept | Ars Technica

I will stop now. Mike

I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind on whether or not government exists simply to break things, but I do have to back JustInTime up on this one. The point of the Net Neutrality rules is to prevent ISPs from charging more for some services for some people than for others. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government deciding what you can and can't use the internet for. In a world of gray, this topic is pretty darn black and white if you ask me.

Seriously, do a little reading from a variety of sources- it's worth it on this one.

cheers,
tbg

Here is a good short youtube video about net - neutrality and what it actually is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-IOUuIxejA

If you watch the video, you soon realize that the FCC was attempting, and failed to do so, to argue for Net Neutrality.

I am not happy myself with the way that Government conducts itself, however, in this case, it is doing so on our behalf, for our benefit in a way that it normally does not. Simply because corporations desire to generate more income by monetizing every byte of information that flows through their systems, you will see volumes of information against net neutrality. Since our government does not use tax payer dollars to advertise anything, you will not see a lot of good information or advertising for net neutrality.

As well, you will find the biggest supporters against net neutrality being the very largest corporations, such as Verizon for example. If they loose the battle of Net Neutrality, it is likely they could loose the battle of charging you and I for every byte of information that flows from them, to lets say your smart phone. Even though we the people, the American Public own the frequencies that a company like Verizon transmits it's information over, that they purchased the use of, at a very small fraction of it's real value.

Before you chime in for, or against Net Neutrality, you would serve yourself best by understanding the topic, and what it actually means for all of us. If we do not have Net Neutrality, or pass laws to protect Net Neutrality, you will see a drastic increase in the cost of things like your cable access, smart phone access, what free services will be forced to charge instead of being free because they are being charged. Advertising costs because most of the advertising dollars are spent on ad campaigns that in some way directly, or indirectly use the internet, and that cost will increase the cost of goods and services.

It concerns me that people will speak out against Net Neutrality, or what is actually going on right now in regards to it, without truly understanding what any of it means for them and their family.

Good topic to discuss however...

Scott

AS always follow the money and then make up your own mind, who wants me to what and why?

My $.02 for what it's worth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustInTime

Here's some more good reading on it... Big Telecom tried to kill net neutrality before it was even a concept | Ars Technica

---

Dang more homework! Lol thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustInTime

Here's some more good reading on it... Big Telecom tried to kill net neutrality before it was even a concept | Ars Technica

---

That's an interesting article, some of it I knew, most of it I didn't - all of it didn't surprise me any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustInTime

I don't think you guys really understand what Net Neutrality is, and you definitely have it backwards in regards to the censorship thing.

I'm actually at a loss as to how one could see Net Neutrality as a killer of free speech. If anything, it's the opposite. It actually prevents ISP's from restricting (or censoring) content and by no means is it a restriction of freedom of speech in and of itself.

You really should read this if you want a better idea as to what it actually is... https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

Internet service providers, in their great monopolies / duopolies, really do need to be classified as Title II. Like it or not, the internet is a utility. If there was more competition, we wouldn't need Net Neutrality rules, but unfortunately there's not and there likely won't be any competition for quite some time.

Answer me this... Are you ok with the idea of your ISP charging you an extra fee, on top of the already fairly hefty price you pay for internet, for access to different, individual websites you might want to visit?

Educate yourself on what Net Neutrality is and you'll find it's actually a good thing.

---

Answer me this... Are you ok with the idea of the government charging you an extra fee, on top of the already fairly hefty tax you pay for being alive, for access to different, individual websites you might want to visit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebugguy

I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind on whether or not government exists simply to break things, but I do have to back JustInTime up on this one. The point of the Net Neutrality rules is to prevent ISPs from charging more for some services for some people than for others. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government deciding what you can and can't use the internet for. In a world of gray, this topic is pretty darn black and white if you ask me.

Seriously, do a little reading from a variety of sources- it's worth it on this one.

cheers,
tbg

---

Would your car company charge you more for a Ferrari than they would for a Chevy Spark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NobleMetalWorks

Here is a good short youtube video about net - neutrality and what it actually is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-IOUuIxejA

If you watch the video, you soon realize that the FCC was attempting, and failed to do so, to argue for Net Neutrality.

I am not happy myself with the way that Government conducts itself, however, in this case, it is doing so on our behalf, for our benefit in a way that it normally does not. Simply because corporations desire to generate more income by monetizing every byte of information that flows through their systems, you will see volumes of information against net neutrality. Since our government does not use tax payer dollars to advertise anything, you will not see a lot of good information or advertising for net neutrality.

As well, you will find the biggest supporters against net neutrality being the very largest corporations, such as Verizon for example. If they loose the battle of Net Neutrality, it is likely they could loose the battle of charging you and I for every byte of information that flows from them, to lets say your smart phone. Even though we the people, the American Public own the frequencies that a company like Verizon transmits it's information over, that they purchased the use of, at a very small fraction of it's real value.

Before you chime in for, or against Net Neutrality, you would serve yourself best by understanding the topic, and what it actually means for all of us. If we do not have Net Neutrality, or pass laws to protect Net Neutrality, you will see a drastic increase in the cost of things like your cable access, smart phone access, what free services will be forced to charge instead of being free because they are being charged. Advertising costs because most of the advertising dollars are spent on ad campaigns that in some way directly, or indirectly use the internet, and that cost will increase the cost of goods and services.

It concerns me that people will speak out against Net Neutrality, or what is actually going on right now in regards to it, without truly understanding what any of it means for them and their family.

Good topic to discuss however...

Scott

---

... And you will find the biggest supporter of net nuetrality is the government, a monolith that will take money from you at the pointy of a gun instead of allowing the choiche between verizon or comcast or att ot dish network or directtv or any other company that provides internet connection?


Sorry, the government is in the business of taking your money and shutting you up and stifling your silly complaints. It is the same story as the health care BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigburtchino

AS always follow the money and then make up your own mind, who wants me to what and why?

---

You will find the biggest supporter of net nuetrality is the government. They want your money and you have no choice when they take the money from you by force, at the point of a gun.

#9 of our rules;
"- Disallowed thread/post topics - Religious discussions, Political discussions (unless it's directly related to metal recycling and IS NOT a debate), bans, Moderated posts/threads, Illegal activities and other unethical or immoral business practices, advertising outside of designated areas, list subject to change."

Full article at Scrap Metal Forum: http://www.scrapmetalforum.com/scrap...#ixzz3S8h6dShH

Quote:

---

Answer me this... Are you ok with the idea of the government charging you an extra fee, on top of the already fairly hefty tax you pay for being alive, for access to different, individual websites you might want to visit?

---

What in the world does this have to do with the topic at hand? The government isn't doing that and I'm not seeing the relevance it has to the Net Neutrality debate.

Quote:

---

Would your car company charge you more for a Ferrari than they would for a Chevy Spark?

---

Consumers already pay for tiered internet, if that's the point you're attempting to make. DSL is cheaper than dialup, 20 down 3 up is cheaper than 50/50, so on and so forth. That analogy doesn't really hold water when you look at it.

Quote:

---

... And you will find the biggest supporter of net nuetrality is the government, a monolith that will take money from you at the pointy of a gun instead of allowing the choiche between verizon or comcast or att ot dish network or directtv or any other company that provides internet connection?

---

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. The government has long been very anti-net neutrality. That should come as no surprise since they've recruited both Comcast and Verizon corporate leaders and lobbyists to head the FCC. The only reason they're now considering common carrier status of ISP's is due to the backlash from other large companies, companies that support and maintain the backbone of the internet, and citizens alike in light of recent disclosures that the major ISP's have taken to traffic / packet shaping which was unbeknownst to it's subscribers.

Quote:

---

Sorry, the government is in the business of taking your money and shutting you up and stifling your silly complaints. It is the same story as the health care BS.

---

Comparing the net neutrality debate to the tax payer funded gift to the health insurance industry goes well beyond an apples to oranges comparison. They're not even close to being in the same realm.

Quote:

---

They want your money and you have no choice when they take the money from you by force, at the point of a gun.

---

I'm not even sure how to reply to this... Please explain how implementing net neutrality rules equates to the government wanting and taking your money.

Here's more good reading: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/0...net-neutrality

Oops, Mechanic got in while I was typing up my response.

And with that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechanic688

#9 of our rules;
"- Disallowed thread/post topics - Religious discussions, Political discussions (unless it's directly related to metal recycling and IS NOT a debate), bans, Moderated posts/threads, Illegal activities and other unethical or immoral business practices, advertising outside of designated areas, list subject to change."

Full article at Scrap Metal Forum: http://www.scrapmetalforum.com/scrap...#ixzz3S8h6dShH

---

I should have remembered this prior to posting anything. For my part, I apologize. I was thinking in terms of what it might cost if internet access were to be tired, for my business rather than the fact this is a debate that you are right, is political in nature and should not be argued on this forum.

Scott

Mechanic just for clarity, as this forum needs the internet and we need both SMF/Internet. Wouldn't this be a topic that we should all be concerned about? As long as it's civil and not demeaning to one another or finding fault with a particular political party and governmental leader? Discussion is part of any learning endeavor. No mater how you call it, I will support your call as you have always kept it real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigburtchino

Mechanic just for clarity, as this forum needs the internet and we need both SMF/Internet. Wouldn't this be a topic that we should all be concerned about? As long as it's civil and not demeaning to one another or finding fault with a particular political party and governmental leader? Discussion is part of any learning endeavor. No mater how you call it, I will support your call as you have always kept it real.

---

You have that right. Both parties want to control content and access. This is a government control against the freedom of people discussion.