Net Neutrality, Black & White Dilemma

[botsapper]

For a country with the highest internet costs with relatively slower internet service, who should control internet traffic data?

Internet service providers (government-assisted granted companies, extra charge speeds/profits, arbitrary speed control on smaller companies, preferred sweetheart traffic/sites, encourage website monopolies, etc)

Government (eliminates cost-lowering ISP price wars, surveillance coverage, content regulations, discourages private technology investments and innovation, federal licensure fees, taxation, etc)

Still very technically uninformed about the Wild Wild West Age on the Internet, but more worried about the transformational 'road of good' intentions'.

[redpoint5]

We're screwed either way. Humans are involved in both the private sector and government sector, and as such, have motivations that don't necessarily have the well-being of the customer in mind.

Part of the reason internet in the U.S. costs so much compared to other countries is geographic; we're all spread out over a large area. It's much easier to build the high-speed infrastructure in Japan, which is the size of California, and has half the population of the U.S.

The gov't will always dream up excuses to violate privacy and liberty in the guise of maintaining safety.

Net neutrality has more to do with laws regulating the level of service than who controls the service. Net neutrality means giving equal priority to all data traffic, regardless of who the data belongs to, or the type of data.

I tend to lean more towards private industry having the freedom to write their contracts however they wish. We idiots deserve whatever we agree to. Also, it makes sense that time sensitive data such as VOIP be given a higher priority than streaming porn. I say we are idiots because every cell phone contract says something like "you agree to pay your bill in full, on time, every month, for the duration of the 24 month contract, and you may not ever get service. Even if our service sucks, you agree to pay a small fortune if you terminate the contract early." Millions of us have signed a contract like that agreeing to horrible terms.

Like all things, a balance between freedom and the well-being of the community must be achieved. Laws must protect the freedom to exchange information of any type, but still ensure time-sensitive data such as VOIP is delivered in time. It would be fair to charge more to a customer that has special needs, to ensure their level of service.

[darcane]

Whether you realize it or not, what "Net Neutrality" really means is that large bandwidth users like Netflix can't be charged for the added capacity that ISPs must build up, so that cost must be distributed to all customers. i.e. you. Also, because of the new regulations, small ISPs will be put out of business, reducing competition and raising costs, and that is already starting:

Why in the midst of success, I'm preparing to leave the US. - Hyperborean.io

[Xist]

A friend posted "There goes the Internet" and a complicated discussion of this topic ensued. I wondered how many people that I knew would have read that far, it was getting pretty technical, and at that point there were thirty-five posts, many of them at least one paragraph. I thought that it would have been over the heads of many people, while a large portion would just not care.

There are plenty of times that I see something long written, say "Too many words" and ignore it, and I like reading!

I imagine that many people will follow what celebrities and popular television shows say about it.

[redpoint5]

I just do whatever Jenny McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi tell me to do.

Jenny: Correlation = causation
Nancy: We must pass the law to understand the law