Are you for or against Net Neutrality?

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:48:18 -0500

With the designation of Ajit Pai as the new FCC commissioner, Net Neutrality is very likely to become an issue again. Where do you stand on it?

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 23 at 2017 9:49 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 21:49:20 -0500

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net neutrality - Wikipedia

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier,...

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jan 23 at 2017 10:51 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:51:09 -0500

"Net neutrality" is one of those things that might mean the opposite of what it sounds like, depending on one's perspective. If I remember correctly, some people were upset that some people have faster internet service than others. I have faster internet speeds because I pay more for the faster speed. I have no sympathy for someone who has slower internet but wants faster internet but doesn't want to pay more for it.

Response by SSgt Mark Lines made Jan 23 at 2017 11:55 PM

SSgt Mark Lines — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:55:31 -0500

SN Greg Wright I am a firm believer in net neutrality. The internet should be an open platform. I especially believe the Internet Service Providers should be classed as utilities and that franchise agreements, or the ides of a "natural monopoly", with cities should go away. I find it ludicrous when I read stories about people who can't get broadband from their "City's Provider" unless they want to pay thousands of dollars. Even when their neighbors across the street have the broadband that they are trying to get. I also believe that if Comcast, AT&T, Charter, etc.. will not provide broadband for an area or a city, the people affected should be able to build their own network. Finally, I find it funny that I live in a supposed "Third World" country, but I have 4 choices for broadband that all compete for my business. This competition keeps costs down, speeds up, and customer service good. Why? They do not want to lose your business. For example, I pay $35 a month for 200Mb down with no data cap, and I was just told that they are raising my speed to 300Mb down next month without a rate increase. Why? COMPETITION!

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jan 24 at 2017 6:18 AM

LTC John Shaw — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 06:18:24 -0500

I will argue against net neutrality because I want investment in network infrastructure. If we want a better network someone must pay for the critical nodes.
Since net neutrality become the rule the industry consolidated with no new entrants for competition.
The idea of net neutrality sounds great but the effect is to kill billions of dollars in new network investments.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jan 24 at 2017 10:25 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:25:06 -0500

The internet is not air or water. You do not need it to survive. We have books. It would be hellishly inconvenient, but you do not have a right to internet. No matter how much you think you need trapeze porn you really don't. How and how much internet you get should be handled by supply and demand not government regulations. What do you think Austin Hocutt?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 24 at 2017 4:05 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:05:21 -0500

I just read up on Ajit and he seems to be a good choice.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Dec 15 at 2017 6:53 PM

CPO Nate S. — Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:53:44 -0500

Lets look at what people are saying:
*** https://vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
*** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/
*** https://www.quora.com/Is-net-neutrality-a-good-idea-or-a-bad-idea-What-are-the-pros-and-cons
*** https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/john-gallagher/2017/12/15/net-neutrality-vote-fcc/952805001/
*** https://netivist.org/debate/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons

So here is the deal! What if some person at Goggle was a graduate of the University of Southern California and they had a co-worker with whom they were upset. In the heat of their anger they had the keys to the "speed gate" and slowed down everyone's access in Alabama to content an especially those attending classes online at the University of Alabama, but that person somehow was able to give increased speed and access to students attending USC. Is that fair, that ONE person can have that much control and abuse the 1st Amendment.

What is an 11th grade student had to do research requiring them to contrast and compare to opposing views. How is that student suppose to get their work done, if some notices they are looking a lot of, lets say "bad sites" and then they look at say "good websites". What if that gate keeper is able to pick and chose filters for speed or content and the kid, just trying to get their paper do, which could have been done in a couple of hours not takes then 3 days because of access and speed, all because some person they don't know can pick and choose how they access and at what speed they access content on the net.

Frankly, what we need is a 2nd 1st Amendment for the Internet age that address freedom of access just as the 1st Amendment - "free speech". I also don't frankly don't care if or how a person / company makes a "legal" buck, but I do care when that same person / company either impedes my ability to make a "legal" buck just because they can because they use the tactics of the weak, wanting to bully people in to submission, or the support rules that give them advantage in order to suppress another's opportunities. I think they use to call that - slavery!

Lets see, it was Hitler, I believe who curbed free speech and bent minds in Germany that resulted in over 12 million total deaths. Our was it Stalin and Mao with their brutality and the silencing or a best control of media to force their people to think a certain way. I don't invoke these evil beings lightly. But, the free and unfettered exchange of ideas must be open and a free people be trained on NOT "what to think" but instructed in the practice of "how to think" the processes for critical thinking so they can determine the wheat from the chaff.

I will not be a slave to another, nor will I suffer slavery to be imposed on another.

Just my thoughts!

13 Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality

Who should get to control what information is flowing over the lines of the internet? That is the core of the debate around the pros and cons of net neutrality. On one side of the equation, the ide…