Those of you who have me on Facebook will recognize this little rant of mine.
[quote]I'm here to spread the word on net neutrality.
AFP has created this bastard advertisement: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07teCE1EWZY[/url], claiming that the FCC is going to "regulate" the internet with it's net-neutrality. Net-neutrality is good, without it you can't visit Facebook, Myspace, and even basic sites like Wikipedia that are going to be regulated. Small web-based businesses are going to die, and large businesses are going to keep making more money. Google, Yahoo, and Bing (or whatever your search engine of choice happens to be) will be heavily taxed services.
This doesn't even just mess up the internet for The United States, it ruins it for every developed nation on Earth.
Tell your friends and family, the FCC isn't going to violently take over the internet. It wants the exact opposite. The FCC wants the internet to stay the way it is.[/quote]
And the video in question:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07teCE1EWZY[/media]
What are your thoughts/opinions on net-neutrality? Considering this is a forum of fairly intelligent people, I imagine you're all pretty much disgusted by what the AFP is trying to do.
Also something similar for Canadians:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21950305]Hey Canadians! It isn't net neutrality but it's just as important. [url=http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ottawa-to-stop-the-canadian-dmca/]Go here, fight the "Canadian DMCA".[/url] Follow instructions, [b]no threats[/b], [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=935136]more details[/url], final destination.[/QUOTE]
tragic.
My thoughts can be summed up in one emote:
:smithicide:
I am for net neutrality, I want to be able to access any content I want without the ISP slowing it down or filtering it out.
"Innernet"
The woman in that video cannot speak English.
[quote]This doesn't even just mess up the internet for The United States, it ruins it for every developed nation on Earth.[/quote]
How? If worst comes to worst, companies will just move their servers out of the united states. At the very most a mass exodus of internet-based companies will destroy your economy and plunge your communications infrastructure back to that of the dark ages, but the rest of the world will happily carry on with the billions of extra tax dollars they'll be getting from all of these former-American companies.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21950007]How? If worst comes to worst, companies will just move their servers out of the united states. At the very most a mass exodus of internet-based companies will destroy your economy and plunge your communications infrastructure back to that of the dark ages, but the rest of the world will happily carry on with the billions of extra tax dollars they'll be getting from all of these former-American companies.[/QUOTE]
How many companies do you think really have the resources to move their servers overseas?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21950043]How many companies do you think really have the resources to move their servers overseas?[/QUOTE]
Companies that make money?
Wait, I can't tell if the FCC is for net-neutrality now or not, after your rant. To me it seems like they are against it. I have, however, been spreading the word about it. Maybe we should do a very large petition and send it to Washington?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21950043]How many companies do you think really have the resources to move their servers overseas?[/QUOTE]
All of them.
[QUOTE=RedBlade2021;21950087]Wait, I can't tell if the FCC is for net-neutrality now or not, after your rant. To me it seems like they are against it. I have, however, been spreading the word about it. Maybe we should do a very large petition and send it to Washington?[/QUOTE]
FCC is for net-neutrality.
Google is no longer for it as well I've heard?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;21950043]How many companies do you think really have the resources to move their servers overseas?[/QUOTE]
It's a matter of renting some new servers and transferring the data over. They don't have to physically load all the servers into a giant plane or something.
[editline]07:15PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Alvaldi;21950109]Google is no longer for it as well I've heard?[/QUOTE]
Why would google not be for net neutrality, that's dumb
[QUOTE=Alvaldi;21950109]Google is no longer for it as well I've heard?[/QUOTE]
I doubt that, Google has always been for it. As far as I can tell, the AFP is the only foundation/corporation/etc. that is against it.
These people are riling up the people that don't like Obama. They pretty much think that what he does is all bad, and he is trying to get businesses out of things like healthcare. They just say the this big evil blob called the government is trying to take over the internet. It's funny how without net neutrality, the internet will be shit. I just hope that these people don't win.
Hey Canadians! It isn't net neutrality but it's just as important. [url=http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ottawa-to-stop-the-canadian-dmca/]Go here, fight the "Canadian DMCA".[/url] Follow instructions, [b]no threats[/b], [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=935136]more details[/url], final destination.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21950305]Hey Canadians! It isn't net neutrality but it's just as important. [url=http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ottawa-to-stop-the-canadian-dmca/]Go here, fight the "Canadian DMCA".[/url] Follow instructions, [b]no threats[/b], [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=935136]more details[/url], final destination.[/QUOTE]
thanks, eh?
I don't think companies will move their servers overseas. There's too much money to be made here, and net neutrality would just prevent companies from prioritizing data just like it is already.
If they do this I will seriously kill myself.
I swear.
Net-Neutrality destroys interest and fun.
Only bad can come out of this. I think everyone can see that. The day this goes into effect would probably be a fun day though, massive rioting etc.
I recently wrote a paper on neutrality and had to wade through a lot of long articles about it. It's a shitload more complicated and not nearly as black and white as they want to make it.
The FCC's first policies on neutrality were awesome:
[QUOTE]
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.13
* To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately they failed in a case with Comcast. Comcast had been directly interfering with Bittorrent downloads, but the US Appeals court ruled that the [i]fucking FCC[/i] didn't have the authority to stop them from doing this (Comcast has since stopped anyway.) In other words they were basically fighting in favor of P2P users and lost.
So yeah, the FCC aren't the ones we should be worrying about.
Here are the problems with both sides:
The ISPs want to be able to charge Content Providers (any web sites, basically. Youtube, Google, CNN) for using the bandwidth in their lines that they use to deliver data to consumers. Right now people are really only paying for the internet service right at the edge of the network; the one that simply gets them into the nearest exchanges. ISPs want to open up bigger pipelines further into the network that let content providers send data out to everyone faster. They'd have to pay to do this, which is fine...for the big name companies that can afford it.
The concern is that they'll have too much control over the structure of the internet...that they'll be able to split it into tiers where the small guys have a hard time getting off the ground because they can't pay for good bandwidth.
Sites succeed because they provide good content, not because they have more money. That's what's so great about the internet.
On the other side, people claim that keeping the internet very level and not allowing ISPs to remodel the internet will hurt innovation and make newer bandwidth intensive services struggle.
Right now the ISPs aren't moving forward with anything major because there IS the threat of legislation being passed that targets exactly what they might do...and at the same time passing legislation before we know what we could be dealing with might be bad. It's a healthy stalemate.
The FCC is only redoing regulation because of net neutrality. Since comcast won the lawsuit in appeals court for filtering/blocking bit-torrent traffic, against the FCC. They only won the court case due to a technicality that they didn't have authority over.
I like my internets, if the government takes it over I won't be able to go on 4chan.
The "Canadian DMCA" that would be behind net neutrality would be the lovely CRTC. The major telcos and cable companies practically run that fucking organization.
FCC is a bunch of assholes who will not mind their own business
Plus There are probably some people out there who would be willing to hack past it anyway.
Road runner in austin, tried to do this (charge you for what you can search)
It failed 5 months BEFORE it was even implemented.
net neutrality has been halted in its tracks.
Regulate the Internet with net neutrality?
:raise:
Also, funny this thread should pop up now, I did the first part of my two-part speech for a class of mine on net neutrality (first part was informative, second part [next week] will be persuasive) just last week.
:v:
[QUOTE=benjgvps;21952774]The "Canadian DMCA" that would be behind net neutrality would be the lovely CRTC. The major telcos and cable companies practically run that fucking organization.[/QUOTE]
The Canadian DMCA is a horrible bad thing. It moves the country further away from net neutrality actually.
For record, it's not actually called the Canadian DMCA. It's the successor to Bill C-61, except 10 times as stupid.
This is perfect; I have to write a paper about net neutrality and present about it next week, I will use this video and talk about why it's retarded. Thanks :D
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.