Woody Leonhard's no-bull news, tips and help for Windows, Office and more… Please disable your ad blocker – our (polite!) ads help keep AskWoody going!
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • Today is Net Neutrality day

    Posted on July 12th, 2017 at 14:36 Kirsty Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    If you missed our recent blogpost on Net Neutrality, check it out:
    https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/net-neutrality-day-is-july-12th-2017-a-call-to-action/

    You could also check out:
    https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
    http://www.netneutrality.com/
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutralityDay?src=hash

    If that helped, take a second to support AskWoody on Patreon

    Home Forums Today is Net Neutrality day

    This topic contains 14 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  anonymous 2 months, 1 week ago.

    • Author
      Posts
    • #124586 Reply

      Kirsty
      AskWoody MVP

      If you missed our recent blogpost on Net Neutrality, check it out: https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/net-neutrality-day-is-july-12th-2017-a-call-to-action/[See the full post at: Today is Net Neutrality day]

      3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #124612 Reply

      AJNorth
      AskWoody Lounger

      As the recently-adopted motto of The Washington Post puts it, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.”

    • #124639 Reply

      Jan K.
      AskWoody Lounger

      I live under protective laws, where I’m guarenteed net neutrality and find it kinda ironic, that this is not the case in “the land of the free”…

       

      • #124642 Reply

        AJNorth
        AskWoody Lounger

        Ironic — and tragic.

        Sic transit gloria mundi – or at least that of the United States of America.

        • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  AJNorth.
    • #124655 Reply

      BobbyB
      AskWoody Lounger

      Well that incipit legislation will be in enacted in the US, or is widely touted to be put in to law for the US according to the news. I am just wondering what this means for us in other Jurisdictions. The Dangerous “Thin end of the wedge” perhaps?
      I did see the petitions and would have signed but alas it would have been, well slighly, fraudulent if not “Ammunition” for the supporters of this nefarious piece of legislation.
      For all those that can, legitmately, fight the good fight, for sure if its passed its coming to a town like yours, wherever that may be, soon! 🙁

      • This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  BobbyB.
    • #124692 Reply

      M. Patterson
      AskWoody Lounger

      Net Neutrality, as I understand it, is just a tragedy of the commons for cyberspace, wherein the ISPs all work together for the common good, but the bandwidth hogs get a lot more out of it at no extra cost to themselves (on the backs of the smaller networks) .  It’s an externalized cost.  Its biggest proponents were the video streamers, like Comcast, Netflix and Google, and it was during the reign of big-government politicians.  The internet grew up without the rule, and we were generally doing just fine without it, or at least were thought we were.

      Unintended consequences?  The lesser users curb development to avoid having to foot the bill for the hogs, as in the case where AT&T postponed fiber optic development over Net neutrality.  The real question is, what’s so neutral about crony capitalism?

      • #124694 Reply

        Kirsty
        AskWoody MVP

        “Network neutrality – the idea that ISPs should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services – is a principle that must be upheld to protect the future of our open Internet,” a spokesperson from the EFF said in a statement sent to SC Media on Wednesday. “It’s a principle that’s faced many threats over the years, such as ISPs forging packets to tamper with certain kinds of traffic or slowing down or even outright blocking protocols or applications.”

        This really isn’t about bandwidth hogs…

        3 users thanked author for this post.
        • #124695 Reply

          AJNorth
          AskWoody Lounger

          Proud member of the EFF for over fifteen years.

          3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #124706 Reply

      anonymous

      I agree whole-heartedly with M Patterson.   This is all about the bandwidth hogs!!   The Internet should not be regulated as AT&T was for over 50 years.  That’s what the Net Neutrality proponents are advocating.

    • #124716 Reply

      BrianL
      AskWoody Lounger

      Call or contact all your representatives – ask that they vote NO on the upcoming internet bill!!!!

    • #124756 Reply

      anonymous

      I’ve already contacted my Representative and told him to vote YES on the upcoming internet bill!

    • #124757 Reply

      anonymous

      The Internet is fundamentally a sender-pays system.(What do you think would happen with spam and DDoS if it was a receiver-pay system?)

      Google/Netflix and gang want to shift their cost in the sender-pay system to recipients (aka ISPs).  The other ‘concerns’ and ‘outrages’ are rolled into the mix to confuse the issue.

      Don’t carry water for Google, and realize that you can’t change the structure of the international Internet; it has exactly the design that works in a world where the only actions are those that are voluntary and cooperative.

      Many of the fears that get rolled into this can already be handled by anti-trust and other laws.  It is telling that the Obama FCC imposed this action without any bill from Congress.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #124932 Reply

      johnf
      AskWoody Lounger

      Don’t make us laugh about using anti-trust against the ISP’s. They have millions to spend on Lawyers, as well as bribing Congressmen and local government agencies.

      Don’t want Net Neutrality? Then break up the ISP monopolies that don’t compete against each other (or who have spent millions to convince states to make local governments not create their own internet service). Make ISP’s only able to provide internet, not control content, and make them compete.

      Net Neutrality is only a compromise to allow the Monopolies to continue, while making them “play fair”. It does not mean that letting bandwith hogs (who are only a small percentage of users go free)…reasonable caps would take care of that. Don’t make promises (actually, lies…like unlimited internet that isn’t) with no intention of delivering. You won’t get companies like Comcast treating customers like dirt if they have to compete.

      • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  johnf.
      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #124941 Reply

        anonymous

        I can’t wait to see 5 ISPs compete for my business over here in TinyVillageTown, USA!

      • #124949 Reply

        anonymous

        You are letting the issues confuse.

        But first, the corruption of the government does not simply vanish because ‘net neutrality.’  The solution to that corruption is not lawless action by the executive branch.  But we also must not allow one group of interests convince us that their type of corruption is any better than the other, and harm the Internet in the process.  The Internet got where it is because government has not been able to meddle, and if you look around the world, the Internet is worst where government meddling is highest.

        Now, the main issue I address here is the concept that ISPs must provide delivery for everybody at the top-level of service.  This is false.  ISPs must make that delivery option available on a reasonable, and non-discriminatory price basis, but if that means Netflix better open it’s wallet wide, that is the correct outcome for an operator is generating 40% of peak traffic.

        ISPs must have the power to take blocking action against any class of traffic for network management (not anti-competitive) purposes.  There is no meaningful law on the international Internet, and that means if there is a flood of traffic coming from somewhere that is harming your network, you can block it.  The sender then has the problem of finding another delivery route (perhaps being forced to deliver it in a more dispersed manner) or paying that ISP to accommodate the traffic.  (Again, at non-discriminatory rates.)  No other arrangement can work.

        Don’t forget that anti-trust is not the only tool available; any of the 50 states can carry out anti-trust actions, and private companies can also attempt lawsuits (eg: Novell vs. Microsoft).  The key is that if somebody has their checkbook, then they get delivery, and no dirty dealing.  The idea that ISPs must deliver for nothing, that is the problem.  This is long established in the telecom (formerly known as long distance) world.

        Issues of regulation of other aspects of ISP/consumer behavior are issues to confuse what is really going on.  They are not ‘net neutrality.’  A more-fair implementation would actually impose regulation on web services: An ISP could force Netflix/Google, etc to deliver traffic to them in a particular way, and force those web services to provide certain level of service/rights to the people.  You don’t hear any of that, do you?

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: Today is Net Neutrality day

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

    Your information: