|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 2, 2015 16:56:25 GMT
I am not sure where I stand on Net Neutrality yet because I don't know everything that the over 300 page document regarding Net Neutrality encompasses. I have been reading this thread trying to learn more about it. What I do know, is that I do not want internet sites to be bundled the way that cable companies bundle TV channels. What I don't know is if this is something that anyone was talking about doing or if Net Neutrality just prevents them from doing so therefore, don't even think about it. Considering that new domains are registered everyday, I guess I am not sure how an internet company could try to bundle unless the bundles only hit the big sites. Anyway, I know I don't want bundling. It seems like this is the main talking point about Net Neutrality but how much of the 300+ page document is related to this vs. other things? Here is an example of why I am still uncertain about this. Here are two quotes from page 3 of this thread, both from people who are for Net Neutrality. So which is it? Does Net Neutrality say that if I wanted to spend more money for a higher speed internet access, that will no longer be possible? I will now have to use whatever speed is deemed appropriate for everyone and we will all pay the same price? Today, I pay for a higher speed internet. I am fine with that. I feel like it keeps the companies wanting to continue to upgrade their technology to allow for faster and faster speeds because of those of us who are willing to pay for that. However, my mother for instance, is a much more casual user than I am. She uses email and a little internet. She pays a much lower price than I do and she also has a much slower speed, although still high speed access, wifi, etc. I notice the difference in speed when I am at her house. I commented about it and she said, That's ok. I have the time. LOL I am not picking on these two posters. I only used these because they seem to both be in favor of Net Neutrality but are saying two different things. I really wish someone could document in an easy to read list what are the major talking points in the 300+ page Net Neutrality document. What concerns me is that I seem to only be hearing the one talking point that is going to get everyone riled up to support Net Neutrality. Honestly, I think there are several major concerns that are all mixed together on this so that it really isn't as clear as it ought to be. Welcome to American Politics 101. 1) You have the issue of for-profit companies seeing the potential for ENORMOUS profits by controlling movement through the internet. Think of different castles along a major river, each one stopping traffic and demanding a toll to pass. This is similar to what would happen if companies were allowed to bundle access to various sites. The freedom to wander all over the internet would be lost. 2) You have the reality that not all data is the same. Voice data is extremely sensitive to any time delays. If the data doesn't arrive at a priority speed in a cohesive form, it is useless. You can't understand what the other person is saying. Downloading a book does not require this same priority. The information can be delayed by fractions of a second and there is no loss of information, nor is there any appreciable noticeable delay. There is a system of coding these packets of information to make data traffic flow better. I think this fact is being lost in the idea that all data should be treated equally. It's not that data is treated differently, exactly, it's that different kinds of data require different handling - just like different packages require different handling at the post office. 3) There are politicians who are very heavily influenced by people highly connected with the for-profit companies that are pushing a 300+ page unread Net Neutrality that a lot of people on this thread are applauding without asking what's in it for the politicians and the for-profit companies. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I have time for at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Mar 2, 2015 17:30:50 GMT
I am not sure where I stand on Net Neutrality yet because I don't know everything that the over 300 page document regarding Net Neutrality encompasses. I have been reading this thread trying to learn more about it. What I do know, is that I do not want internet sites to be bundled the way that cable companies bundle TV channels. What I don't know is if this is something that anyone was talking about doing or if Net Neutrality just prevents them from doing so therefore, don't even think about it. Considering that new domains are registered everyday, I guess I am not sure how an internet company could try to bundle unless the bundles only hit the big sites. Anyway, I know I don't want bundling. It seems like this is the main talking point about Net Neutrality but how much of the 300+ page document is related to this vs. other things? Here is an example of why I am still uncertain about this. Here are two quotes from page 3 of this thread, both from people who are for Net Neutrality. So which is it? Does Net Neutrality say that if I wanted to spend more money for a higher speed internet access, that will no longer be possible? I will now have to use whatever speed is deemed appropriate for everyone and we will all pay the same price? Today, I pay for a higher speed internet. I am fine with that. I feel like it keeps the companies wanting to continue to upgrade their technology to allow for faster and faster speeds because of those of us who are willing to pay for that. However, my mother for instance, is a much more casual user than I am. She uses email and a little internet. She pays a much lower price than I do and she also has a much slower speed, although still high speed access, wifi, etc. I notice the difference in speed when I am at her house. I commented about it and she said, That's ok. I have the time. LOL I am not picking on these two posters. I only used these because they seem to both be in favor of Net Neutrality but are saying two different things. I really wish someone could document in an easy to read list what are the major talking points in the 300+ page Net Neutrality document. What concerns me is that I seem to only be hearing the one talking point that is going to get everyone riled up to support Net Neutrality. This is exactly where I am. |
|
|
|
Post by eebud on Mar 2, 2015 17:36:25 GMT
I am not sure where I stand on Net Neutrality yet because I don't know everything that the over 300 page document regarding Net Neutrality encompasses. I have been reading this thread trying to learn more about it. What I do know, is that I do not want internet sites to be bundled the way that cable companies bundle TV channels. What I don't know is if this is something that anyone was talking about doing or if Net Neutrality just prevents them from doing so therefore, don't even think about it. Considering that new domains are registered everyday, I guess I am not sure how an internet company could try to bundle unless the bundles only hit the big sites. Anyway, I know I don't want bundling. It seems like this is the main talking point about Net Neutrality but how much of the 300+ page document is related to this vs. other things? Here is an example of why I am still uncertain about this. Here are two quotes from page 3 of this thread, both from people who are for Net Neutrality. So which is it? Does Net Neutrality say that if I wanted to spend more money for a higher speed internet access, that will no longer be possible? I will now have to use whatever speed is deemed appropriate for everyone and we will all pay the same price? Today, I pay for a higher speed internet. I am fine with that. I feel like it keeps the companies wanting to continue to upgrade their technology to allow for faster and faster speeds because of those of us who are willing to pay for that. However, my mother for instance, is a much more casual user than I am. She uses email and a little internet. She pays a much lower price than I do and she also has a much slower speed, although still high speed access, wifi, etc. I notice the difference in speed when I am at her house. I commented about it and she said, That's ok. I have the time. LOL I am not picking on these two posters. I only used these because they seem to both be in favor of Net Neutrality but are saying two different things. I really wish someone could document in an easy to read list what are the major talking points in the 300+ page Net Neutrality document. What concerns me is that I seem to only be hearing the one talking point that is going to get everyone riled up to support Net Neutrality. Honestly, I think there are several major concerns that are all mixed together on this so that it really isn't as clear as it ought to be. Welcome to American Politics 101. 1) You have the issue of for-profit companies seeing the potential for ENORMOUS profits by controlling movement through the internet. Think of different castles along a major river, each one stopping traffic and demanding a toll to pass. This is similar to what would happen if companies were allowed to bundle access to various sites. The freedom to wander all over the internet would be lost. 2) You have the reality that not all data is the same. Voice data is extremely sensitive to any time delays. If the data doesn't arrive at a priority speed in a cohesive form, it is useless. You can't understand what the other person is saying. Downloading a book does not require this same priority. The information can be delayed by fractions of a second and there is no loss of information, nor is there any appreciable noticeable delay. There is a system of coding these packets of information to make data traffic flow better. I think this fact is being lost in the idea that all data should be treated equally. It's not that data is treated differently, exactly, it's that different kinds of data require different handling - just like different packages require different handling at the post office. 3) There are politicians who are very heavily influenced by people highly connected with the for-profit companies that are pushing a 300+ page unread Net Neutrality that a lot of people on this thread are applauding without asking what's in it for the politicians and the for-profit companies. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I have time for at the moment. #1 - I don't want to lose my freedom to wander all over the internet. If that was all Net Neutrality was about, I would be fine with it. #2 - Definitely true. Not all data should be treated the same for the exact reasons you commented on. Some data MUST have different transport speeds or it will be worthless. #3 - This is one reason that I remain skeptical about Net Neutrality. I can't help but look at some of those that are heavily supporting it and wonder why this is so important to them and what is in it for them that will end up screwing the average person in the long run. There is more in the 300+ page document that we are not being told about. |
|
