Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_Marius567, Dec 16, 2010.
Why are democrat for net neutrality?
Care to share a link? "Net neutrality" is a fairly nebulous term.
Because Democrats generally favor the free and fair exchange of information; not having it restricted, controlled, or censored by government and/or big business interests.
What is the net if it isn't neutral? Acidic or basic??? Please define what 'net neutrality' means.
"Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change. The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.
Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.
Stifling innovation: Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Unless we preserve Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. On a tiered Internet controlled by the phone and cable companies, only their own content and services -- or those offered by corporate partners that pony up enough "protection money" -- will enjoy life in the fast lane.
The End of the Internet?
Make no mistake: The free-flowing Internet as we know it could very well become history.
What does that mean? It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger. The next generation of inventions will be shut out of the top-tier service level. Meanwhile, the network owners will rake in even greater profits.
^ Exactly. So have I satisfactorily answered your question?
your for a pay-per-view Internet?
pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phone?
No, I'm firmly opposed to that, just as I'm opposed to any restrictions on the free and open exchange of information, on the internet or elsewhere. That's part of what it means to be "for net neutrality", as you put it in your OP.
Did you read/comprehend your own explanation? How dense can you be?
Are you fucking dense?
net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship.
Net neutrality rules would determine whether high-speed Internet providers should be allowed to block or slow information or charge websites for a "fast lane" to reach users more quickly.
I swear this is a perfect example of why we have the people we do in political offices.
I CAN'T HEAR you!
The differential fee services made sense when modems were the only way to access the Internet a long time ago. Better access came to those who could afford multiple phone lines (hence, having a dedicated phone number just for the Internet) and for those who could afford computers with better modem technology. Then, with the advent of high-speed Internet access, ISPs could recreate differential access by capping the speed at which a cable modem could upload and download information. The most well-to-do can afford the highest Internet speeds while those who cannot have to settle for lower speeds. Even then, that speed differential is relatively hyped. Assuming the average user uses the Internet to check e-mail and surf a few favorite websites, the top-tier speeds are really reserved for die-hard gamers, video watchers, and those who work with advanced technology to do what they need to do. That said, why incur even more charges that don't immediately seem to benefit users?
That's the problem. I don't like the idea that my ISP wants to double-ding me for premium access to websites that, themselves, don't charge. Why would I surf popURLs or Facebook or the Huffington Post if they wouldn't charge me, yet Cox wants to streamline specific users who aren't really getting anything else quality-wise from their modems? Another devious strategy would simply be to say that the users who pay for top-tier Internet speeds get premium content. But that's false too because they already get higher upload-download speeds.
In any event, isn't there some statistic out there that says that an overwhelming number of users use the Internet to access porn? Those sites already charge for their memberships. Again, why subject oneself to what amounts to be a double charge?
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
Going by an actual definition, censorship obviously plays a factor in this. Which is why you started the thread and made it about Democrats since you obviously think they are "for censorship". More political dishonesty masquerading as honest, intellectual inquiry.
Can we all leave this thread now and let it die?
I'm still really unclear as regards what the topic of this thread is.
If I own the intellectual copyright to something (such as a story, for instance), and I can garner enough interest to sell subscriptions to its being serialized isn't that not just my right but in my best financial interest to do so? After all, as an author, I don't see a penny of the cost it takes to get oneself online via an ISP, so in what way could I possibly be "double dipping"?
Similarly, when I moved last February, I was eligible for a very special rate (about $30 per month) for broadband and about 10 cable channels through Cablevision. This was half the next nearest competitor, so I grabbed it. Since I don't watch TV, the limited choice didn't effect me at all, however my connection speed is really, really crappy and about 3 out of every 7 clicked links are timed out (until I try again). I choose to accept this tedium because it allows me internet at a price I can comfortably afford, and were I of the mind to do so, I could upgrade at any time.
In some dreamland, it would be great to live in some super-fast wireless hotspot with blindingly instant access, just like it would be wild to just click a link and watch from a catalog of classic films free of charge (YouTube has quite a few if you know how to search for them), but in real life technology infrastructure costs money to maintain, and intellectual property rights are the law of the land, with piracy subject to investigation and fines.
Or am I way off base?
Depressing, ain't it? And infuriating.