Net Neutrality meaning?

[Blackened]

For the past few weeks Mozilla has been asking users to "fight the crusade" or whatever... I read into it, but didn't really understand it. Then I found an article, can any explain the meaning of this to me?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/t...000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0

 

[Videer]

Comcast could slow your speeds to say Netflix if Netflix would not pay to Comcast.

 

[Falsedawn]

Here's a great blog post

http://www.tonybasch.com/blog/net-neutrality-and-you/

The “neutrality” part of Net Neutrality discusses which sites ISPs can throttle. If your ISP were neutral, it would throttle all sites to a predetermined speed, regardless of what that site is or if you went to that site a lot, a little or at all. If your ISP were not neutral, it would throttle some sites more than others. The non-neutral scenario is also explained by saying the ISP offers “fast lanes” on the Internet: some sites will get their data to you faster, like taking the carpool lane on the highway, but instead of requiring two or more passengers in the car, it simply requires that you are driving to BestBuy. A non-neutral ISP is currently free to choose which web sites get the fast lane, and which ones don’t.

The status quo is ISPs have been largely neutral. You pay one flat rate and your ISP doesn’t interfere with your speeds based on the sites you’re visiting. You get the speed you pay for, no matter what. There have been instances in which some have been caught throttling certain types of traffic, with various outcomes in court of law, because the legality of throttling, and the ability of the government to enforce rules about throttling, are murky. This murkiness is the reason it has been in the news the past few years. ISPs are challenging that murkiness for the ability to throttle traffic on a non-neutral basis.

This is where the controversy starts. There are two sides: the non-neutral side wants ISPs to be able to build fast lanes, choose which sites can ride in them, and charge subscribers like you for use of those fast lanes. The other side, the neutral side, wants ISPs to be completely neutral; which is to say, keep things mostly the way they’ve been: one flat monthly rate, everything runs at the same speed, regardless of web site.

The non-neutral side thinks ISPs should be able to throttle whatever, whenever, for whatever price. An ISP is a business, it has bought and installed the cables throughout town, it provides a service that runs 24/7, and capacity for all the traffic for its customers is limited. It should be able to manage their service however they see fit. This is how most businesses are allowed to operate not just in the US, but in every country that allows free enterprise. Proponents of this view invoke the concept of capitalism, and who can hate capitalism?

The neutral side believes that the status quo is fine. It’s the environment that brought us the Internet as we know it this very minute. They believe that ISPs should be neutral, that net neutrality is good and that better rules to enforce net neutrality are good. The view of the neutrals is best explained as what is likely to happen if the non-neutrals get their way. It is very likely that having fast lanes in the Internet will have several significant negative effects. It will drive up the cost of Internet service, it will stifle technological innovation, it will stifle competition of Internet services and lead to continued erosion of quality of service and customer satisfaction with their ISP.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

The easiest way to describe it as that all network traffic is treated the same by internet providers.

When you access www.sherdog.com, based on your ISP, the Sherdog servers and connection, it will load without restriction. At the same time, a major site like google.com or even a some guy's amateur porn site load and operate the same way.

Without net neutrality, ISPs would have the ability to speed up or slow down certain websites or block certain websites or content. It would open up a situation where Netflix could pay millions of dollars to Comcast in order to have faster service for their website. It could also allow Comcast to slow down certain undesirable traffic such as Bit Torrent.

Basically Net Neutrality keeps the internet the way it is now and protects it with law. The cause of concern from the Right and Conservatives is that they don't want the government/FCC regulating the internet and they feel that it's unnecessary and prevents growth.

The truth is that unfortunately we DO need regulation because due to no laws being in place, ISPs and corporations have tried to sue the FCC in order to allow them to slow up and speed traffic as they see fit and allow for companies to pay them to do so.

Net neutrality is a good thing and thankfully it was passed today. There's a bunch of fear mongering out there from a lot of people that do not understand the internet or technology. All you have to do is look at the companies and people that support Net Neutrality vs. the ones that don't and it's clear on who you should trust.

 

[Vektor]

the right opposes it so it must be a very good thing. there's no reason sites like netflix should have the unfair ability to run faster as compared to sites that no one uses. not sure of all the details, but I'm happy progressivism keeps winning.

 

[Count Zero]

If someone happens to fear and hate technology, is this something they should be freaking out about ?

Asking for a friend

 

[James Bomb]

If someone happens to fear and hate technology, is this something they should be freaking out about ?

Asking for a friend

No, it's been this way since the beginning of the Internet.

 

[alexdlrg]

there's no reason sites like netflix should have the unfair ability to run faster as compared to sites that no one uses.

Are you trying to parody the idiotic liberal position on this, or are you being serious? I'm not familiar with your posting.

It's basically like shipping. They are forcing ISPs to treat every packet the same. There's no bulk rate, no overnight delivery, everything is first class mail. Have a business model that requires next day delivery, and you're willing to pay for it? Too bad, you'll have to wait until first class is improved to the point that it is next-day... if that EVER happens.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Are you trying to parody the idiotic liberal position on this, or are you being serious? I'm not familiar with your posting.

It's basically like shipping. They are forcing ISPs to treat every packet the same. There's no bulk rate, no overnight delivery, everything is first class mail. Have a business model that requires next day delivery, and you're willing to pay for it? Too bad, you'll have to wait until first class is improved to the point that it is next-day... if that EVER happens.

I'm seeing the UPS/FexEd/USPS comparison a lot from Conservatives on Net Neutrality and it's flawed.

The argument I've seen is "Imagine if FedEx wasn't allowed to do overnight deliveries or offer additional types of services" and that's where the argument is flawed.

It would be the equivalent of giving FedEx their own interstate or faster trucks to deliver their packages. Meanwhile, if UPS couldn't afford to pay whatever fee Comcast or Verizon would want to build them that interstate or truck, they couldn't use it. It would also theoretically allow FedEx to pay Comcast or Verizon to put UPS on the "slow" interstate so that it would take longer for them to deliver their packages.

I know Republicans are big on business and that sounds like a great idea. It's capitalism and the big guys win and the little guys lose. That's not how the internet was designed to work and without Net Neutrality, sites like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, eBay and the list goes on would never exist.

The fact that you or me could start a website in our underwear in our basement, put it on the internet without restriction and potentially become the next big thing is true innovation. Without Net Neutrality protecting that freedom, the internet would be a radically different place.

 

[MeatheadMike]

There is no reason to be against net neutrality unless you are an ISP, being lobbied by ISPs, or would like ISPs to have power to throttle your internet speeds and restrict what sites you can visit.

What most people who are against net neutrality don't seem to realize is that the FCC already had been forcing ISPs to adhere to net neutrality principles since beginning of the internet. That changed in January 2014 when Verizon won a court case which stripped their ability to enforce these regulations under the framework it has been using.

Supporting net neutrality means supporting the way the internet always has been. It does not mean giving new power to the government and FCC as ISPs and people like Ted Cruz will have you believe.

 

[MeatheadMike]

I'm seeing the UPS/FexEd/USPS comparison a lot from Conservatives on Net Neutrality and it's flawed.

The argument I've seen is "Imagine if FedEx wasn't allowed to do overnight deliveries or offer additional types of services" and that's where the argument is flawed.

It would be the equivalent of giving FedEx their own interstate or faster trucks to deliver their packages. Meanwhile, if UPS couldn't afford to pay whatever fee Comcast or Verizon would want to build them that interstate or truck, they couldn't use it. It would also theoretically allow FedEx to pay Comcast or Verizon to put UPS on the "slow" interstate so that it would take longer for them to deliver their packages.

I know Republicans are big on business and that sounds like a great idea. It's capitalism and the big guys win and the little guys lose. That's not how the internet was designed to work and without Net Neutrality, sites like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, eBay and the list goes on would never exist.

The fact that you or me could start a website in our underwear in our basement, put it on the internet without restriction and potentially become the next big thing is true innovation. Without Net Neutrality protecting that freedom, the internet would be a radically different place.

The dumb shipping company comparison makes even less sense when you consider the FCC has always been enforcing net neutrality principles up until 2014... so the prices we had been paying to ISPs all along already had that supposed "First Class Mail delivery" factored in to them and everything was able to function just fine.

 

[LilMountain]

The easiest way to describe it as that all network traffic is treated the same by internet providers.

When you access www.sherdog.com, based on your ISP, the Sherdog servers and connection, it will load without restriction. At the same time, a major site like google.com or even a some guy's amateur porn site load and operate the same way.

Without net neutrality, ISPs would have the ability to speed up or slow down certain websites or block certain websites or content. It would open up a situation where Netflix could pay millions of dollars to Comcast in order to have faster service for their website. It could also allow Comcast to slow down certain undesirable traffic such as Bit Torrent.

Basically Net Neutrality keeps the internet the way it is now and protects it with law. The cause of concern from the Right and Conservatives is that they don't want the government/FCC regulating the internet and they feel that it's unnecessary and prevents growth.

The truth is that unfortunately we DO need regulation because due to no laws being in place, ISPs and corporations have tried to sue the FCC in order to allow them to slow up and speed traffic as they see fit and allow for companies to pay them to do so.

Net neutrality is a good thing and thankfully it was passed today. There's a bunch of fear mongering out there from a lot of people that do not understand the internet or technology. All you have to do is look at the companies and people that support Net Neutrality vs. the ones that don't and it's clear on who you should trust.

So basically it hands control over to the government over fears of a bogeyman that isnt even an issue right now

 

[ben236]

There is no reason to be against net neutrality unless you are an ISP, being lobbied by ISPs, or would like ISPs to have power to throttle your internet speeds and restrict what sites you can visit.

Actually, everybody who doesn't have Netflix would probably benefit from no NN. Considering they take up 1/3 of all bandwidth and as a result, slow everybody else's speeds down.

 

[Damien Karras]

I'm seeing the UPS/FexEd/USPS comparison a lot from Conservatives on Net Neutrality and it's flawed.

The argument I've seen is "Imagine if FedEx wasn't allowed to do overnight deliveries or offer additional types of services" and that's where the argument is flawed.

It would be the equivalent of giving FedEx their own interstate or faster trucks to deliver their packages. Meanwhile, if UPS couldn't afford to pay whatever fee Comcast or Verizon would want to build them that interstate or truck, they couldn't use it. It would also theoretically allow FedEx to pay Comcast or Verizon to put UPS on the "slow" interstate so that it would take longer for them to deliver their packages.

I know Republicans are big on business and that sounds like a great idea. It's capitalism and the big guys win and the little guys lose. That's not how the internet was designed to work and without Net Neutrality, sites like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, eBay and the list goes on would never exist.

The fact that you or me could start a website in our underwear in our basement, put it on the internet without restriction and potentially become the next big thing is true innovation. Without Net Neutrality protecting that freedom, the internet would be a radically different place.

Excellent post

 

[Wingslaught]

So basically it hands control over to the government over fears of a bogeyman that isnt even an issue right now

This. I don't know why people still think the government is just going to come in and innocently solve a problem with no strings attached.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Are you trying to parody the idiotic liberal position on this, or are you being serious? I'm not familiar with your posting.

It's basically like shipping. They are forcing ISPs to treat every packet the same. There's no bulk rate, no overnight delivery, everything is first class mail. Have a business model that requires next day delivery, and you're willing to pay for it? Too bad, you'll have to wait until first class is improved to the point that it is next-day... if that EVER happens.

US already has some of the slowest internets in the developed world. I cant imagine why someone would want theirs to be even slower????

 

[SiKnSiN]

Odd that this became a Conservative vs Liberal issue. Everyone I know is pro Net Neutrality. Hell, most my conservative friends are more for it than myself. They see it as pro small business, pro consumer, pro competition.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Does something need to be addressed? Prolly

But govt sees it as a chance to get their filthy paws on the internet and ruin it...they'll pass a 300 page bill full of special interests, taxes, restrictions, etc, etc fkn etc, and prolly won't even solve the original issue.

 

[alexdlrg]

the prices we had been paying to ISPs all along already had that supposed "First Class Mail delivery" factored in to them and everything was able to function just fine.

Function just fine? What's wrong with you? Where are your standards? Netflix looks good enough to you? The sound quality (stereo for just about every single movie) is sufficient to you?

I want more. If netflix needs to be allowed to pay for priority to give me more, why DISALLOW that?

 

[Damien Karras]

Does something need to be addressed? Prolly

But govt sees it as a chance to get their filthy paws on the internet and ruin it...they'll pass a 300 page bill full of special interests, taxes, restrictions, etc, etc fkn etc, and prolly won't even solve the original issue.

Are you dense?