Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Net
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the necessity and implications of Net Neutrality regulations, particularly in light of recent FCC actions. Participants explore various viewpoints on whether regulation is needed to maintain an open Internet or if it could lead to unintended negative consequences. The conversation includes theoretical, political, and practical aspects of Internet regulation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of regulations, arguing that previous regulations have often led to the opposite of intended outcomes.
  • Others highlight that the Internet has remained open and free without strong regulatory measures since its inception.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the push for Net Neutrality is politically motivated, with proponents often aligned with left-leaning ideologies.
  • Concerns are raised about potential changes in pricing models by ISPs, such as charging per website visited, which some participants find alarming.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between bandwidth and content, with some asserting that Net Neutrality is more about content access rather than just bandwidth pricing.
  • There are references to historical examples of ISP practices that some participants believe demonstrate a need for regulation to prevent unfair practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views, with no consensus reached on whether Net Neutrality is necessary or beneficial. Participants express a range of opinions on the implications of regulation and the current state of Internet freedom.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the nature of the Internet and the motivations of ISPs, while others depend on interpretations of regulatory history and political affiliations. The discussion does not resolve these assumptions or the implications of proposed regulatory changes.

  • #31
Evo said:
If you did some research you would probably find a dozen different ISP's in your area unless you live in some really remote area. You're just not aware of them.

I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Greg Bernhardt said:
I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.

To be fair, the midwest is at once one of the major hubs for trunk-lines... and poorly serviced at the homeowner level where the USA is concerned. Population density... it's a cruel thing, you'll catch up.
 
  • #33
Greg Bernhardt said:
I live downtown in a notable midwest city and yet have only one real option and that is Time Warner. AT&T is in the area, but they don't have service on my street yet.
You don't have any local ISP's? Your local phone company doesn't offer internet? Can you get wireless broadband?

Just 2 years ago I had a dial up account, DSL, and wirless broadband all at the same time. Now I just have two accounts with two different providers for redundancy, cable & wireless broadband, I canceled the others to save money.
 
  • #34
Jack21222 said:
Dial-up perhaps, but I specified broadband. And I'm not counting the plug-in air cards for laptops.



This has absolutely nothing to to with wikileaks, and there is no crisis.

You could use a cheap dial-up account as a kind of personal shell account and make it your proxy for packets related to inquiries to and from "banned" sites. Use your primary broadband as the actual funnel for the data. That's a crude do-it-yourself that anyone could use... never mind actual proxy services.

I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content... UNLESS your government is willing to really prosecute people on the supply side. Piracy has already shown that isn't going to happen, so... fin.
 
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content...

I'll say it again... yes... you... can.

Just because there are illegal ways to get around it doesn't mean the content wasn't blocked in the first place. If an ISP doesn't want to deliver packets from a website to you, you're not getting the packets without resorting to piracy.
 
  • #36
Evo said:
You don't have any local ISP's? Your local phone company doesn't offer internet? Can you get wireless broadband?
There are a few local ISPs but they end up just being affiliates of AT&T.

Just 2 years ago I had a dial up account, DSL, and wirless broadband all at the same time. Now I just have two accounts with two different providers for redundancy, cable & wireless broadband, I canceled the others to save money.

Dial up is not an option and DSL I think you need an active phone line? Neither Charter, Verizon, Qwest, or AT&T have service in my area. I do those "check for services in your area" forms all the time and nothing but AT&T show up, but they haven't had service to my street.
 
  • #37
Greg Bernhardt said:
Dial up is not an option and DSL I think you need an active phone line? Neither Charter, Verizon, Qwest, or AT&T have service in my area. I do those "check for services in your area" forms all the time and nothing but AT&T show up, but they haven't had service to my street.
You probably wouldn't want anything to do with either Verizon or AT&T since they are the two that are really trying to push the "pay for heavy data usage" issue. So if you like to download, those are the 2 to be wary of if they get their way.
 
  • #38
nismaratwork said:
I'll say it again.. you.. cannot... block... content...

In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.
 
  • #39
Jack21222 said:
I'll say it again... yes... you... can.

Just because there are illegal ways to get around it doesn't mean the content wasn't blocked in the first place. If an ISP doesn't want to deliver packets from a website to you, you're not getting the packets without resorting to piracy.

Everything I described was legal, because you're not access illegal material... just inaccessible material. I'm sorry, ISPs can't or don't stop the packets carrying child pornography most of the time, so I have a hard time believing they'll manage to block a galaxy of every-changing sites and services.

Oh, and given how many people pirate, and that as people grow and move on from that there are always new kids to take their place... I don't see this working legally or illegally. People are happy to use both means on the internet.

Greg: Could you get an active phone line?... If so, then it's not really unavailable, it's just another kind of opting out.
 
  • #40
jarednjames said:
In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.

Well, if you read my posts you now know how to access them anytime you want in a variety of ways.
 
  • #41
Allow me to quote some recent news that highlights how even direct legal action slides off the duck called 'Internet's' back.

Demonoid said:
Newspost - Dec/17/2010
Torrent Finder Domain Seizure
From their site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, the 25th of November 2010, the Torrent Finder domain ( www.torrent-finder.com ), registered with Godaddy, was seized by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without any prior takedown notice or specific allegations of infringing activity. The Domain IP was suddenly changed without the registrar's knowledge and the system displayed a "Pending Registry Action" message on the domain's status. No contact was given until Wednesday, the 1st of December, when Godaddy replied to my inquiries, giving a contact for an ICE agent. On Thursday, the 2nd of December, David Snead who is representing Torrent Finder contacted the ICE agent in charge who told him that "the orders are under seal, but that the seal will be lifted today or tomorrow". However, we have not heard from them until writing this post. Another email from Godaddy clarified that the action was taken by VeriSign: "please understand that these actions were taken by Verisign at the Registry level; and not by Go Daddy". The story was first reported on TorrentFreak and NYTimes.com.

I don't condone or endorse demonoid or other forms of piracy, but its relevant, and published in the nytimes.

Edit: Oh I nearly forgot, that quote is taken from demonoid... how you ask?... well they simply moved to a new .** in Moldovia, and the tracker in question never even hiccuped as it moved slightly.
 
  • #42
nismaratwork said:
Well, if you read my posts you now know how to access them anytime you want in a variety of ways.

Yes, and I'm very grateful for said information. :biggrin: (No thumbs up on here so you'll have to settle for a big grin)

It will certainly save me a lot of grief if it works next time they block them!
 
  • #43
jarednjames said:
In the UK, certain ISP's are blocking specific file sharing websites. (Fileshare, Rapidshare, Fileserve, Hotfile etc).

The sites themselves aren't illegal, but they do hold a lot of questionable content so far as legality goes. So far, the majority of the blocks don't last too long because people go mad and they end up unblocking it.

Once blocked, you can't access their content. No prosecution required, they simply don't let you go there.

They aren't usually blocked, they are traffic shaped to hell (effectively blocked). Orange is one that does it, I didn't know that before I signed up. (hence my earlier rant)

I use rapidshare as a back up and as a way of storing large files that i'll need to access from a few locations.

What winds me up is that they blatantly lie that there is 'faults on the line'.

EDIT: Nismara, you mean I have to acutally read your posts.. oh noes. :P As I'm lazy, linky?
 
  • #44
xxChrisxx said:
They aren't usually blocked, they are traffic shaped to hell (effectively blocked). Orange is one that does it, I didn't know that before I signed up. (hence my earlier rant)

I use rapidshare as a back up and as a way of storing large files that i'll need to access from a few locations.

What winds me up is that they blatantly lie that there is 'faults on the line'.

Hmmm... That's what Sandvine was meant to do for Comcast... here in the USA it never got off the ground. I'm sorry you're subject to such a stupid and dishonest practice.
 
  • #45
jarednjames said:
Yes, and I'm very grateful for said information. :biggrin: (No thumbs up on here so you'll have to settle for a big grin)

It will certainly save me a lot of grief if it works next time they block them!

My pleasure good sir. :smile:
 
  • #46
nismaratwork said:
Hmmm... That's what Sandvine was meant to do for Comcast... here in the USA it never got off the ground. I'm sorry you're subject to such a stupid and dishonest practice.

It's annoying having it throttled, but it would be marginally tolerable if they were just honest about it.

As it happens because they've blatantly lied to me, the second my contract is up I'm canceling (would cost to much to cancel now). And I'll cancel my mobile contract to boot. so they can kiss goodbye to £50 a month from me.
 
  • #47
Virgin Media went all out and blocked access to certain sites such as RapidShare at one point (much to my displeasure). They still have some blocks in place (I have no problem them doing so with sites that are strictly for illegal activity).

Other ISP's are looking at blocking places such as those I mentioned in my previous post.
 
  • #48
NobodySpecial said:
Al68 said:
Websites "not being part of your package" just doesn't make any sense.
It does if it increases the ISPs profits, or in the case of ISPs owned by cable companies, increases the profits of other divisions.
there logically can't be
Yes there can and there are financial/political/economic reasons to do it.
Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.
 
  • #49
Al68 said:
Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.

It would be more like selling a "media web package", a "just surf package" etc.

One would be designed for use of services such as youtube, the other would let you use basic web browsing only.

That, they can do, but it would be difficult and would have to be via bandwidth control I would imagine.
 
  • #50
Al68 said:
Did you miss my point entirely? An ISP is not a package of websites. If an ISP chose to offer a package of websites, no matter how inclusive, instead of WWW access, nobody would buy it. Not after so many years of buying access to the WWW, which contains an uncountable and indeterminable number of websites that are not a part of any package system.

It would be like selling a car with a predetermined "package of destinations". Possible, yes. Profitable, no.

If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.
 
  • #52
EDIT: Ah, wrong part of article.

So now providers can't restrict access?
 
  • #53
Well this is going to create a ****storm.

Hang on I may have misunderstood, that article is confusing me (it's late and it's been a long day working). Is this passing a good or bad thing?

EDIT: You need a better profanity filter.
 
  • #54
Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.
 
  • #55
jarednjames said:
Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.

It appears you made the same mistake I did :)
 
  • #56
jarednjames said:
Seems like a good thing to me, stops the ISP's interfering with your web access.
It's a shame.

The new rules:

Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.
So anything you wish to download or view on a wireless device can now be legally blocked.

The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra.
That's fine, it's always been that way, but this was a big deal when the whole "net neutrality" thing started. Net Neutrality advocates didn't want this.

We have now given the Government control of the internet in the US.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Greg Bernhardt said:
If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.
Of course that's true, but that's not the situation I was referring to. I specifically said:
Al68 said:
As long as there is competition and freedom from regulation...
As long as there is demand for general WWW access, and government doesn't restrict it, there will be a company to sell it. There is no reason to believe that every company in the country would coincidentally and inexplicably refuse to offer a profitable product.
 
  • #58
Evo said:
We have now given the Government control of the internet in the US.

Well let's be honest, would you prefer it to be the government or a private company?

The former answers to you (or is supposed to). The latter doesn't answer to anyone.
 
  • #59
Al68 said:
Of course that's true, but that's not the situation I was referring to. I specifically said:As long as there is demand for general WWW access, and government doesn't restrict it, there will be a company to sell it. There is no reason to believe that every company in the country would coincidentally and inexplicably refuse to offer a profitable product.

I tend to agree with this. If the USA actually DOES anything with this, they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot... assuming that any law born of this isn't struck down in the courts with an injunction. The government simply can't afford to do what some of their interests want, and there are competing interests with huge clout who want things to remain MOSTLY open (see google).
 
  • #60
Greg Bernhardt said:
If the alternative was no access at all, then yes, people would buy it.

If there's no alternative then that person lives in an area where this is unlikely to effect them, or we're living in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. I'm sorry Greg, but "no alternative" in this case is a fantasy. That said, in your restricted and unreal scenario, yeah, people would tend to take something over nothing, but how do you not see something else emerging from that?
 

Similar threads

News FCC Proposal to End Net Neutrality: Impacts and Implications
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Net Neutrality, the FCC, and you wake up
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
News What is the potential impact of internet censorship on our society?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
A report on a sick man of Europe, Portugal
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Is California's economic growth a result of unsustainable policies?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Will the internet evolved into a media form similar to cable and radio
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
News Did I Vote for GWB for the Right Reasons?
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
Undergrad I need some support, please, for a gravity assist analysis
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
News Credit Card Regulations: Govt Addressing Fees, Rates & Transparency
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K