Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
mattp

Net Neutrality?

Recommended Posts

It seems to me that I’d like cc.com or even smaller sites to have the same access and same service speed and same search engine presence and everything else as some large business enterprise like MSNBC or whatever, and those arguing for Net Neutrality say that without some regulation, we will lose this as the business interests take over "our" Internet for commercial puroposes. I think it is likely that Internet business will almost certainly warp even more than it already has so as to favor big players over the small guy without some kind of government or regulatory intervention, but what do you folks make of the argument that the currently proposed regulation or other efforts to protect “equal access” on the Internet will “stifle innovation?”

 

Do we care if Google or Microsoft don’t make quite as much extra profit by developing or marketing new services? Just what kind of "innovation" might we stand to lose?

 

What are the real issues here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I've heard involves the service providers handicapping requests for data/services from online companies in direct competition with them. i.e. Comcast could slow down the connection to e-bay while promoting their own auction service (or whatever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing that our government would do anything that really, truly favors the little guy over big business.

 

Geez I am getting to be a cynical old bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

George W. Bush should be in charge of the internet. He did beat Al Gore for it in 2000.

 

Look what he's done for Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that I’d like cc.com or even smaller sites to have the same access and same service speed and same search engine presence and everything else as some large business enterprise like MSNBC or whatever, and those arguing for Net Neutrality say that without some regulation, we will lose this as the business interests take over "our" Internet for commercial puroposes. I think it is likely that Internet business will almost certainly warp even more than it already has so as to favor big players over the small guy without some kind of government or regulatory intervention, but what do you folks make of the argument that the currently proposed regulation or other efforts to protect “equal access” on the Internet will “stifle innovation?”

 

Do we care if Google or Microsoft don’t make quite as much extra profit by developing or marketing new services? Just what kind of "innovation" might we stand to lose?

 

What are the real issues here?

 

Let's see... the Internet was designed and initially built by government-funded researchers, correct? And then the hyperlink technology of the World Wide Web was invented by an individual, developed in concert with his peers, and essentially donated to the world community, correct?

 

I think its clear that small-time innovators made things happen, things like this website, for example, and this is the type of innovation we stand to lose. Imagine, if you can, this site ever being the product of the “innovation” of an AT&T or Verizon or Microsoft or AOL or whatever power player has come along to leverage freely available technology into the stifling confines of its own brand name.

 

For the kind of innovation that gave us what we have now, look to the likes of the company that hosts this site, or the guys who started this site, or the gang of geeks who wrote the software it runs on. For the kind of innovation that stifles, censors, and rules with a fascist hand, look to the gorillas – and today, unfortunately, that includes our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of those ignorant Americans. I do not understand Net Neutrality.

 

Whatever it means, I just hope the governments stay out of it. Let the market decide this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stefan, the problem is that you have mentally extricated yourself from 'the market'. As a consumer, you've said 'I want bandwidth and I choose which information I want to access.' Read the link I posted and maybe you'll understand better why we shouldn't let the telco's decide this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever it means, I just hope the governments stay out of it. Let the market decide this one.

Stefan said :

I want to be charged twice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with any simple "let the market decide" argument. Consider the telephone: without regulation along the lines of what I understand "net neurtrality" to be, you'd have no telephone service in rural areas or at least no affordable service because it is so much more expensive to install phone lines that run long distances with comparitively little traffic.

 

I DO think the Net is a public utility, and it should have some degree of regulation, but the question remains to what extent and how it should be regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the future it will cost you 10 cents a post to post in Spray. But posting a TR will only cost you 5 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the future it will cost you 10 cents a post to post in Spray. But posting a TR will only cost you 5 cents.

If I understand the telcos plan, it would cost you, I, and dru $.10, some <1000 post sprayer, $.05 and some n00b $.00 to post in spray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cry.gif I don't own that many dimes and the coin slot on my computer doesn't take quarters.

mad.gif We only accept American Money wazzup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan, the problem is that you have mentally extricated yourself from 'the market'. As a consumer, you've said 'I want bandwidth and I choose which information I want to access.' Read the link I posted and maybe you'll understand better why we shouldn't let the telco's decide this issue.

 

So this "net neutrality" thing is that the telcos are deciding which sources of information are faster than others by charging a tiered pricing to the sources of information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with any simple "let the market decide" argument. Consider the telephone: without regulation along the lines of what I understand "net neurtrality" to be, you'd have no telephone service in rural areas or at least no affordable service because it is so much more expensive to install phone lines that run long distances with comparitively little traffic.

 

I DO think the Net is a public utility, and it should have some degree of regulation, but the question remains to what extent and how it should be regulated.

 

I have never thought that we should have ever paid for a rural charge--there was some tax on your bills for that.

 

I have thought that if you wanted to live in a rural area, then you gotta pay for those services. Such as buying more gas to go back and forth. Your choice.

 

If you want to live away from the areas that don't have natural gas--so be it. Same with bandwith...

 

Remember, I am still unsure of what Net Neutrality means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never thought that we should have ever paid for a rural charge--there was some tax on your bills for that.

 

I have thought that if you wanted to live in a rural area, then you gotta pay for those services. Such as buying more gas to go back and forth. Your choice.

 

If you want to live away from the areas that don't have natural gas--so be it. Same with bandwith...

 

Remember, I am still unsure of what Net Neutrality means.

 

rolleyes.gif Another Ayn Rand in the bedside table'r. Maybe the next edition will come with a black leatherette cover and gold embossing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I DO think the Net is a public utility.

 

I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

Would you disagree that universal telephone service has been a substantial net economic benefit as well as saved the lives of thousands (one need only look to 911). If electricity's necessary (sorry dude, you don't 'need' heat rolleyes.gif ) so is net access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I philosophically disagree. Water you need to live. Electricity or some form of heat you need to live a temperature. I have always thought telephone service is NOT a required utility to live--and should NOT be a public utility.

Would you disagree that universal telephone service has been a substantial net economic benefit as well as saved the lives of thousands (one need only look to 911)

 

Universal telephone service has benefited many people. I don't know about the economics of it of though if it really was beneficial. Humans have a way of being flexible.

 

I look at third world countries now where the technology of cell phones has helped these people in definite rural areas--but they are paying for it themselves without other people subsidizing it through government intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True that, about electricity. Aristotle, I am sure, philosophically agreed. And speaking of philosphers, did not Socrates say, to have lived the un-electrified life is to not have lived at all? To be sure, dear Plato, what is real if not for the electrons heating our spheres? It is all about spherical neutrality, metaphysically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True that, about electricity. Aristotle, I am sure, philosophically agreed. And speaking of philosphers, did not Socrates say, to have lived the un-electrified life is to not have lived at all? To be sure, dear Plato, what is real if not for the electrons heating our spheres? It is all about spherical neutrality, metaphysically speaking.

 

The Greeks distrusted electricity because it was a Persian trick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×