Net Neutrality

[MintBean]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

[KalEl]

From time to time the website of Major N. along with a site that I can not remember which one give a video game from promotion
If you put, for example, 2 email addresses that you own or google or live and register the two in the contest in the second register they inform you we already have your other email and know who you are

[jimallyn]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

So, you'd be OK if the phone company decided to start refusing to carry your calls, or overlaid them with a loud tone or white noise?

[exploder]

I completely agree with MintBean! The government has no business regulating and controlling the internet. People seem to quickly forget that not all that long ago the government wanted to tax internet use.

[Moem]

I'm in favour of the world's governments limiting the behaviour of companies. It's not like companies always have the best interest of their customers in mind. Someone needs to be on the consumer's side. And that is what governments are for.

I don't think my government ever tried to tax internet usage. There is no such thing as 'the' government in an international forum.

[MintBean]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

So, you'd be OK if the phone company decided to start refusing to carry your calls, or overlaid them with a loud tone or white noise?

I you consider telling them to go **** themselves, switching to an alternative provider and making a substantial effort to spread word of their destructive practices with the hope that it will negatively impact their bottom line 'being OK with it,' then yes, I would 'be OK with it.'

I would not go running to big Daddy gov calling to give them even more powers (which was probably their aim in the first place.)

[BenTrabetere]

I you consider telling them to go **** themselves, switching to an alternative provider

Where I live, the list of "alternate" providers with consumer plans is very short. One cable (thank you City Council), a couple of DSL and satellite providers. I have friends who live in apartments that only allow ComCast - their only option is wireless, which is not much of an option when you consider it was the wireless providers that brought down Net Neutrality.

[jimbobs]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the road to drive on

[jimbobs]

I'm in favour of the world's governments limiting the behaviour of companies. It's not like companies always have the best interest of their customers in mind. Someone needs to be on the consumer's side. And that is what governments are for.

I don't think my government ever tried to tax internet usage. There is no such thing as 'the' government in an international forum.

Agreed. There are too many people conflating "government" with "politics" and "over-regulation", IMO. Society needs some degree of regulation to operate in an orderly fashion.

[MintBean]

I you consider telling them to go **** themselves, switching to an alternative provider

Where I live, the list of "alternate" providers with consumer plans is very short. One cable (thank you City Council), a couple of DSL and satellite providers. I have friends who live in apartments that only allow ComCast - their only option is wireless, which is not much of an option when you consider it was the wireless providers that brought down Net Neutrality.

That's all well and good, right up to the point where someone uses it as justification to have the government use force to impose on the rights of private companies and their networks. If the current short list of providers screw up, market forces dictate there's good money to be made by a new player. If Comcast make things painful and the apartment managers insist on sticking to their rules, it will hit the value and occupancy of their apartments until they see sense.

It's easy to call on the government to get things your own way, after all, what's the harm? Just don't go crying when someone else does the same and your rights are infringed.

(A response to your comment Ben, but a general conversation point not personally targeted at you.)

[MintBean]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the road to drive on

Poor comparison. The roads are publicly owned. A better parallel to draw would be:

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the corridor in our own house to walk on

...but of course that sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it.

[BenTrabetere]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the road to drive on

Poor comparison. The roads are publicly owned. A better parallel to draw would be:

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the corridor in our own house to walk on

...but of course that sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it.

[/entire post quoted because I cannot follow the attribution.]
This is an equally problematic comparison.

A better parallel would be a landlord stipulating the bedrooms can only be used as a bedroom, and tenants have to pay extra to use a spare bedroom as a home office.

[MintBean]

A better parallel would be a landlord stipulating the bedrooms can only be used as a bedroom, and tenants have to pay extra to use a spare bedroom as a home office.

That's no good unfortunately - the landlord OWNS the house and should be free to stipulate any dumb old rule he likes. Of course he would never be able to rent the place out. The government doesn't OWN these private networks.

You don't state what is 'problematic' with my comparison.

[KalEl]

I can prove they watch over you.
https://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/news/5/ ... p_full.jpg

[jimallyn]

I would not go running to big Daddy gov calling to give them even more powers (which was probably their aim in the first place.)

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.” - Abraham Lincoln

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom.” - Edmund Burke

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.” - John Adams

“The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.” - William Beveridge, Social Insurance and Allied Services (1942)

As I see it, one of the functions of government is to protect people from the corporations and the wealthy. At the moment, unfortunately, "our" government has been bought by the corporations. What we should be doing is restoring our government to doing what it is intended to do. To me, your "solution" sounds like giving in to the corporations.

[jimbobs]

Those who create network infrastructure should be able to throttle and shape as they see fit. I don't see why government should have any dictate over privately owned networks in this respect.

Right - just like the government shouldn't tell us which side of the road to drive on

Poor comparison. The roads are publicly owned.

Not sure where you live but here in Ontario, we have a highway (Highway 407) built under a so-called public, private, partnerships, now operated by private corporations, policed by the tax-funded provincial police force with toll penalties enforced by (provincial) government. I cannot think of a more perfect analogy to the Internet - created and funded by government on all continents - and, with net neutrality rules removed, potentially of benefit to some but not all.

Can we just drop the clearly spurious and dis-proven arguments that "the market is good" etc.?

[jimbobs]

... The government doesn't OWN these private networks. ...

Many governments, and government agencies, funded the development of the Internet. Companies may have decided later on to expand their involvement once they saw the commercial possibilities. However, without the original public investment, it is extremely doubtful that "private" interests would have invested in the Internet as we know it today.

[MintBean]

Many governments, and government agencies, funded the development of the Internet.

And I would agree that the government and their agencies should be able to control those parts of the network they own as they see fit.

[MintBean]

Not sure where you live but here in Ontario, we have a highway (Highway 407) built under a so-called public, private, partnerships, now operated by private corporations, policed by the tax-funded provincial police force with toll penalties enforced by (provincial) government.

It was built with the involvement of the government, so by agreement they were well within their rights to stipulate rules. It was not a purely private road.

[jimbobs]

Many governments, and government agencies, funded the development of the Internet.

And I would agree that the government and their agencies should be able to control those parts of the network they own as they see fit.

So which "parts" are those? How about ICANN?