Dismiss Notice
Some Razer services have been impacted due to the unique circumstances COVID-19 has created. We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your understanding during this critical time.

Net Neutrality!

Discussion in 'Off Topic Chat' started by suessolucky, Jan 22, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hey guys, I'm making a research paper for my Literature class. I would like to get some ideas/opinions from it. Also if you can provide some of the advantages and disadvantages of Net Neutrality

  2. NazgulStig

    NazgulStig Well-Known Member

    I do not have any idea what Net Neutrality is.
    *Googles it*
    I still have no idea what Net Neutrality is.
    Tons of information.

    I think Net Neutrality is a myth because those who support are right in their part and those who don't are also right. This is a deadlock situation and according to me.
    Some issue that happened recently in India and the result because of subscribers fighting against it
  3. sstuchfield

    sstuchfield Member

    I signed a petition against it a couple of months ago and they've been sending email updates out a couple of times a month. This website seems to be one of the front runners in the fight against it and attempts to explain why its important. Hopefully it will give you some clues as to how to find the other side of the argument too!
  4. ETitus

    ETitus Active Member

    John Chen, CEO from BlackBerry made a interesting proposal, forcing bigger companies to release their apps for all platforms, not only iOS or Android. Look that up, crazy new interesting stuff your teacher probably hasn't heard of yet.
  5. Mapsle

    Mapsle Well-Known Member

    Let´s use Linus, as usual :D

    Lafar and shortpower24 like this.
  6. shortpower24

    shortpower24 Active Member

    This website is FOR net neutrality. Essentially, it breaks down to net neutrality is good for all individual internet users as well as ensures that the little guy and the free thinker can get their voice heard on the net. Net neutrality is only bad for giant corporations and phone and cable companies who can then screw things up for the rest of us, censor the whole internet, and profit big time in the process.

    The video @Mapsle posted explains it pretty well. If we don't pass some sort of net neutrality law, Comcast and Verizon and other internet service providers could say 'you have to pay us a ton of money if you want your content speeds to be any good.' They could slow 4chan to a halt because they don't like them. Hulu could bribe them with big bucks to make Hulu fast and Netflix slow and run Netflix out of business. Or Hulu could pay Comcast for preferential speed, while Netflix pays Verizon, and now you can only watch decent speed Netflix movies if you have Verizon. Or the National Riffle Association could pay a bunch of money for their website and content to be fast, and any gun safety organizations' sites to be slow.

    Net Neutrality Is Good!!
    Sstuchfield likes this.
  7. sstuchfield

    sstuchfield Member

    Thanks for the correction, and well explained. The petition I signed was for Net Neutrailty - no idea why I said against?!
  8. HaltusKain

    HaltusKain Well-Known Member

    Edit- amusingly, ^that vid lead to the FCC's website crashing by comment overload.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  9. Honestly, net neutrality isnt the problem, its all the extra stuff that gets added in to the "net neutrality bill" that are the problem.

    If the proposals were just net neutrality, that would be one thing. But with CISPA style add ins to the legislature, its a trojan horse in my opinion.
  10. TigerStripedDragon

    TigerStripedDragon Active Member

    Beat me to it. John Oliver's videos are always great.
    Haltus Kain likes this.
  11. HaltusKain

    HaltusKain Well-Known Member

    "If you want to do something evil, put it in something boring."

    ^title of your paper, @suessolucky
  12. DunClownMcClown

    DunClownMcClown Active Member

    Unfortunately Linus misses many points, his facts and opinion about the matter is mostly fed by information he gets from mainstream media.

    Any networking administrator or ISP network administrator will tell you that the packets on the net are not equal.
    For certain services to function correctly you need to have some packets that have priority over other packets.
    Also you do not want the internet to have the status of the water or electric company, this means that the government can and will legislate the internet in way now not possible.

    Now everyone thinks it all about NetFlix, Google and Facebook and for some part it is, they way internet is build is through peering networks. Different network suppliers agree to share their connections so that all these different networks form the internet for basically free. Through these peering agreements. We at the end pay an ISP to let us connect to one of these networks which then means the internet. Now these network peers want to see money from content providers like YouTube and Netflix etc.

    Now ISP's and Network Peers are trying to force Netflix to pay, because its using so much bandwidth, so is YouTube etc. This is a different model than what it is now.

    I think for the most part its either the consumer is going to pay more, or the pie chart of who gets the money from your monthly ISP subscription is going to change.
    This is what is going on. It is a money grab by the network suppliers.

    And the government is "never let a good crisis go to waste" mode and hopping on the band wagon to get the some laws in for more control.
  13. SirJarren

    SirJarren Active Member

    While I support the IDEA of Net Neutrality, I'm realistic enough to admit it can't really happen within the current architecture of the internet.

    Even before the new millenium rolled around, a lot of people were already aware that we were overloading the system. Putting in more high speed pipes to move things along only alleviated the symptom, but not the actual problem. TCP/IP was never intended to support what it does today. We are literally at the whim of the any one of the points on the traceroute. So all this posturing about net neutrality isn't really feasible because people want an open internet but refuse to pay for it.

    Carriers can only support a finite amount of bandwidth. Companies like YouTube, Netflix, Google, etc, make money depending on how much that bandwidth they and their consumers use. Once that bandwidth cap is reached, speeds have to be throttled down else other users of the internet are denied service. Remember those dreaded internet hogs during the infancy of cable internet? That's what happens.

    Let's say I run a shipping logistics company within city limits. My expenses would be smaller (thus profits would be bigger) if I used just a few BIG TRUCKS as opposed to dozens of small ones. Sure, my business would block traffic everywhere and be a general nuisance...but my customers and I would be just fine. They get as much as they want, whenever they want. It's an open road, right? Shouldn't I be able to do what I want?

    But nooo...the city doesn't like me being a nuisance like that. Suddenly they make laws saying that I can't use really big trucks in the busier parts of the city. I'm only allowed to use designated truck routes thereby limiting my delivery options and thus reducing my sales territory. Now my customers aren't getting their deliveries as fast as they want. I can't move my merchandise quickly anymore. That's not fair! The roads are for everybody!

    So is it the fault of the carriers for only supporting so much bandwidth? Or is it the fault of the big online service companies for taking up so much of it? Personally, I think both sides need to accomodate each other. It's the cost of doing business. If you're gonna use a lot of bandwidth, make sure you work with the people who provide this bandwidth to ensure you can BOTH provide the best service for your customers.

    People need to realize that internet service isn't the same for everybody. There is no way YouTube or Netflix would survive if they had the same service any normal residential user does. Net usage is not equal.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2015
  14. shortpower24

    shortpower24 Active Member

    ^ Definitely good points. I was over simplifying, and of course, nothing is black amd white, and there are many various subtitles.
  15. Thank you guys for the responses. I appreciate it and a big thanks to @sirjarren for a well put out response. You guys have helped me big time. GG :)
  16. Rodetovenaar

    Rodetovenaar Active Member

    Here's another good website on the pro-Net Neutrality stance:

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation also has some good information to. @sirjarren does raise some good points. There needs to be a middle ground found, but right now I myself am firmly for neutrality, that is to say, on the side of the content providers. The service providers have a horrible track record when it comes to things like customer service. Just look at Comcast, who created a "grass roots" movement against net neutrality. They don't even have a customer service department, just sales people that help with problems while trying to sell you more stuff. While I understand the carriers have a business to run, their business model sucks for the average consumer, and would only get more so if the current, mostly neutral, net was to go away like they want it to. I don't want to have to wind up paying multiple ISPs just so I can watch both Netflix and Hulu. Except, in large parts of the country, most people really only have one choice for an ISP, which will only get so soooo much worse if the Comcast/Time Warner monopoly, sorry... "merger" ever happens.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Sign In with Razer ID >

Don't have a Razer ID yet?
Get Razer ID >