Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
rtwngAvngr said:What is this all about? I'm too lazy and on cursory readings both sides say they're for freedom.
Which one will keep complete freedom of content and speech and speed?
jillian said:Net neutrality means providers have to let all sites be accessed at the same speed and can't get paid to speed up any particular corporation's links or make a link for a political site move faster if the provider agrees with the politics of one particular side.
There is nothing pro freedom about wanting there NOT to be net neutrality.
rtwngAvngr said:Yeah. That sounds good. All sites accessed equally, that's what I'm for.
The ClayTaurus said:I guess to a certain extent. So long as it's not saying that your bargain hunting server gets to dictate page load times for well-hosted domains.
Just like anything, you should be able to purchase better hosting options, but I agree that one provider shouldn't adjust the throttle based on the payment coming in.
Just like advertising time.jillian said:Yeah...me, too.
So a well-funded corporation or governmental outfit should be able to purchase more access than, say, an underfunded 501-c-3 corporation? Or a political blog that maybe belongs to folk of a wealthier political ideology?
The ClayTaurus said:Just like advertising time.
Well if the question is whether everyone should have access, that's a no brainer. You were asking about everyone having pages that all loaded at the same rate. That's internet socialism.jillian said:Different. The internet is supposed to give us access to ALL information, not just well-funded information. If companies or political parties want to take out ads, they are free to, within FCC and FEC rules. Discouraging people from accessing information, no matter how unpopular, particularly when so many now get information from the internet would have major free speech implications.
The ClayTaurus said:Well if the question is whether everyone should have access, that's a no brainer. You were asking about everyone having pages that all loaded at the same rate. That's internet socialism.
The ClayTaurus said:Well if the question is whether everyone should have access, that's a no brainer. You were asking about everyone having pages that all loaded at the same rate. That's internet socialism.
The internet is one giant advertisement. Everyone is trying to get their message out. Everyone has the ACCESS to advertise however they want. That doesn't mean everyone should get their own 30 second spot during the superbowl.
jillian said:No. That's free flow of information. Do you think the NY Times should load faster than, say, The NY Post simply because a particular provider approves more of the things the post says? Or should CNN's site load faster than FoxNews if the provider doesn't like Fox? Or WaPo? Or any other information source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutralityThe term Network neutrality is a term coined by Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu to support a theory of network regulation rejecting the traditional open-access theory. According to Wu's view, the Internet is not a neutral network, having evolved to give data applications preference over those that require low latency and low jitter, such as voice and video: In a universe of applications, that includes both latency-sensitive and insensitive applications, it is difficult to regard the IP suite as truly neutral as among all applications.
Wu states that regulations on Internet access networks must allow broadband operators to make reasonable tradeoffs between the requirements of different applications, but regulators should carefully scrutinize network operator behavior where local networks interconnect. See Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination in the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2005, for more information on Wu's theory.
Law professor Susan Crawford, on the other hand, proposes open access (or unbundling) as a means of promoting network neutrality. Crawford defines net neutrality differently from Wu, insisting that networks should not recognize diverse application needs but rather provide only the transport service appropriate to the careful file transfer that was defined in the early 1970's as the Internet's canonical application. According to Crawford's view, bits are bits and accurate timing of packet delivery is a form of anti-competitive discrimination that ultimately leads to corporate control of the public commons. Crawford argues that networking is a commodity, like electricity, best provided by the government.
Sorry, I'm with ya...Overall I think it's a fight for control of content by the telcoms bases on the Bottom line. Ya get what they get payed for or allow. That's my understanding anyway.rtwngAvngr said:Now I'm confused again, thanks p. ya bastard.
Mr. P said:Sorry, I'm with ya...Overall I think it's a fight for control of content by the telcoms bases on the Bottom line. Ya get what they get payed for or allow. That's my understanding anyway.
dilloduck said:Free market vs government controls ?
rtwngAvngr said:Or is it corporate control vs. governement control. Neither seem good.
We won't have one without the other. Corps get it, then Gov will regulate them (it).rtwngAvngr said:Or is it corporate control vs. governement control. Neither seem good.
