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.
Net Neutrality would require that content providers give equal access to everyone. In other words, if you spent millions of dollars in setting up a site, and wanted to stream your content for free, and I popped in with high resolution video that chocked your servers saying that you are evil and no one should acknowledge your existence, you would not be able to force me, or the people who prefer what I have to say, to pay for the extra bandwidth we are using.
Tell me again why this is a good idea.
Most individuals will not be affected by this yet. I just do not watch enough Netflix to qualify for paying extra.
The problem comes when I fire up a website. Lets call it "MarcTube". If it gets very popular I have to pay out the butt for bandwidth.
It is opposite the way electricity works. It is not the way the internet was made great though. Sometimes to create something we have to bite the bullet. To create a nearly free internet where Iranian students can post videos from their cell phones we need this system.
Net Neutrality. What a ridiculous name though. I can't even keep straight what it means.
Most individuals will not be affected by this yet. I just do not watch enough Netflix to qualify for paying extra.
The problem comes when I fire up a website. Lets call it "MarcTube". If it gets very popular I have to pay out the butt for bandwidth.
Do you know where the internet came from?The government needs to keep its claws off the Internet. Everything they touch they fuck up.
Do you know where the internet came from?The government needs to keep its claws off the Internet. Everything they touch they fuck up.
Yes, Al Gore invented it.
But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.
...
The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled "equal access." As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: "It's our Net."
But it isn't.
The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity--or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.
The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others--but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.
It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks--in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.
...
Do you know where the internet came from?
Yes, Al Gore invented it.
But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.
The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.
Yes, Al Gore invented it.
But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.
The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.
no frankly it hasn't, unless your idea of 'net neutrality' is way off ours.
Today's meeting is the first in a series of focused discussions, with ITI serving as facilitator, aimed at developing Internet openness principles that can achieve broad cross-sector support," said Dean Garfield, president of ITI, in a statement. "Over the last few months, much work has been directed at developing such a solutionincluding by Googlewith significant positive steps forward."
Similar negotiations fell apart earlier this month at the FCC after Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. announced their own legislative proposal for giving the FCC authority to be Internet traffic cop. The companies' proposal dealt with the issue of "net neutrality," a shorthand for the principle that broadband providers shouldn't deliberately slow or block legal Internet traffic.
The companies were criticized by some for their proposal, which wouldn't apply net neutrality rules to fast-growing wireless networks.
The proposal also would have given Internet providers wide latitude to create priority lanes of Internet traffic for companies who pay for priority delivery service.
Google isn't involved in the current closed-door negotiations, a spokeswoman confirmed. "We took our best shot at a constructive proposal. This is an important issue and we support any attempt to move the ball forward," she said.
FCC officials also aren't actively involved. "While we're not involved in these new discussions, we're glad that there is ongoing dialogue," a FCC spokeswoman said in a statement.
Along with Cisco and Microsoft, the current negotiations include representatives from AT&T Inc., Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable companies.
Spokespeople of the companies didn't immediately return calls about their involvement in the negotiations.
The Information Technology Industry Council, which is hosting the talks, represents Dell Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Microsoft Corp., among other companies.
Phone and cable companies have been trying to reach an industry compromise on the issue of net neutrality in hopes of preventing the FCC from moving forward with a proposal for re-regulating Internet lines so the agency can enforce net neutrality rules.
Telecommunications companies say re-regulating Internet lines under rules designed for old phone networks will discourage new investments in wireless or Internet lines. Internet companies and public interest groups want the FCC to have clear authority to enforce net neutrality rules to prevent broadband providers from deliberately favoring some traffic over others.
rest at-
Lobbyists Resume Talks Over Net Neutrality - WSJ.com