Posted on 01/16/2014 3:02:33 PM PST by Dallas59
How would you like to have to pay a fee to be able to stream YouTube videos at full speed? What if you liked downloading music from, say, Last.fm or Soundcloud, but those sites suddenly became infinitely slower than bigger sites like Amazon or iTunes?
Those are the kind of major changes to the Internet some folks are envisioning after a federal court ruling this week on what's come to be called "net neutrality."
This stuff can get really confusing, with all the government jargon, Internet lingo and competing arguments mixed up in it.
But it's also really important and could rework the Web as we know it -- like allowing the hypothetical situations above become realities.
Here's a breakdown of what this week's ruling could mean to you.
What is "net neutrality?"
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Basically proponents want the net to be treated like a utility, like the sidewalk. You can’t block the sidewalk at some places just because that place couldn’t pay the same as others or more for access.
If it’s from CNN it’s got Mack Daddy spin all over it.
I’ve read elsewhere that it’s lobbyists for ISPs that have prevented the easiest solution to the net neutrality issue—declaring ISPs “common carriers,” similar to the legal rulings about freight trains back in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Start your own ISP then.
No company has done this, and there has been no evidence that they will or even want to.
But I guess we have to act like libs and cry for more government in order to save FR from being blocked by a so far unnamed ISP.
How will you know if FR gets throttled?
I don’t think the ISP will release a list of throttled sites, for obvious reasons.
This was a huge win for them and you can expect to see them start setting up toll booths in the near future.
Others will follow.
Sounds like people want more free chit and their ever loving big gubmint to make it ‘fair’.
I think this may hurt smartphones and their data plans most. Back to the 90s I guess.
For sure, VPN providers will take off. I use HMA(Hide My Ass).
Your traffic is encrypted from your computer to the VPN Site. Much more secure than a proxy service.
From the VPN Site to the final destination and back is untracable to your ISP. All they see is You to the VPN and back.
You can even make your Router the starting point giving your whole house access.
I used it last year when I was traveling a lot and found it to be excellent.
/sarc
The ruling is a DISASTER. Not only will it destroy the uniformity of the internet, sites (like this one) can end up being blocked.
There is nothing good about this ruling.
or if you press “skip ad” the video plays slower or something like that
If democrats and the New York Times have taken aposition, I’m on the OTHER side.
Liberals know how to lie so a person thinks what’s horrible is good. That’s who and what they are...
So, what’s the position of the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC on this issue?
If democrats and the New York Times have taken a
position, I’m on the OTHER side.
Liberals know how to lie so a person thinks what’s horrible is good. That’s who and what they are...
So, what’s the position of the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC on this issue?
And the big monopolys have your best interest in mind?
The arguement for net nuetrality:
I have 3 different high speed internet provideres in my area but rather than allow free market competition to keep companies from pulling shenanigans I want the government to get invovled and regulate becuase that always works out great.
If it starts, expect the wireless networks to be the first. That’s where bandwidth is really a precious commodity, and the freedom of choice to switch carriers is most limited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.