"Net Neutrality Is What We ALL Already Have!" Senator Al Franken pt.1

[Budvb]

Net Neutrality is a joke and a not needed law, it's more about allowing the control of the internet to the largest corporations. It opens the doorway for these Big companies to destroy the competition. Government should just leave it alone, before they break the internet next like they do everything else they have great Ideas about. It's all about Power and GReed to them as it always has been.

[particle409]

@Budvb We already have net neutrality. That's what forces ISP's to provide all internet traffic to you. If we drop it, then the ISP's will only provide what they want. In other words, if you're ISP hasn't made an expensive deal with YouTube, you won't have access to it. If you're a small business that relies on a website to do business, too bad. You'll have to pay every ISP a ton of money if you want customers to be able to view your site.

[Budvb]

@particle409 So what keeps me doing it then, why do you put all your faith in one person or party or business. I don't think you know how information travels over the lines of the internet. The servers are what send the information over these lines, small frequency bursts that your computer deciphers and turns into an image on your screen.

Your Fear is what makes you think the Government needs to take care of it's citizens as if We The People are too ignorant to do it ourselves together.

[fab006]

So if this is a free speech issue, does this now mean that SNL not airing a skit I've made is, too? No, of course not. Free speech doesn't mean someone else is obligated to publish my speech.

[SloterMFmeyer]

Telling providers what to do is called 'neutrality.' Newspeak in optima forma. If I don't like my provider, I'll go to another or start my own. The government doesn't have anything to do with that.

[artisanrox]

Minnesota is so darn lucky to have Al as their rep. :o)

[vavan100]

but terrorists use internetz.omg nooo

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival Contd. I'm actually quite interested in finding out what it is you have to say about those services specifically that warrants the fragmentation of the Internet into a multi-tier network were only rich corporations can have a voice. So please instead of saying that I'm shilling for a government in a country that I dont live in and haven't visited, present an argument...

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival In what way am I a shill? Who am I shilling for given that I am not even a resident of your country. Anyone looking at what you just said can draw a simple conclusion. That you don't understand what's being discussed or, at the very least can't elaborate further on your position which weakens your argument. You haven't actually given reasons why cloud services and/or Metropolitan Area Networks are reasons for ending Net Neutrality, until you do nothing you say makes sense. TBC

[BottleConcreteBlond]

@finitekosmos Corporations are international.

[zombiecatz]

What is he speaking against?

[IronRangeSurvival]

It's "internet2" for ultimate tie ins to M.A.N.S. and "cloud based" systems....and the RepublCONS and DemTURDS- like Franken puppet want it.

HOPE in one hand, BUSH in the other, CHANGE of nothing......B.S.

[finitekosmos]

@Thayer79 - I hate to tell you this but consumer protection is Regulation. Destroying Net Neutrality will create the system you have described in your post. It will create an internet were the largest sites/corporations with the deepest pockets will purchase all the prioritised high bandwidth capacity leaving none for anyone else. Understand that Net Neutrality will treat your connection exactly the same as anyone else's connection, this is the way it is now.

[Thayer79]

We don't need sweeping legislation from a BOUGHT govern. creating "Net-neutral" legislation for the highest bidder. We just need consumer protections to ensure that they don't give better service to those who can afford it at OUR expense. I actually want companies to make good money off the net, so they can improve an already awesome thing. So long as they don't screw us over in the process. We need more consumer protection and less, usually bias, regulation.

[artisanrox]

@Thayer79: Did you even watch the video???

Consumer protection = net neutrality. NOT allowing the Internet to remain neutral will destroy consumers' ability to choose the services and information they want.

[Thayer79]

@artisanrox Do you even understand the debate?

It also prevents companies from offering higher speeds and better services for those willing to pay for it. My argument is that they shouldn't be able to slow down other sites and content, but they SHOULD be able to increase it for those willing to pay. You do realize that there IS a infrastructure to the internet? Not only is maintenance necessary, but they also need the ability to build up that infrastructure to allow for future traffic increases

[MauryCoDem]

@Thayer79 " they also need the ability to build up that infrastructure to allow for future traffic increases." Isn't that what profit is for?

[Thayer79]

@MauryCoDem Yes. And maybe you could make the argument that they make enough profit to that, but I don't think they are making enough to help with the kind of R&D needed for best lines and cables they could have. I personally am excited to see how the internet could become better. How fast it can become, but they MAY be doing just enough to keep up with user growth. I'm not sure. I just want to know that they have all the resources available to make it better and don't hurt us in the process.

[Thayer79]

@artisanrox The consumer protection part would ONLY prevent them from slowing down and attacking competition and the people using the internet, but wouldn't touch their ability to offer an increase to those willing to pay. Which is how competition SHOULD work.

[fab006]

@Thayer79 Excuse me? At your expense? Tax dollars you mean? Oh, I guess not, but then I'm not sure what exactly you do mean. Why on earth should anybody not be allowed to offer better service for better payment (or conversely, to offer better payment for better service"?!

[Thayer79]

@fab006 I'm not sure what you're asking, because I didn't say anything about tax dollars. If you read my other comments that was my point. The net neutrality legislation in place forces the companies to treat ALL data the same. That unfortunately means they can't offer better service for higher prices as well. Meaning a big corporation can't pay higher prices for higher speeds, as well as not slowing other sites and services down. The latter is consumer protection, the former blanket regulation.

[fab006]

@Thayer79 You were the one that was talking about "at our expense". I pointed out that this is only true if you're talking about tax dollars - but as you yourself insist, that's not what you're talking about.

I'm also not sure how you justify this so-called consumer protection. Does this apply to newspapers, too? Should they have to treat all articles the same? And if not, why the double standard?

[finitekosmos]

Net Neutrality must be maintained to ensure the proper function of the internet. If communications companies get their way you will find yourself presented with an extraordinarily fragmented network with peering agreements that will see data transfer rates sped up or slowed down depending on the agreements signed and money spent on those agreements with web companies or even users. Applciations and services could simply be throttled out of existence unless Net Neutrality is maintained.

[bbhihoney]

Let's give a cheer for YouTube!

[ChatsworthATVRentals]

No more laws, no more regulations.  There are already over 3 million federal laws, it's time to downsize.

[mariomoose]

All data created equal!! Down with data prejudice!!

[dragonflychainsaw]

i agree

[lestliness]

Net neutrality is almost the same as saying that you can't deny service to someone based on race. Instead of race it's content. If you're an ISP you can't just decide that somebody else's content is more important than yours. That's it... it doesn't give the government a new license to censor the web. They're not taking it over. They only reason republicans want to end net neutrality is because AT&T and comcast have them on the payroll.

[screwopenborders]

@lestliness right on, I think the right is playing the worst kinds of political games with this issue....wonder whos pockets they're into.

[Madfoot713]

@lestliness Don't forget the exceptions for torrenting and wikileaks. Jesus fucking christ guys, don't give the FCC more power.

[lestliness]

@Madfoot713 You do know that it's the corporations that dismantled wikileaks right? Took away the ability to fund themselves... the government did not force them to do that. Comcast tried to block bit torrent and got spanked by the FCC for doing so... That being said, you're right.. the FCC rules are not ideal... but it's better than the former.

[Madfoot713]

@lestliness You're right, Hilary Clinton just loved wikileaks

[Madfoot713]

@lestliness By the way, there's still ways to donate to wikileaks, including bitcoins for example. That's the free market for you

[fab006]

@lestliness So first they say it's about race, and smear you as a racist if you point out it's none of the government's business. Then they use that precedent to say you are not allowed to refrain from supporting materially opinions you don't agree with, and smear you as anti-free speech if you point out this means I have to support things I don't like. And now I'm supposed to believe that they won't slide down the slope further? Based on that kind of a track record?

[dragonflychainsaw]

what i can't understand is the lower class republicans that just keep going on and voting for crap and politicians that will hurt them in the long run and turn around and try to blame it all on democrats

[uche007us]

@dragonflychainsaw what I cant understand is seeing well meaning, hardworking folks voting 4 establishment democrats(or republican) and then they turn around and put them and their children in debt by bailing out banks/big corporation and fighting(or continue) wars for big oil.

If you are a true dem, you would have voted for Kucinich or stayed home, but its not an easy thing to do. I voted for Obama thinking he would atleast cut defense spending and end the wars but I was burned

[sintruder]

When giant corporations say it's a good idea & it will improve competition we should listen because why would they lie

[lestliness]

@sintruder Well you didn't hear the other side, AT&T and comcast want to destroy net neutrality.

[tooltalk]

@lestliness : bullshit.. The FCC is already more or less controlled by AT&T. Tim Wu, a proponent of Net Neutrality, came out whining about the AT&T's influence in new neutrality regulation on WNYC a while back, as free-market economists have so long warned about. Large powerful / influential corporations like AT&T have nothing to lose from more gov't regulation precisely b/c they control both parties. It only increases the barrier of entry for smaller / startups to complete in the same space.

[tooltalk]

@lestliness : it's a pure liberal bullshit / propaganda that corporations are against regulation in general.

[xadam2dudex]

I see the right wingers are at it again ..they have no idea what they are talking about.. they are always doing whatever the elite tell them to do and think even when it is against their own interest..how stupid are these people like Aryaba and uche007us

[uche007us]

@xadam2dudex Its not easy for u to understand but for me, when the same farmer who keep bringing me tainted food and then tries to convince me that this time, the food is good, I will not believe him.

Franken voted for the Patriot act, the Monsanto food bill amongst so many other henious bills that I cannot remember and Cox(my ISP) on the other hand has given me so far free flowing bytes to surf any website i choose.

[vinmorin]

Google instead bought YouTube. Problem solved. That's the story of the big getting bigger and small staying small.

[lestliness]

@vinmorin But the free and open internet allowed a small startup make a better product than google video. That's the dream isn't it? Build a better a better product, get people using it and let somebody like google buy it....

Otherwise we would still be using google video and it would probably be the same crappy expierence as before.

[RedSkiesAwaitUs]

If these assholes had thei way, our internet would be as censored as Chinas, and we'd pay by the byte,,, Fucking greedy bastards. The Internet is in my opinion is humanities greatest achievement and the key humanities salvation.. Censorship will only set us back not only as a country, but as a species..

[myhipsi]

"Net Neutrality is a simple concept. It's the idea that all content and applications on the internet should be treated the same, regardless of who owns the content or the website. This is not a radical idea, it certainly isn't a new one. You may not realize it, but NN is the foundation and core of how the internet opperates every day."

Ok, so then why in the hell do we need to legislate rules for it, and get the FCC's grubby hands all over it? Everything the government touches, it ruins.

[1140Cecile]

@myhipsi Because the ISPs want to make more money by charging websites for the speed at which they are uploaded to your computer. Those who pay the most will have their sites uploaded at the fastest speeds whereas, at the moment, no such priorities are allowed...net neutrality. At present, sites are presented in search engines according to their popularity...a democratic process. Getting rid of net neutrality changes the game to a corporatocratic system where "he who pays...says".

[myhipsi]

@1140Cecile

This already exists for consumers. I pay a premium for a 70mb connection, whereas my neighbor pays less than half for a 10mb connection. How is this different than charging websites different rates for different speeds?

Sites on search are presented by relevance because that's what customers want. But companies pay google to put their website at the top of the page all the time.

Why shouldn't I have a better connection to the internet if I'm willing to pay more for it?

[lestliness]

@myhipsi You're talking bandwidth and that's totally fine... in fact i'm in a small start up that delivers video content and we have to pay a lot to support our bandwidth... What net neutrality says is that ISPs can't prioritize or block certain content deliberately. Let's say I want to build a site that slams time warner... w/o net neutrality time warner can suppress my site to those who are trying to access it. That's it.. net neutrality is simple.. ISPs may not discriminate on content.

[TheEmptyHunter]

@myhipsi Because companies like comcast and verizon want to change that system and make it so that content providers who pay more or are owned by the ISP are given a higher bandwidth priority than other traffic. This would in effect mean that websites would have to pay to get reliable speed, websites like youtube, et al, wouldn't exist due to the prohibitive cost of providing the service and paying ISP's for the same bandwidth they receive now. Skype could be banned, etc.

[jjrglobal]

@TheEmptyHunter

Well when that shit starts happening , THEN we can get the FCC involved, which will be never because the free market and competition keeps it from happening.

[TheEmptyHunter]

@jjrglobal The FCC regulations suck anyway. They colluded with telco's to write laws that say wired internet connections must be neutral but wireless is okay to shape. The majority of people in the future will access the internet wirelessly so they're screwed. Also, it was already starting to happen, comcast was throttling bittorrent traffic, and many telcos were banning VOIP traffic because it undercuts the expensive telephone services they offer. So you're wrong an almost all counts.

[jjrglobal]

@ReignbowSmite

Corporations are allowed to do that now without the FCC, so why aren't they?

[1140Cecile]

Has anyone else noticed the sudden proliferation of conservative commenters all over any YouTube pages dealing with political questions? The Koch Bros. must have hired banks of people to inundate the internet with conservative messaging in order to make it appear that many of the 99% are actually against the 99%.

Some advice for you Koch employees: Don't be so obvious! At this point, you should be saying that, while you agree in principle with the Occupy movement, that it's going to far, etc.

[uche007us]

@1140Cecile We have a Goldman sach, JP Morgan employee pushing net neutrality. See how stupid that sounds? Is it so hard to believe that there are still a bunch of people in the US so cynical of govt intentions that they oppose govt interferrence on the internet? or do they have to all be Koch employees?

We like the internet as it is now and want to keep it that way. No changes until it is absolutely necessary.

[ewigkase1]

who is the retard who thumbs down? apparently they don't like being able to watch youtube

[fab006]

@ewigkase1 Because ISPs would pick a fight with Google. Riiiiight XD

[TheEmptyHunter]

@fab006 It would be a pretty easy fight for them to win seeing as the ISPs control the network that brings Google their customers. Google would be done if the ISPs decided to flick the switch blocking traffic to Google.

[fab006]

@TheEmptyHunter Hahaha, what a fantasy world you live in. You seriously believe that the minute one ISP picked a fight with Google, others wouldn't rush to profit by allying themselves with the big evil corporation Google? :)

[jawayetti]

How out of touch are you people that the vast majority of you have no clue what Net Neutrality is? Holy fucking shit, people. You complain about things not being fair and then you people pull this ignorant shit?

Your ignorance is killing us.

[deathzeppelin84]

@jawayetti You talk to a collection of millions of individuals as if they were a single entity...that is the element of society that is killing us, the sort of ignorance that undermines how unique and varied each individual's understanding is..if we have lost the ability to empathize with each other then what is the point in cooperation at any level? any amount of cooperation or control s doomed to failure unless there is a sincere value for individual human life

[Urgearhead]

He is Painful to listen to, God....

[deathzeppelin84]

I didn't know what net neutrality was before I watched this speech.. and I still don't know what it is after the speech. Long winded explanation is long winded and confusing.

[seeqr9]

Are u guys serious? u believe this guy that these BIG BANK "EXPERTS" & BIG CORPORATIONS "EXPERTS" are fighting for the little guy? If they support it its cuz itll block our competition w them! If u fall 4 this crap after everything he said u deserve what u get. ill take my FREEDOM TYVM!

[seeqr9]

we take for granted that it rains, that plants grow, that the sun rises. Better make a law before someone takes it away! No thanks I rather deal with regular greedy corporations than corrupt Gov N Greedy Corps. in bed 2gether. All the things he said is a testament to FREE Market capitalism! Not Gov protectionism! Slippery slope people..good intentions n a fancy name is not what we need. LOL if these BIg Corps support it u kno its bad. They like it cuz itll block competition.

[ericzum]

I love Al Franken.

[newdimensionfilms]

The worst joke of all is that a comedian is the most serious senator in the capitol.

[cooperbry]

@newdimensionfilms That's funny...

[uche007us]

@newdimensionfilms lol, u must be fricken kidding me right. Oh yea, he clown comes with evidence from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and lets not forget the giant corp google and the ever censoring youtube. He and the republican who still act like they care about the constitution is the problem with this country.

[PompousPreacher]

Just call net neutrality "liberal fascism" or scream "SOCIALISM!!!" and the right-wingers will be dead-set against it. After all, the right-wingers don't want "big government" on their backs!!!

[ShatterNWO]

@PompousPreacher It is liberal fascism, why give the FCC more power over the internet? They've already censored TV and Radio to death.

[jmjfanss]

Fuck this puppet and the rest of the two party dictatorship.

[collector842002]

franken sounds like a sleasy salesman who works for all those companies he mentions

[uche007us]

I like how he emphasizes the word "republican" like it makes any damn difference. We are on to you Franken

[jawayetti]

@uche007us Yeah! You call him out for calling out obstructionists! You go, you!

[uche007us]

@jawayetti And who exactly is the obstructionist that you are so afraid of? I bet its the same one who have maintained "net neutrality" without any regulations.

Liberals always ridicule libertarians when they call for no govt regulations, they ask so who will regulate the food you eat, the water you drink, the internet you use? We can now see that a company as dangerous as comcast regulates itself without govt instructing it to do so.

Competition for $ is one hell of a regulator :)

[godshiva]

@uche007us On to him? The Republicans are voting like a homogenous glob - the least he can do is call them on their hypocrisy.

[screwopenborders]

I can't believe how ignorant the right is on this issue. They don't even know what the law says but they parrot things like "net neutrality is going to kill freedom of speech put in more regulations". So damn ignorant, go read the law!

[Aryaba]

To paraphrase Senator Franken: "The big guys just want to protect the little guys." LOL, yeah right. Mr. Franken, I can only conclude that you are on the take.

[jawayetti]

@Aryaba On the take from who? His constituents? Your argument makes no sense.

[Aryaba]

@jawayetti If he truly thinks the big guys just want to protect the little guys he is either delusional or on the take.

[Kohox]

If internet providers start destroying net neutrality I'll take that opportunity to start up "Net Neutral", a start up internet providing company dedicated to providing equal access to its customers. Bye bye competition

[teddyinajapan]

"Sen. for Minnesota is recognized"

"HUH???"

Good Job Al

[Livingvibe2]

Yeah but Google is turning YouTube to an online T.V. network they don't want it to be a " Video Sharing" Site.

[callouschristian]

Hey, Mox!! Good to see ya back!! Hope you gave your Mom Lots of hugs, you bad son......;)

[jjrglobal]

If what he says is true then why do we need more Federal rules or regulations?

[SeppLainer]

@jjrglobal

we don't...

[screwopenborders]

@jjrglobal You're not getting more, thats a mis conception and people are falling for double speak. I can't believe how many people have voices on this issue but remain ignorant to the law which has been in place for a long time.

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders How is government intervention not by definition more regulation? It's so dishonest.

[screwopenborders]

Regulations are fine if they are saying KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF and thats what Net Neutrality does, what you are doing is double speak and its intellectually dishonest.

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders But they're saying to government, put your filthy hands on.

[screwopenborders]

@Madfoot713 the government isn't putting their hands on anything by telling corporations to not touch the internet. you guys get rid of net neutrality watch whats going to happen. you guys on the right are wrong about this one.

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders Oh really, then how are they going to enforce it.

[screwopenborders]

@Madfoot713 if you are telling someone to keep their hands off something you don't need to enforce it....Like I said its been their for years, have you been sleeping and don't realize that Net Neutrality is the thing that's been keeping companies hands off of bandwidth control over websites and users? READ UP SON!

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders I don't see it as anything other than another powergrab by the fed.

[screwopenborders]

@Madfoot713 then your mad foot must be doing the thinking for you. maybe have it cut off.

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders I'll just blindly trust the government then?

[screwopenborders]

@Madfoot713 who said we blindly trust the goverment, have you even bothered to read the law or are you just a troll talking out of your ass?

[Madfoot713]

@screwopenborders Net neutraility isn't a single law.

[steelhamster]

@jjrglobal ... because we have seen what happens when corporations and others have absolutely no rules or regulations. Tim Berners-Lee and his contemporaries, gave away their invention, so everyone could use it. Do you really want corporations do decide which website you watch?

[lestliness]

@jjrglobal Same reason we need a first amendment. Shall we kill the first amendment and say that we don't need it because we already have free speech? No we have it there so it's clear to the government they can't infringe that right. But here's a better way to look at it... suppose GM wanted to buy all the roads in America and say okay, you can drive on these roads but it has to be in a GM product.... that's what would happen if we lose net neutrality.

[uche007us]

@lestliness You dont seem to understand the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is to protect us from the govt and not a protection against corporations. This is the reason FoX news or MSNBC can turn off your mic when u try to expose this fraudulent system we call democracy.

And to your GM scenario, ofc they can do it but who would still be able to buy a GM car after they have spent the money buying up and building all the roads in the US. I have a better chance of banging Heidi than it happenin

[lestliness]

It's an analogy.. corporations can't deny our free speech... yes if you work for them they can fire you... but you still have a right to say what you want. Correct? They can't put you in jail and so on... I admit it was a bit of a stretch...but anyway....Net neutrality says corporations can't bottle neck the internet.. that's all it is. It's nothing more and companies like AT&T have already expressed that they would love to kill net neutrality.. Do you real want that?

[newdimensionfilms]

@jjrglobal

We don't need more, we just need to make sure the ones we have aren't taken away.

[jjrglobal]

@newdimensionfilms

Correct me if Im wrong but the FCC isn't involved in regulating the net in any way and the bill that the Dems are pushing would give them regulatory authority over the internet.

[lestliness]

@jjrglobal Net neutrality is not regulation... any more than the civil rights amendments are regulation.. (I know I know that you can create and argument here) But for simplicity sake net neutrality says one simple thing... it says

Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.. that's it.. nothing more... ISPs have have a bit of conflict of interest.. they can create & deliver content and crush competitors w/o net neutrality.

[newdimensionfilms]

@jjrglobal

Current FCC regulations which prevent an ISP from blocking access to legal content are under siege from republicans and lobbying efforts from big ISPs. This law would make sure that stays in place as well as prevent ISPs from prioritizing some data over others. For example if your ISP wants you to use video website X then video website X gets a fast connection and video website Y gets a slow connection.

[jjrglobal]

@newdimensionfilms

Why do we need a law to "make sure everything stays in place"?

[newdimensionfilms]

@jjrglobal

Because the way the internet has been from it's inception was intended to be by the people who made it, and needs to be to continue to be innovative is under threat by corporate interests and right wing groups. You know, if you actually watched the whole speech, you should know this.

[jjrglobal]

@newdimensionfilms

Lets put it this way, I trust my ISP a whole helluva lot more than I trust government. Ask the Australians how their net neutrality is working for them, since they gave the government control.

[newdimensionfilms]

@jjrglobal

"I trust my ISP a whole helluva lot more than I trust government."

With net neutrality, you don't have to trust either. The law says that ISPs can't discriminate between websites, it doesn't give the government the power to do it. The law against rape does not mean that the government is given the right to rape you.

[fdub301]

@jjrglobal he's not pushing for more rules, just to keep things the same

[jjrglobal]

@fdub301

Wrong! the FCC is trying to impose rules on ISP's and the Republicans are trying to block the FCC from doing so.

[finitekosmos]

@jjrglobal They are trying to preserve Net Neutrality. This is a good thing, if Net Neutrality ends you will find that your ability to access some web sites will become severely restricted if not actively prevented. Net Neutrality prevents communications companies from doing this. If Net Neutrality disappears, any communications company can throttle any web service it dislikes, or does not pay vast sums of money to it out of existence. TBC

[IronRangeSurvival]

@finitekosmos You OBVIOUSLY haven't read any of it....STFU and stop spreading dis-info asshole.

The least anyone could do is watch the FCC planning/hearings on it last YR....jeez you fucking 2party suckers are morons.

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival Really? Firstly Iron, I'm interested in having a debate, not a swearing match. Secondly I'm not an American citizen I'm an Australian but, despite this we are subject to changes to the current status quo with respect to Inernet Traffic as many of the interconnect termination points for this country lie in yours. I work in technology, Data/application neutral networking is exactly the way in which Internet access should be presented. I am a supporter of that. TBC.

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival Contd. I have also made it pretty clear that I am against permitting communications corporations to have a free hand when it comes to restricting data and network traffic to web sites/services oor via applications protocols or even switching layers. So, what are you a proponent of? Personally I would favour non-interference in networks by either telecoms companies or government beyond maintenance or upgrade/infrastructure investments..

[IronRangeSurvival]

@finitekosmos I am sure you are for the M.A.N.S. and CLOUD systems too....you just said it all.

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival So how would removing net neutrality thereby fragmenting the Internet change in any way at all Cloud delivery of applications and storage? The principal consumers of Cloud services are corporations and they could afford to pay their way to meet their connectivity requirements in any scenario. The people who lose out in a fragmented net are everyday consumers. As it stands with my net connection I can host services access services and it all works without being throttled. TBC

[finitekosmos]

@IronRangeSurvival Contd. So how would enabling the kind of throttling and access restrictions benefit an individual?

[IronRangeSurvival]

@finitekosmos You a shill, moron, or both?

[finitekosmos]

@jjrglobal contd. You already pay for a connection that is rated to a certain bandwidth. Net Neutrality basically allows you to use your bandwidth to access any site at the full speed that you are capable of achieving. Without Net Neutrality your ability to access sites will be dictated by your ISP as it arbitrarily restricts access to certain internet sites irrespective of what you pay for at home. This will fundamentally fragment the internet in way that will harm competition and Net access.

[tooltalk]

@finitekosmos : interesting.. I had unlimited data access on iPhone until last month, but AT&T recently discontinued my data plan and switch over to something more expensive, datapro plan. Now, this has a lot to do with the fact that I was tethering on my jailbroken phone and I could see AT&T rationale for forcing the plan change (I was using 10+GB per month).

Now, we all know that AT&T has been in the FCC committee writing the rules and not surprisingly, as it turned out, my data access

[tooltalk]

@finitekosmos : is not protected by the Net Neutrality law. Furthermore despite AT&T's recent announcement that they would be throttling data access for those with high data usage, there wasn't much objection from the FCC or the proponents of Net Neutrality.

So it doesn't seem like to me this Net Neutrality thing is really about protecting consumer rights, but a kabuki theather for some special intersts (ie, Netflix/Comcast/L3) and proponents of big gov't regulation.

[IronRangeSurvival]

@jjrglobal fdu and finit..are shills, period. Nothing but disinfo and promoting for a fake "gov" hijacking of the internet for more systems of control, like MANS and the CLOUD systems.

[fdub301]

@jjrglobal there is one rule that the FCC has which is that internet providers cannot restrict or increase traffic to any website because someone pays them to do so. thats net neutrality in a nutshell & its been in place since the beginning of the internet. Republicans are trying to repeal that law, meaning that as i said in my first comment Franken's just trying to keep things the same.