POLL: Net Neutrality

11

In response to the back and forth arguing that took place on several Net Neutrality related posts yesterday, we’ve created a poll to find out where fans of PRL really stand on the issue. After voting below, leave a message in the comments explaining the reasoning behind your choice.

  • Rimrunner

    I’m in favour of net neutrality because without it it will mean the end of low volume sites like PRL unless they can afford the premium payment the ISP’s will demand. It means that their download speeds will be reduced to “dial up” levels thus limiting their reach.

  • Rimrunner

    Maybe this will help you understand. Net neutrality has nothing to do with content, it’s all about download speed.
    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27327-net-neutrality-can-you-hear-us-now

  • Rimrunner

    Why net neutrality is needed
    http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

    • QwertyMcGibblets

      Thanks for posting this. It might help some people understand what’s going on.

  • Moondog99

    For those who say “It’s all about download speed”………my thoughts are “for now it may be.” That’s how it always starts……something that that seem innocuous then “let’s” add a little of this, and a little of that, and before you know it……regulatory nightmare. Once the Geenie’s out of the bottle……it’s out. This reminds me of the “we don’t want to take your guns” line of thinking……..

    • csmith71

      I was thinking along the lines of Harry Browne’s famous quote: “Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.'”

      Government created this problem in the first place by approving telecom monopolies. Now those monopolies are threatening to flex their power and the people are screaming for another government solution. The solution is to allow competition.

  • bob_h

    I’m all for net neutrality in concept, without it corporations will get to pick winners and losers. I am not in favor of the government getting involved because the government will get to pick winners and losers. All things being equal I think I’ll take my chances with the corporations because we can sway their decisions by spending our money with them or spend it somewhere else.

    • QwertyMcGibblets

      The more I watch the sci fi show Continuum, the more I fear corporations.

  • QwertyMcGibblets

    I will almost always be against government involvement in nearly everything, but this is something that needs to be addressed. Right now we are under local monopolies. Most cities have deals cut with one cable company or another giving consumers only one choice. Sure, you can say why not DSL? Because no one wants DSL. It’s slow, and the further away from the Central Office or local DSLAM you are, the slower it gets. Sadly, in the US cable is the only real provider unless you live in a limited part of the country lucky enough to have fiber to home/curb… but still, you are back to the situation of almost always having only one provider.

    Where I live, my options are Charter, Century Link DSL with a max speed of 5mpbs if I am in that goldilocks zone of lucky proximity to the DSLAM/CO… or if I really want, I can go with the good old fashion dialup. So I have up to 100mbps with Charter, 5mbps with the local phone company or a dial up provider at 56k. So while some will jump up and say FREE MARKET and YOU ALREADY HAVE COMPETITION…. in reality we don’t. It’s not like if I get fed up with Charter for Internet, I can ask Comcast, Time Warner, Cox etc to provide me with their service because my local government has already cut the deal with Charter for exclusivity rights.

    As pointed out in the Oatmeal comic (link provided by Rimrunner) Comcast and Verizon has already started playing throttling games by slowing down speeds to Netflix and other streaming providers who *gasp* offer competition to the services provided by Comcast. They then forced Netflix to pay them millions for a preferred status because Comcast claims they lack the capacity to provide high speed internet to every single one of their customers who want to watch Netflix.

    The US is one of the slowest 1st world countries in terms of provided bandwidth while at the same time being one of the most expensive to pay for the privilege. So if we are paying $50 – 100 a month for internet… why aren’t these multi-billion dollar companies upgrading their service and equipment to meet the needs of their customers? Probably because Comcast is milking it’s customers so they can buy more companies to limit the overall competition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast – that’s not including what they will own if the FCC foolishly lets them acquire Time Warner. Do you really REALLY want one company controlling that much of your media / information and internet?

    Throttling and forcing companies to pony up in the old days would have been called extortion.

  • kharaa

    The wording of your poll is heavy slanted. You don’t even want objectivity on this do you?

  • Braden Danyus

    Leave the internet alone.