Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B479 - Net Neutrality Bill (Second Reading)

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    No, servers rarely run at 100% speed. This includes backend servers, so my point still stands.
    Rarely? We should be so lucky. Customers of the >100MB service just can't reach the levels they are supposedly being sold. My broadband often buffers before the speed reaches anything close to the advertised maximum.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    You could argue though that this means more popular websites I.e with more traffic, run slower than less popular sites, thus disadvantaging the more popular sites?

    I'm no expert, so feel free to correct - I support this bill though.
    That is true. Internet companies that could afford to buy themselve higher speeds wont be allowed to. Everyone gets the same treatment from ISPs, which is how internet start-ups can easily compete with established websites (without having to pay massive costs). Facebook wouldnt exist if net neutrality was abolished 10 years ago, and if it was abolished now then Facebook wouldn't have to be as competitive to keep its customers. This intervention helps the market greatly.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Rarely? We should be so lucky. Customers of the >100MB service just can't reach the levels they are supposedly being sold. My broadband often buffers before the speed reaches anything close to the advertised maximum.
    Eh? I'm not disputing that. I'm merely saying that the backend servers of 100Mb (not MB, btw) also don't reach those speeds. Thus, my point about consumer broadband being comparable to backend servers is still valid.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    Probably still needs a small amendment to (1) to tackle teh France's concerns with regard to the legality of the content. Or would that not really matter?

    I'm still not sure what (3) has to do with the Bill. :erm: I wouldn't vote it down on that basis, though.
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    Probably still needs a small amendment to (1) to tackle teh France's concerns with regard to the legality of the content. Or would that not really matter?
    Yes because vagueness always works out in the prosecutions favour all the time :rolleyes:
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    "...founding principles of the web..."?

    The hell are they? For that reason alone, it's a no from me.
    • 29 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    "...founding principles of the web..."?

    The hell are they? For that reason alone, it's a no from me.
    Freedom of expression?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    "...founding principles of the web..."?

    The hell are they? For that reason alone, it's a no from me.
    That's a funny thing to say. Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web and he's the authority on what counts as a 'founding principle'. Read what he has to say in this article. As Alofleicester wisely points out, the web should not be subject to censorship from businesses. Facebook, Youtube, Google - none of them would have succeeded if net neutrality hadn't existed on the web since it was created by Mr Berners-Lee.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Freedom of expression?
    This is a principle of an invention? Besides, freedom of expression does not mean the 'freedom' to have people listen to you equally. You can express yourself as much as you want but forcing private organisations from taking care of their practical concerns for some vague notion of 'principles' is rather silly.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ysolt)
    That's a funny thing to say. Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web and he's the authority on what counts as a 'founding principle'. Read what he has to say in this article. As Alofleicester wisely points out, the web should not be subject to censorship from businesses. Facebook, Youtube, Google - none of them would have succeeded if net neutrality hadn't existed on the web since it was created by Mr Berners-Lee.
    So if Tesla wrote an article a hundred years ago about how he doesn't want to see any of his inventions used for military purposes because of 'principles', would anyone give a toss?
    • 29 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    This is a principle of an invention? Besides, freedom of expression does not mean the 'freedom' to have people listen to you equally. You can express yourself as much as you want but forcing private organisations from taking care of their practical concerns for some vague notion of 'principles' is rather silly.
    The principle behind the internet is freedom of expression - you allow providers to change the speeds provided based on the websites, and you're marginalising smaller websites, preventing their freedom to expression - since the freedom to expression ensures the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation. You slow the speeds that those sites can be accessed at based on what other sites want and you are limiting them.
    This doesn't force private companies to abandon practical concerns - it stops them from taking money from big sites like Facebook in order to provide faster speeds for those sites, and slower speeds for other sites. Ultimately that can be perverted by major sites to destroy their rival sites or censor sites they don't like. The internet should be a bastion of freedom of expression, set apart from corporate profiteering.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It may just be me being slow, but this bill baffles me somewhat.

    (3) Consumers are entitled to:
    (i) Access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
    (ii) Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
    (iii) Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
    (iv) Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

    i through to iii just means that this isn't really net neutrality because of the ever changing definition on what is actually illegal. All this is really doing is stopping service providers censoring the internet, whilst the government retains this ability. The debate surrounding net neutrality is one surrounding censoring the internet as a whole, such as the government blocking thepiratebay. I am aware that campaigners also argue against ISPs providing better speeds to preferred or pre approved websites, but that goes hand in hand with the government, afterall, the discourse regarding downloading usually revolves around reduced capital that companies receive despite the fact that box office figures have risen as expected over the years (or the arctic monkeys shooting straight to number one when their first album was released, despite everyone already having downloaded it). When the governments already in the hands of the private sphere, this is a rather moot bill. You would do better to limit censoring the internet to those facilitating actual crimes, copyright theft would still be covered, just as lending out one of your DVDs is technically against the law (as would child pornography, because online traders typically pay, or make money from advertising), but why does the internet need special protectionism? You dont see the government subsidising security tags for electrical stores or creating special laws that only apply in electrical stores, so the debate around SOPA and PIPA constantly baffles me.

    Is there anything that actually calls for the necessity for this bill? Are some service providers actually providing better speeds to preferred websites?
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To those who don't really understand the issue, or don't care. I'll give you an example.
    You have internet with Virgin Media. Yet you have your TV contract with Sky. You would like to use the Sky Go website to watch live TV over your internet connection. Because Sky are a competitor to Virgin Media, Virgin could theoretically block or slow down traffic to the Sky Go website so you cannot use that service. How exactly is that fair or right?

    There's a graphic that quite a lot of people probably have seen, that is a bit of a joke about charging different amounts based on what website you want to visit. I'll try to find it. Is that really what you want? Oh no sorry, you can't access YouTube unless you pay us an extra £10 a month. Oh, now you want to watch iPlayer? Sorry, an extra £10 a month on top. Etc etc.

    The passing of data over the internet without hindrance is the main point of the internet. If we don't protect that, then there is the chance of ending up in a very dark place.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    So if Tesla wrote an article a hundred years ago about how he doesn't want to see any of his inventions used for military purposes because of 'principles', would anyone give a toss?
    That would be a moral principle (which should nonetheless be respected). The one about WWW is not moral. There are good practical reasons for keeping it. As I said, it increases competitition and actually allows for the internet to grow like it has - Facebook, Youtube, Google: all needed net neutrality to enter the market.

    And Im glad you recognise it is a founding principle even if you now don't agree with keeping founding principles.

    (Original post by D.R.E)
    This is a principle of an invention? Besides, freedom of expression does not mean the 'freedom' to have people listen to you equally. You can express yourself as much as you want but forcing private organisations from taking care of their practical concerns for some vague notion of 'principles' is rather silly.
    Who wants that? What we want is for people to have an equal platform to speak from.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    To those who don't really understand the issue, or don't care. I'll give you an example.
    You have internet with Virgin Media. Yet you have your TV contract with Sky. You would like to use the Sky Go website to watch live TV over your internet connection. Because Sky are a competitor to Virgin Media, Virgin could theoretically block or slow down traffic to the Sky Go website so you cannot use that service. How exactly is that fair or right?

    There's a graphic that quite a lot of people probably have seen, that is a bit of a joke about charging different amounts based on what website you want to visit. I'll try to find it. Is that really what you want? Oh no sorry, you can't access YouTube unless you pay us an extra £10 a month. Oh, now you want to watch iPlayer? Sorry, an extra £10 a month on top. Etc etc.

    The passing of data over the internet without hindrance is the main point of the internet. If we don't protect that, then there is the chance of ending up in a very dark place.
    How is that different from it currently being impossible to watch Virgin TV with a Sky connection because the TV goes over a Virgin proprietary cable?

    The bottom line is that unless there's a justifiable reason to not provide a certain service, you're just handing business to your more permissive rivals.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    It may just be me being slow, but this bill baffles me somewhat.

    (3) Consumers are entitled to:
    (i) Access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
    (ii) Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
    (iii) Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
    (iv) Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

    i through to iii just means that this isn't really net neutrality because of the ever changing definition on what is actually illegal. All this is really doing is stopping service providers censoring the internet, whilst the government retains this ability. The debate surrounding net neutrality is one surrounding censoring the internet as a whole, such as the government blocking thepiratebay. I am aware that campaigners also argue against ISPs providing better speeds to preferred or pre approved websites, but that goes hand in hand with the government, afterall, the discourse regarding downloading usually revolves around reduced capital that companies receive despite the fact that box office figures have risen as expected over the years (or the arctic monkeys shooting straight to number one when their first album was released, despite everyone already having downloaded it). When the governments already in the hands of the private sphere, this is a rather moot bill. You would do better to limit censoring the internet to those facilitating actual crimes, copyright theft would still be covered, just as lending out one of your DVDs is technically against the law (as would child pornography, because online traders typically pay, or make money from advertising), but why does the internet need special protectionism? You dont see the government subsidising security tags for electrical stores or creating special laws that only apply in electrical stores, so the debate around SOPA and PIPA constantly baffles me.

    Is there anything that actually calls for the necessity for this bill? Are some service providers actually providing better speeds to preferred websites?
    I wanted to rep this, but PRSOM.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I wanted to rep this, but PRSOM.
    Thanks, although it baffles me that you have repped me before :p:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Thanks, although it baffles me that you have repped me before :p:
    I've done so a few times, I think.

    This was the last: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...8#post38397908
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I've done so a few times, I think.

    This was the last: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...8#post38397908
    :rofl: I can be brutal when i am angry

    ...thankfully i dont get angry often.

    Thanks. I find it quite surprising that a righty (yes i am ignoring your usertitle...anarcho capitalism is not lefty) reps me because most of my thinking has a rather ingrained leftist mentality. I was thinking about this the other day actually, and i realised i had no right wing friends, whether that is because i scare them with my extremism or just degrade their politics too much is a whole other question.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
Updated: August 20, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.