I'm sure this would get me beaten up in GD, but I honestly don't know what net neutrality is.

[Critters2]

If I admit beforehand that I'm too stupid to live, would someone explain it to me?

Thanks!

[XemaSab]

1. Don't ask me

:hi:

[Critters2]

2. So, nothing to do with water, huh?

:hi:

[XemaSab]

3. It might have something to do with water

Like I said, I don't know. :shrug::hi:

[Critters2]

5. Maybe it's about fishing nets.

:shrug:

'Night! :hi:

[Lucian]

4. Net neutrality is very important.

To learn about net neutrality, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[rcrush]

6. The way I understand it

Basically having net neutrality would keep the government or companies from restricting access to certain websites or charging you extra to go huffingtonpost.com.


I'm sure thats a pretty dumb way to explain it but thats the best I can do.

[ashling]

7. In the Internet Wars

you are Sweden.

:)

[Critters2]

18. I don't want to become Switzerland, with everyone tromping through

me on their way to wherever they're going...or Spain, where they try out their weapons and tactics first, in prep for the big war.

[ashling]

20. Just be thankful you're not

Denmark

[Critters2]

21. That would be depressing.

Though better than Iceland these days.

[ashling]

23. Of course, if you are in the GD wars

all bets are off

[supernova]

8. Here's the $.05 version

Basically, ISP providers want to charge by bps, connection speed. Those who can pay more, get more speed. Those who pay less, get slower connection speeds. Sounds like the free market working, right?

Not so fast.

Since more and more of the public are getting more and more of our information online, it impacts who has the most influence in what we read and video we view. It's becoming a free speech issue, IOW.

Guess whom would benefit the most from that scheme?

Those who can pay the most: Large corporations, Your Viacoms, your Time Warners,

Guess whom that scenario would impact the most?

Individuals and small non-profits who have a meaningful message. Think you and me, or The Electronic Frontier Foundation, MoveOn.org (possibly). IOW, anyone who during the best of times, scrapes by. You're not going to reach the people you want to reach with a slower connection. How many of us leave a website if the pages are slow to load?

Net Neutrality is the antidote to the above. NN says that we all deserve the same speed of use of the Net, regardless of our reasons or ability to pay. It treats the Net more like any other utility, or the highway system.

[DarkTirade]

10. Even more than that, companies can choose to route you however the (*&% they want if there's no net

neutrality, so you could be forced to endure whatever ads your ISP, or even a node down the line, wants you to see, not to mention that they could sell out and rout 'target.com' to 'kmart.com' or something like that.

[supernova]

13. Yes, that's another component

Your ISP would be allowed to clog up your feed with all kinds of stuff you don't want, but must pay attention to to get online. :grr:

[LynneSin]

11. So answer me this o wise one of net neutrality...

First, I do agree with what you say but I'm still a Net Neutrality Noob.

They talk about how Net Neutrality would prevent Child Pornography - what's up with that. How could NN make a difference with cracking down on this or is this just a red herring we're tossing in with NN to sell us a bill of goods.

[supernova]

12. What?

I'm not sure how CP relates to NN.

Who's advocating that?

Unless they're saying that without NN, CP users would just go further underground, trading at speeds that would be unnoticable to the rest of us? :shrug:

[LynneSin]

14. here you go

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein_stimulus_amendment/?ref=most

[supernova]

15. Thanks for the link

Sounds like either Feinstein:

1) Doesn't get the concept of NN,

2) Does know and isn't receptive to it, in the interest of protecting the children.

Packet sniffing is a hallmark of those who want to control the net by any means, even underhanded ones.

"allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement."

On one level, Obama's bill is an effort to boost the American economy. On another, it's an opportunity for lobbyists to make a mockery American government.

According to Public Knowledge, the Motion Picture Association of America is behind Feinstein's language. The MPAA doesn't like copyright infringement. And you can bet the child pornography bit was tossed in for added effect.

But the "network management" bit sounds like ISP speak.

As Art Brodsky and his colleagues pointed out, network management is used to manage networks - not filter content. Content filters are used to filter content. But American ISPs - particularly cable ISPs - will take any excuse they can find to throttle certain traffic.

And if they're using copyright infringement and child porn as excuses, they'll have to start sniffing packets. So, Feinstein's amendment would also destroy net privacy - if there's any out there.

Feinstein got sold on this issue. Sorry to hear that. :-(

edit: "Packet sniffing" is opening up the little bundles of info between your computer and your destination website to see what's in there. Could be looking for content as to what ads would be amenable to you, or to check for unlawful activity, such as CP. It's the the e-equivalent of opening up your mail.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. Everything gets you beaten up in GD, critters. Everything. And not just you.

[Critters2]

22. I know. I'm sure I would be told any idiot knows about this.

And then confessing to being an idiot wouldn't buy me any peace, either. Why bother?

[Javaman]

16. I'm cross posting this to GD, put on your helmet. :) nt

[Critters2]

19. You bastard!!

:scared:

[ghostsofgiants]

17. Net Neutrality = Good. Here is a video for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

[foxfeet]

24. Thanks for asking. I now know way more than I did.

And thanks to those who responded!
:thumbsup: