Net neutrality is not for Europe

[Thony]

UK has pretty decent speeds and prices for its fibre connections (except throttling Virgin Media broadband).

£20 a month can get u 80mbps.

However I totally hate that with 90% broadband packages U FUCKING MUST have a landline which u totally don't need and will never use... They could provide fibre optic connection without landlines and charge us less (by about £17/month).

Oh sweet dreams

[Brawhammer]

And this one of the many reasons the UK should drop out of EU

 

Oh please. The EU Has did much more for us.

 

This won't pass. the EU is very tech friendly and won't pass this.

[Nineshadow]

I rarely watch T.V, but the other day  I did.  I saw an ad for  iinet telling everyone how romania had faster net than us and that is why we need to do X buy Y and etc etc.  It's no wonder people are confused about the implications of NN and reasons why some countries have faster net than others.    A simply map of an area with consumer demographics will show pretty quickly why countries like south korea, japan and romania can have faster internet.  Internet speeds have nothing to do with NN, they have very little to do with government spending.  The people pay for everything, the people pay taxes, bills, levy's, fees licenses etc. this money in turn provides the services.  If a country has a high density population then the area of infrastructure is small compared to the relative consumer base. ergo faster net.  Australia on the other hand has 1/10 the population of the US spread across almost 60% the same are.  

 

So long story short, NN is bad regardless of internet speed/infrastructure, comparing one countries internet to another is deeply flawed. 

Romania doesn't have high density population...

 

It's just that before 1989 we had no internet, almost no cable, etc. , and we kind of went from nothing to fiber.

[spartaman64]

so they allow priority service for life critical things like hospitals and driverless cars whats bad about that

[mr moose]

Romania doesn't have high density population...

 

It's just that before 1989 we had no internet, almost no cable, etc. , and we kind of went from nothing to fiber.

 

Of course. That is also a factor. But Romania's population density is 5 or 6 times greater than Australia's after allowing for the whopping great uninhabited desert we have. 

 

Also do you have NN issues there?

[Sharp_3yE]

EVERYONE Government intervention doesn't mean it's a good thing. Sometimes a necessary evil. It's better to have governments stay out of industry's way. It's possible that Government intervention can really make an industry VERY sluggish.

 

There have been laws here in the USA I believe state laws that have made monopolies and I think the new laws may get rid of those which is a good thing.

 

The FCC chairman said "Internet has become to big to not have protection" WHICH IS BULL CRAP! Just because something becomes important and large doesn't mean we need government intervention which could screw with everything and make things worse or just make different problems that are harder to fix cuz laws tend to not be over turned much. It was doing fine on its own. People just had concerns about some stuff that could hamper progression and price.

 

Be careful with laws. They can be good or really bad.

[Victorious Secret]

 

The FCC chairman said "Internet has become to big to not have protection" WHICH IS BULL CRAP! Just because something becomes important and large doesn't mean we need government intervention which could screw with everything and make things worse or just make different problems that are harder to fix cuz laws tend to not be over turned much. It was doing fine on its own. People just had concerns about some stuff that could hamper progression and price.

 

No, thats not what he said. At all. 

 

Tom Wheeler said: "The internet is too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules"

 

In more context:

 

The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

 

This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

 

 

Wheeler was speaking out against ISPs being the ones calling the shots and setting the terms on how bandwidth, fast lanes and expansion would occur. He was speaking out against the very thing this article is discussion; letting certain companies control the policy in a way that would only favour them. 

 

[Compl3xity_]

omfg, no.

[Sharp_3yE]

No, thats not what he said. At all.

Tom Wheeler said: "The internet is too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules"

In more context:

The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.

This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

Wheeler was speaking out against ISPs being the ones calling the shots and setting the terms on how bandwidth, fast lanes and expansion would occur. He was speaking out against the very thing this article is discussion; letting certain companies control the policy in a way that would only favour them.

Actually, Tom Wheelers' direct quote from his mouth "It's(the internet) simply to important to be left without rules and a referee on the field."

Skip to 0:55

So while I didn't get his quote exactly correct, I was still on track and my premise still stands. This idea is bull crap. Something that is important doesn't mean there needs to be government rules attached to it. Though sometimes it's necessary to have laws to solve certain bad problems to have other not as bad problems.

[QwarkDreams]

And this one of the many reasons the EU should stop fucking around and get their shit together

 

FTFY

[Faa]

Of course. That is also a factor. But Romania's population density is 5 or 6 times greater than Australia's after allowing for the whopping great uninhabited desert we have. 

 

Also do you have NN issues there?

Belgium, yes.. Blocking torrent sites, in some places you're at 1/10th of the advertised speed although a different ISP who's still on ADSL doesnt limit people like this, cutting your P2P bandwidth if it's really needed etc.

Also we're one of the highest populated countries; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Countries_by_population_density.svg/2880px-Countries_by_population_density.svg.png

I never been below the advertised speed because where I live most people are old or they're the types meant to land in jail. Worst I probably heard was Turkey blocking youtube because people were making a joke of a guy, year ago orsomething they blocked facebook for the same BS reason and dunno a week or later, FB had much more visits than ever before from Turkey >.> 

[mr moose]

So while I didn't get his quote exactly correct, I was still on track and my premise still stands. This idea is bull crap. Something that is important doesn't mean there needs to be government rules attached to it. Though sometimes it's necessary to have laws to solve certain bad problems to have other not as bad problems.

 

I think you'll be very surprised how quickly a society falls down when there is less government intervention.  Rules and regulations aren't just to control one aspect of existence, they are there to stop people being taken advantage of, by both big business and the individual.  

[evanny]

LoL. This can only be a problem where countries have like only 2 providers...like US.

For 15 euros a month i get unlimited optic fiber. When you have like 100 ISP you'll get something like that some day.  

[cesrai]

I rarely watch T.V, but the other day I did. I saw an ad for iinet telling everyone how romania had faster net than us and that is why we need to do X buy Y and etc etc. It's no wonder people are confused about the implications of NN and reasons why some countries have faster net than others. A simply map of an area with consumer demographics will show pretty quickly why countries like south korea, japan and romania can have faster internet. Internet speeds have nothing to do with NN, they have very little to do with government spending. The people pay for everything, the people pay taxes, bills, levy's, fees licenses etc. this money in turn provides the services. If a country has a high density population then the area of infrastructure is small compared to the relative consumer base. ergo faster net. Australia on the other hand has 1/10 the population of the US spread across almost 60% the same are.

So long story short, NN is bad regardless of internet speed/infrastructure, comparing one countries internet to another is deeply flawed.

NN is bad ?? Your kidding right ??

[Silent_Xaxal]

The EU isn't doing something that helps consumers while the US is? What happened?

 

Times be changing and a tide be sweepin'.

[mr moose]

NN is bad ?? Your kidding right ??

 

Typo, I meant not having it is bad. I'll edit my post.

 

Thanks.

[Markmjb]

They are voting atm whether the plans are debatable or complete bullshit, basically. Still a long way to go. As the second paragraph states:

The plans are currently being voted on by representatives from the 28 EU member states and, if they are passed, will then be debated by the European Commission and the European Parliament. Only if an agreement between these two bodies and EU member states is reached will the proposals become law.

 

 

So hold onto your pitchforks just yet, it's not like they almost passed a law through against NN.

 

[Trik'Stari]

What's this you see? That large groups like the UN and EU are nothing more than multi-national versions of the US government, people with too much authority taking bribes and using the media to control the minds of the people and make them think they actually care.

 

Enjoy dealing with that level of douche-baggery Europe.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

India follows every other country, but this might set us back

[mr moose]

India follows every other country, but this might set us back

So does Australia, in most cases it's really sad.

[Geno Boost]

Come on Europe i thought you and Canada where better than the United States well I guess Asia (Japan,South Korea,Taiwan) is looking better for small business to start up there services with Fast affordable internet with good encryption to prevent industrial espionage and to better protect consumers from hackers. Also that mass collection of meta data from government agencies means they have insider trading/industrial espionage to a small group of people like the u.s. congress/senate. Please Europe get your act together. 

[Nurmi]

Finland has perfect Internet