I have to say it's pretty fucking upsetting to hear about this. Assuming that net neutrality is lost... is it a worldwide thing? I'm basically asking who will and who won't be affected by it.
If the government cared about "restoring internet freedom" they would break up the telecom giants and let municpalities and consumer co-ops enter the market.
Internet service is already cheaper in The States.
To live up here they'd need to marry. Under the table work, isn't as readily available as there. Oh. Um. *Finds a tie*
To clear up where Canada sits: We do not have specific net neutrality laws, but in Canada, the internet has been ruled a "utility". That distinction has proven very valuable in regulation. With that, no company can do anything but charge for their service(internet connection). This could also potentially change, but there are more hoops to jump through to do it.
Oh. So Net Neutrality lost. Let's just hope no big changes happen yet. (And... only 5 people? Only 5 people have the deciding vote on how th… moree internet is defined? That's terrible.)
If this doesn't work out, you can always move to Canada! Our Neutrality laws are still in place, though the only bad thing about this is that our prices might get jacked up to keep things equal between the U.S. and CAD services.
I have to say it's pretty fucking upsetting to hear about this. Assuming that net neutrality is lost... is it a worldwide thing? I'm basically asking who will and who won't be affected by it.
I imagine it'll still affect others to a lesser degree. Like if ISPs are making sites cost more, companies may have to increase cost for things like Netflix. Admittedly I don't fully understand it but I know I don't like it.
I imagine it'll still affect others to a lesser degree. Like if ISPs are making sites cost more, companies may have to increase cost for things like Netflix. Admittedly I don't fully understand it but I know I don't like it.
My God, the complete fear mongering that is going on is astounding, and also quite laughable. People saying how this is the death of the internet, everything is doomed, blah blah blah. Oh no, net neutrality is gone, now everything is going to revert back to the dark old days of...2015. The horror, whatever will we do?
Look, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with today's decision, there are pros and cons on both sides of this argument that are being completely ignored on this thread. This is not a fair and balanced discussion over what net neutrality is or what is was meant to accomplish. In fact, the term "net neutrality" is pretty stupid, but a nice way to get some people to think getting rid of it is bad. Frankly, if you ask me, the less control the federal government has, the better (I'm quite libertarian in this regard). And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use. To my understanding, under the guidelines that were repealed, which were the Title II regulations, everyone gets treated fairly and its the same speed for all, whether that be fast, or slow. If I have the means to do so, shouldn't I be able to purchase faster bandwidth? I know that sounds selfish, but come on, if you had the ability to access faster and better services, no matter what it is, would you not take it? One friend of mine who writers for his school's newspaper, summed it up pretty well: "For instance, online video games, particularly of the multiplayer variety, consume massive amounts of data. Some people in this instance, people who play a lot of video games, may prefer to purchase a service from an ISP that allocates better bandwidth to online video games."
But I do recognize some of the concerns some people may have over this decision, it's a way for ISP's to just take more money from people, and the argument of "let the free market determine it" is rendered mute because many areas only have one ISP. I also think that:
1. You're overblowing this
2. There needs to be more reform when it comes to ISP's and the creation of competition, but that doesn't come at a federal level in order to be effective, but the local level. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
I'm not claiming to be an expert on net neutrality, in fact, if someone wants to fact check me on some of this, such as the Wired article above, then go right ahead. I want to learn more about this, but without the constant fear mongering and biased "This is all to help big business" stuff. Let's sit down and have reasonable discussions about what is clearly a very important topic for a lot of people. But to me, it's seems its either get screwed by ISP's, or get screwed by the government. Either way, it sucks for a lot of people.
And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use.
That's a fairly common misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is; it's not "I now get to pay $2 a month for only websites I use instead of $10 a month for all websites on the internet"; it's now on the paradigm of ISPs being able to make people pay "$10 for regular internet plus $5 more dollars for unthrottled connections if you are visiting certain websites (or bundles of websites)", plus they now have the ability to arbitrarily block certain websites - not on a basis on legality, but simply because they can.
Most people only have one ISP per city and don't have the luxury of switching ISPs if they are dissatisfied with the service.
If I have the means to do so, shouldn't I be able to purchase faster bandwidth? I know that sounds selfish, but come on, if you had the ability to access faster and better services, no matter what it is, would you not take it?
They weren't fighting tooth and nail to give people higher speeds; they will instead have the arbitrarily to arbitrarily throttle speeds to get people to pay more; that money will not go to the website but to the ISPs. This will hurt businesses and stifle newcomers alike.
If you want an analogy; imagine a horse race where the owner of the stadium now has the ability to arbitrarily play favorites and drug certain horses to go slower unless you have favor with the owner, or bribe them to avoid making your horse go slower. I'd elaborate on this analogy more but I'm a bit busy, and I'm surprised I already made the post this long...
You're overblowing this more than Nancy Pelosi saying the Republican's tax bill is "armageddon."
We aren't turning this into a political discussion (aside from Net Neutrality) as the Forum Guidelines don't allow that, so let's not just use this thread as an excuse to indulge in talking down on [insert political party you don't like].
It's also a bit patronizing to act like people are being irrational and in hysterics when you admit to not knowing much about the topic. I have more information in the first post; please read it again.
In fact, the term "net neutrality" is pretty stupid, but a nice way to get some people to think getting rid of it is bad.
No; in this case, it's pretty much true. The ISPs that were lobbying for it were doing so for a reason, and it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts towards consumers. They want to throttle speeds for various sites to get people to pay more, and alternatively, they now have the ability to block access to sites (again, not solely on basis of legality). It seems like you aren't fully versed about the topic, and are just accusing people of hysterics without understanding the topic fully.
Frankly, if you ask me, the less control the federal government has, the better (I'm quite libertarian in this regard).
I can normally sympathize with this in most cases, but in the case of Net Neutrality, it's actually a pretty big regulation; they are pushing for it for various reasons; not only speed but more control of the data that passes through.
I'd go into more detail, but I'm focusing on a few other things right now and kind of burned out from explaining this to others (I say this meaning no offense towards you; hopefully you know what I mean).
(I am happy to respond/elaborate more on this later if you are still interested, as I'm not in the mindset to focus solely on this right now)
My God, the complete fear mongering that is going on is astounding, and also quite laughable. People saying how this is the death of the int… moreernet, everything is doomed, blah blah blah. Oh no, net neutrality is gone, now everything is going to revert back to the dark old days of...2015. The horror, whatever will we do?
Look, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with today's decision, there are pros and cons on both sides of this argument that are being completely ignored on this thread. This is not a fair and balanced discussion over what net neutrality is or what is was meant to accomplish. In fact, the term "net neutrality" is pretty stupid, but a nice way to get some people to think getting rid of it is bad. Frankly, if you ask me, the less control the federal government has, the better (I'm quite libertarian in this regard). And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use. To my un… [view original content]
But to me, it's seems its either get screwed by ISP's, or get screwed by the government. Either way, it sucks for a lot of people.
The problem with your reasoning is that there's really no clear line between where government ends and the ISP's begin. Our taxes subsidize a lot of the infrastructure, the courts and bureaucrats help stifle low-overhead/grassroots competition with byzantine intellectual property laws and as you said local governments often collude with the cartel to keep competitors from entering the market. The only private thing about this industry is the profit. The way a bloated, universally-hated company like Comcast does business is completely incompatible with a free market.
Under these circumstances, killing net neutrality isn't meaningful deregulation. It's just an invitation for crony capitalists to take greater advantage of the chokehold on the market that the government helps them maintain.
This isn't a about whether you're getting screwed by the government or the ISP's. You're gonna screwed by both either way. They've just decided stop using lube.
My God, the complete fear mongering that is going on is astounding, and also quite laughable. People saying how this is the death of the int… moreernet, everything is doomed, blah blah blah. Oh no, net neutrality is gone, now everything is going to revert back to the dark old days of...2015. The horror, whatever will we do?
Look, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with today's decision, there are pros and cons on both sides of this argument that are being completely ignored on this thread. This is not a fair and balanced discussion over what net neutrality is or what is was meant to accomplish. In fact, the term "net neutrality" is pretty stupid, but a nice way to get some people to think getting rid of it is bad. Frankly, if you ask me, the less control the federal government has, the better (I'm quite libertarian in this regard). And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use. To my un… [view original content]
Wow, usually everything develops forwards, not backwards. Unbelievable. In EU the internet is neutral and I've been following these news in disbelief. Hope rest of the world won't follow.
Is there really any evidence of this chokeholding and throttling occurring? People keep saying this will happen, but I don’t see evidence that it did. Like I said, the FCC’s decision is just reverting back to the way it used to be before 2015. I used the Internet back then, we all used the Internet back then, I never remembered experiencing any problems with Internet speed or websites being blocked illegally. Is there legit evidence that this happened, or is this just another scare tactic to get people to support net neutrality? And if the ISP’s can possibly restrict websites on the grounds of political motivation, what makes you think government won’t do the same thing? This is the same government that lied about being able to keep your healthcare, the same government that targeted conservative groups through the IRS (I know this is getting political, but it’s essential to my point, government has been accused many times of lying and targeting certain people or groups based on political motivations). While you fear what companies may or may not do, I fear what big government can do, and the thought of the power they can hold, especially on the Internet, is terrifying to me.
It's also a bit patronizing to act like people are being irrational and in hysterics
Yesterday, an organization called GLAAD tweeted out that ending net neutrality is a threat to LGBTQ rights, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? A woman named Sandra Fluke said ending net neutrality will restrict the access to abortion information, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? An article from The Verge read “Ending net neutrality would contribute to inequality of education and opportunity and could threaten the basic foundation of American democracy.” Along with being factually wrong about what America is (a republic, not a democracy), how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? I may not fully knowledgeable on this area, but I know the usual tactics of people and groups like this, it’s fear mongering to make people think their life is threatened by actions like yesterday’s vote, and they’re not. A legitimate argument can be made for net neutrality, you’re trying to make it, but saying stuff like what these groups said not only exaggerates what happened, but actually makes me side more with the FCC and the repeal of these regulations.
You’re accusing me of being patronizing, and yet, calling me not well versed on something and implying that I don’t have the right to talk about it seems very patronizing and demeaning. Yeah, I said I’m not the most knowledgeable person in this field, but I never said anything that stated my opinion was fact, I was just voicing what I do know and politely asked for more info. Since when is asking for information so I can make a more informed decision patronizing, because I called out how some people responded to this decision? Again, I’m not the best mind when it comes to this, but I know the usual scare tactics because I’ve seen them before on other stuff.
And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use.
That's a fairly common mi… moresunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is; it's not "I now get to pay $2 a month for only websites I use instead of $10 a month for all websites on the internet"; it's now on the paradigm of ISPs being able to make people pay "$10 for regular internet plus $5 more dollars for unthrottled connections if you are visiting certain websites (or bundles of websites)", plus they now have the ability to arbitrarily block certain websites - not on a basis on legality, but simply because they can.
Most people only have one ISP per city and don't have the luxury of switching ISPs if they are dissatisfied with the service.
If I have the means to do so, shouldn't I be able to purchase faster bandwidth? I know that sounds selfish, but come on, if you had the ability to access faster and better services, no matt… [view original content]
And like I said, there needs to be more reform after yesterday’s vote, but it starts at the local level first and foremost. I believe the free market should be the ultimate decider, so I’m all for getting government, whether it be local, state, or federal, out of this area to open for more competition to prevent monopolies that were or have been created BECAUSE of government regulation and interference. To me, the answer is not making more regulation in response to previous regulations that didn’t work, but removing the faulty regulations and allowing more competition.
One internet commentator seemed to say it best “Politically I’m against it, but practically, I’m for it.” The reason why is because there’s so much red tape in this area and monopolies in certain places that, right now, getting rid of net neutrality would not be the most effective method. It’s a start, but if everything stops there, then nothing will get accomplished.
But to me, it's seems its either get screwed by ISP's, or get screwed by the government. Either way, it sucks for a lot of people.
T… morehe problem with your reasoning is that there's really no clear line between where government ends and the ISP's begin. Our taxes subsidize a lot of the infrastructure, the courts and bureaucrats help stifle low-overhead/grassroots competition with byzantine intellectual property laws and as you said local governments often collude with the cartel to keep competitors from entering the market. The only private thing about this industry is the profit. The way a bloated, universally-hated company like Comcast does business is completely incompatible with a free market.
Under these circumstances, killing net neutrality isn't meaningful deregulation. It's just an invitation for crony capitalists to take greater advantage of the chokehold on the market that the government helps them maintain.
This isn'… [view original content]
Is there really any evidence of this chokeholding and throttling occurring? People keep saying this will happen, but I don’t see evidence th… moreat it did. Like I said, the FCC’s decision is just reverting back to the way it used to be before 2015. I used the Internet back then, we all used the Internet back then, I never remembered experiencing any problems with Internet speed or websites being blocked illegally. Is there legit evidence that this happened, or is this just another scare tactic to get people to support net neutrality? And if the ISP’s can possibly restrict websites on the grounds of political motivation, what makes you think government won’t do the same thing? This is the same government that lied about being able to keep your healthcare, the same government that targeted conservative groups through the IRS (I know this is getting political, but it’s essential to my point, government has been accused many times of lying and targeti… [view original content]
Yes this was the start of what drove the FCC to install Net Neutrality....notice the culprit was the current FCC Chairman's Bosses at Verizo… moren.
https://extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
I guess try Google searching the URL and clicking the first result instead of directly entering it? That seemed to work for me for whatever weird reason, even though the URL was the same both times I think.
I had the same issue too.
I guess try Google searching the URL and clicking the first result instead of directly entering it? That seemed to work for me for whatever weird reason, even though the URL was the same both times I think.
"Is there really any evidence of this chokeholding and throttling occurring? [...] I used the Internet back then, we all used the Internet back then, I never remembered experiencing any problems with Internet speed or websites being blocked illegally. Is there legit evidence that this happened, or is this just another scare tactic to get people to support net neutrality?"
Not in the earlier years of the Internet, but this was a more recent development; the laws of Net Neutrality were implemented because people were just recently trying to dabble in doing so in the first place; that is why the regulations were implemented.
With new paradigms of technology, communication, business, etc - people don't immediately come in with years of advanced hindsight of the knowledge of how to exploit it. The knowledge of these potential exploits comes with years of utilizing those services, as well as the other factor of the unknown murky grounds of whether or not people would get sued or punished for trying to do so:
The whole point is, it didn't happen on a large scale yet because it was uncharted territory. The ruling yesterday allows them to do so. I will again rhetorically ask if you thought that this was being pushed for for the benefit of consumers or the corporations?
And if the ISP’s can possibly restrict websites on the grounds of political motivation, what makes you think government won’t do the same thing?
The government has to uphold freedom of speech, I would imagine. But, again, I'm going to ask that this thread not get political and stay on the topic of Net Neutrality. I'm asking a second time: Please don't turn this thread into a general discussion of politics, religion, or other potentially controversial issues.
Yesterday, an organization called GLAAD tweeted out that ending net neutrality is a threat to LGBTQ rights, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? A woman named Sandra Fluke said ending net neutrality will restrict the access to abortion information, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical?
I wasn't talking about those situations so it seems a bit odd to ask that I defend their arguments when I wasn't talking about them. Both sides have extreme outliers.
I know the usual tactics of people and groups like this, it’s fear mongering to make people think their life is threatened by actions like yesterday’s vote, and they’re not.
Nobody here was saying their "life was threatened" by Net Neutrality being repealed. If anyone was genuinely saying that, and that is not just a hyperbole filled exaggeration on your part, then I agree that is ridiculous. But, nobody was doing that here so it should be irrelevant. As I said above: both sides have outliers, and if I wanted to, I could easily cherry pick quotes of anti-Net Neutrality people having foolishly uneducated and hyperbole riddled opinions, but I don't want to turn the discussion into a minefield of cherry picking quotes.
You’re accusing me of being patronizing, and yet, calling me not well versed on something and implying that I don’t have the right to talk about it seems very patronizing and demeaning. Yeah, I said I’m not the most knowledgeable person in this field, but I never said anything that stated my opinion was fact, I was just voicing what I do know and politely asked for more info.
Woah woah woah, let's decompress this:
1) I never said you were being patronizing as a whole person; I said your actions felt a bit patronizing but you are conflating that to sound like I said you personally are a patronizing person. I did not do that. People can criticize someone's actions without criticizing them as a person, and that is what I was doing with your post.
2) I never said nor implied you "don't have the right to speak on this subject".
3) In regards to the second bolded portion, about you "just being polite", the first part of your post was not "polite" in tone; you were acting in a rude way and talking down to people who were voicing concerns, and you exaggerated the nature of their concerns by putting words in our mouths, while you also portrayed yourself as the sole voice of reason in an attempt to re-frame the discussion in your favor.
You say you were being polite and level headed, but it's a bit disingenuous to say that when literally the first portion of your post was talking down to those who were concerned:
MetallicaRules said: "My God, the complete fear mongering that is going on is astounding, and also quite laughable. People saying how this is the death of the internet, everything is doomed, blah blah blah. Oh no, net neutrality is gone, now everything is going to revert back to the dark old days of...2015. The horror, whatever will we do?"
If you want to reframe the discussion as "everyone else is being irrational and I am the sole person here acting logical and level headed", it doesn't help if you are framing any critique of your points under the interpretation of "personal attacks" from people who are saying that "you are not allowed any free speech".
If you want other people to be held to your standards of level headed discussion, please make posts that are less inflammatory in tone and hold yourself to the same standards you want us to be held to.
Is there really any evidence of this chokeholding and throttling occurring? People keep saying this will happen, but I don’t see evidence th… moreat it did. Like I said, the FCC’s decision is just reverting back to the way it used to be before 2015. I used the Internet back then, we all used the Internet back then, I never remembered experiencing any problems with Internet speed or websites being blocked illegally. Is there legit evidence that this happened, or is this just another scare tactic to get people to support net neutrality? And if the ISP’s can possibly restrict websites on the grounds of political motivation, what makes you think government won’t do the same thing? This is the same government that lied about being able to keep your healthcare, the same government that targeted conservative groups through the IRS (I know this is getting political, but it’s essential to my point, government has been accused many times of lying and targeti… [view original content]
I've yet to understand how getting rid of Net Neutrality regulations stimulates competition in the field; and doesn't instead benefit Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. and harm websites, big and small.
Say Verizon determines that the most profitable material on the Internet is porn. They decide to start a new Verizon porn service, at $50/month. They also block access to all other known sources of porn. Under the FCC's most recent decision, this action would be legal.
Defying the facts, the law, and the will of millions of Americans, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to repeal net neutrality protections. It’s difficult to understate how radical the FCC’s decision was.
The Internet has operated under formal and informal net neutrality principles for years. For the first time, the FCC has not only abdicated its role in enforcing those principles, it has rejected them altogether.
Here’s the good news: the fight is far from over, and Team Internet has plenty of paths forward.
[Read the rest of the article with the link above]
Comments
I have to say it's pretty fucking upsetting to hear about this. Assuming that net neutrality is lost... is it a worldwide thing? I'm basically asking who will and who won't be affected by it.
If the government cared about "restoring internet freedom" they would break up the telecom giants and let municpalities and consumer co-ops enter the market.
They want to loot us, not "free" us.
Internet service is already cheaper in The States.
To live up here they'd need to marry. Under the table work, isn't as readily available as there. Oh. Um. *Finds a tie*
To clear up where Canada sits: We do not have specific net neutrality laws, but in Canada, the internet has been ruled a "utility". That distinction has proven very valuable in regulation. With that, no company can do anything but charge for their service(internet connection). This could also potentially change, but there are more hoops to jump through to do it.
This vote was only for the United States
I imagine it'll still affect others to a lesser degree. Like if ISPs are making sites cost more, companies may have to increase cost for things like Netflix. Admittedly I don't fully understand it but I know I don't like it.
I agree; I see very limited good in this vote, especially as a student whose classes are online.
The vote was screwed from the beginning (in my opinion), but it still has to go through Congress.
Better start downloading as much porn as you can before net neutrality gets killed
My God, the complete fear mongering that is going on is astounding, and also quite laughable. People saying how this is the death of the internet, everything is doomed, blah blah blah. Oh no, net neutrality is gone, now everything is going to revert back to the dark old days of...2015. The horror, whatever will we do?
Look, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with today's decision, there are pros and cons on both sides of this argument that are being completely ignored on this thread. This is not a fair and balanced discussion over what net neutrality is or what is was meant to accomplish. In fact, the term "net neutrality" is pretty stupid, but a nice way to get some people to think getting rid of it is bad. Frankly, if you ask me, the less control the federal government has, the better (I'm quite libertarian in this regard). And I fail to see why I should pay a price for all of the internet, when I can pay for what I want to use. To my understanding, under the guidelines that were repealed, which were the Title II regulations, everyone gets treated fairly and its the same speed for all, whether that be fast, or slow. If I have the means to do so, shouldn't I be able to purchase faster bandwidth? I know that sounds selfish, but come on, if you had the ability to access faster and better services, no matter what it is, would you not take it? One friend of mine who writers for his school's newspaper, summed it up pretty well: "For instance, online video games, particularly of the multiplayer variety, consume massive amounts of data. Some people in this instance, people who play a lot of video games, may prefer to purchase a service from an ISP that allocates better bandwidth to online video games."
But I do recognize some of the concerns some people may have over this decision, it's a way for ISP's to just take more money from people, and the argument of "let the free market determine it" is rendered mute because many areas only have one ISP. I also think that:
1. You're overblowing this
2. There needs to be more reform when it comes to ISP's and the creation of competition, but that doesn't come at a federal level in order to be effective, but the local level. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
I'm not claiming to be an expert on net neutrality, in fact, if someone wants to fact check me on some of this, such as the Wired article above, then go right ahead. I want to learn more about this, but without the constant fear mongering and biased "This is all to help big business" stuff. Let's sit down and have reasonable discussions about what is clearly a very important topic for a lot of people. But to me, it's seems its either get screwed by ISP's, or get screwed by the government. Either way, it sucks for a lot of people.
That's a fairly common misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is; it's not "I now get to pay $2 a month for only websites I use instead of $10 a month for all websites on the internet"; it's now on the paradigm of ISPs being able to make people pay "$10 for regular internet plus $5 more dollars for unthrottled connections if you are visiting certain websites (or bundles of websites)", plus they now have the ability to arbitrarily block certain websites - not on a basis on legality, but simply because they can.
Most people only have one ISP per city and don't have the luxury of switching ISPs if they are dissatisfied with the service.
They weren't fighting tooth and nail to give people higher speeds; they will instead have the arbitrarily to arbitrarily throttle speeds to get people to pay more; that money will not go to the website but to the ISPs. This will hurt businesses and stifle newcomers alike.
If you want an analogy; imagine a horse race where the owner of the stadium now has the ability to arbitrarily play favorites and drug certain horses to go slower unless you have favor with the owner, or bribe them to avoid making your horse go slower. I'd elaborate on this analogy more but I'm a bit busy, and I'm surprised I already made the post this long...
We aren't turning this into a political discussion (aside from Net Neutrality) as the Forum Guidelines don't allow that, so let's not just use this thread as an excuse to indulge in talking down on [insert political party you don't like].
It's also a bit patronizing to act like people are being irrational and in hysterics when you admit to not knowing much about the topic. I have more information in the first post; please read it again.
No; in this case, it's pretty much true. The ISPs that were lobbying for it were doing so for a reason, and it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts towards consumers. They want to throttle speeds for various sites to get people to pay more, and alternatively, they now have the ability to block access to sites (again, not solely on basis of legality). It seems like you aren't fully versed about the topic, and are just accusing people of hysterics without understanding the topic fully.
I can normally sympathize with this in most cases, but in the case of Net Neutrality, it's actually a pretty big regulation; they are pushing for it for various reasons; not only speed but more control of the data that passes through.
I'd go into more detail, but I'm focusing on a few other things right now and kind of burned out from explaining this to others (I say this meaning no offense towards you; hopefully you know what I mean).
(I am happy to respond/elaborate more on this later if you are still interested, as I'm not in the mindset to focus solely on this right now)
The problem with your reasoning is that there's really no clear line between where government ends and the ISP's begin. Our taxes subsidize a lot of the infrastructure, the courts and bureaucrats help stifle low-overhead/grassroots competition with byzantine intellectual property laws and as you said local governments often collude with the cartel to keep competitors from entering the market. The only private thing about this industry is the profit. The way a bloated, universally-hated company like Comcast does business is completely incompatible with a free market.
Under these circumstances, killing net neutrality isn't meaningful deregulation. It's just an invitation for crony capitalists to take greater advantage of the chokehold on the market that the government helps them maintain.
This isn't a about whether you're getting screwed by the government or the ISP's. You're gonna screwed by both either way. They've just decided stop using lube.
Why? You had porn before 2015? The government loosening restrictions doesn’t get rid of internet porn.
Wow, usually everything develops forwards, not backwards. Unbelievable. In EU the internet is neutral and I've been following these news in disbelief. Hope rest of the world won't follow.
Is there really any evidence of this chokeholding and throttling occurring? People keep saying this will happen, but I don’t see evidence that it did. Like I said, the FCC’s decision is just reverting back to the way it used to be before 2015. I used the Internet back then, we all used the Internet back then, I never remembered experiencing any problems with Internet speed or websites being blocked illegally. Is there legit evidence that this happened, or is this just another scare tactic to get people to support net neutrality? And if the ISP’s can possibly restrict websites on the grounds of political motivation, what makes you think government won’t do the same thing? This is the same government that lied about being able to keep your healthcare, the same government that targeted conservative groups through the IRS (I know this is getting political, but it’s essential to my point, government has been accused many times of lying and targeting certain people or groups based on political motivations). While you fear what companies may or may not do, I fear what big government can do, and the thought of the power they can hold, especially on the Internet, is terrifying to me.
Yesterday, an organization called GLAAD tweeted out that ending net neutrality is a threat to LGBTQ rights, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? A woman named Sandra Fluke said ending net neutrality will restrict the access to abortion information, how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? An article from The Verge read “Ending net neutrality would contribute to inequality of education and opportunity and could threaten the basic foundation of American democracy.” Along with being factually wrong about what America is (a republic, not a democracy), how is that not irrational thinking and being hysterical? I may not fully knowledgeable on this area, but I know the usual tactics of people and groups like this, it’s fear mongering to make people think their life is threatened by actions like yesterday’s vote, and they’re not. A legitimate argument can be made for net neutrality, you’re trying to make it, but saying stuff like what these groups said not only exaggerates what happened, but actually makes me side more with the FCC and the repeal of these regulations.
You’re accusing me of being patronizing, and yet, calling me not well versed on something and implying that I don’t have the right to talk about it seems very patronizing and demeaning. Yeah, I said I’m not the most knowledgeable person in this field, but I never said anything that stated my opinion was fact, I was just voicing what I do know and politely asked for more info. Since when is asking for information so I can make a more informed decision patronizing, because I called out how some people responded to this decision? Again, I’m not the best mind when it comes to this, but I know the usual scare tactics because I’ve seen them before on other stuff.
And like I said, there needs to be more reform after yesterday’s vote, but it starts at the local level first and foremost. I believe the free market should be the ultimate decider, so I’m all for getting government, whether it be local, state, or federal, out of this area to open for more competition to prevent monopolies that were or have been created BECAUSE of government regulation and interference. To me, the answer is not making more regulation in response to previous regulations that didn’t work, but removing the faulty regulations and allowing more competition.
One internet commentator seemed to say it best “Politically I’m against it, but practically, I’m for it.” The reason why is because there’s so much red tape in this area and monopolies in certain places that, right now, getting rid of net neutrality would not be the most effective method. It’s a start, but if everything stops there, then nothing will get accomplished.
Yes this was the start of what drove the FCC to install Net Neutrality....notice the culprit was the current FCC Chairman's Bosses at Verizon.
https://extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
It was a joke, I honestly don't know what's going on lol
Unfortunately, your link isn't working for me. I'm clicking on it and my browser is failing to open the page.
I had the same issue too.
I guess try Google searching the URL and clicking the first result instead of directly entering it? That seemed to work for me for whatever weird reason, even though the URL was the same both times I think.
It appears to be broken due to the “www.” being missing.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
Not in the earlier years of the Internet, but this was a more recent development; the laws of Net Neutrality were implemented because people were just recently trying to dabble in doing so in the first place; that is why the regulations were implemented.
With new paradigms of technology, communication, business, etc - people don't immediately come in with years of advanced hindsight of the knowledge of how to exploit it. The knowledge of these potential exploits comes with years of utilizing those services, as well as the other factor of the unknown murky grounds of whether or not people would get sued or punished for trying to do so:
It's not (yet) terribly frequent on a large scale with all ISPs, but there are a few previous localized examples. This website lists some: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
The whole point is, it didn't happen on a large scale yet because it was uncharted territory. The ruling yesterday allows them to do so. I will again rhetorically ask if you thought that this was being pushed for for the benefit of consumers or the corporations?
The government has to uphold freedom of speech, I would imagine. But, again, I'm going to ask that this thread not get political and stay on the topic of Net Neutrality. I'm asking a second time: Please don't turn this thread into a general discussion of politics, religion, or other potentially controversial issues.
I wasn't talking about those situations so it seems a bit odd to ask that I defend their arguments when I wasn't talking about them. Both sides have extreme outliers.
Nobody here was saying their "life was threatened" by Net Neutrality being repealed. If anyone was genuinely saying that, and that is not just a hyperbole filled exaggeration on your part, then I agree that is ridiculous. But, nobody was doing that here so it should be irrelevant. As I said above: both sides have outliers, and if I wanted to, I could easily cherry pick quotes of anti-Net Neutrality people having foolishly uneducated and hyperbole riddled opinions, but I don't want to turn the discussion into a minefield of cherry picking quotes.
Woah woah woah, let's decompress this:
1) I never said you were being patronizing as a whole person; I said your actions felt a bit patronizing but you are conflating that to sound like I said you personally are a patronizing person. I did not do that. People can criticize someone's actions without criticizing them as a person, and that is what I was doing with your post.
2) I never said nor implied you "don't have the right to speak on this subject".
3) In regards to the second bolded portion, about you "just being polite", the first part of your post was not "polite" in tone; you were acting in a rude way and talking down to people who were voicing concerns, and you exaggerated the nature of their concerns by putting words in our mouths, while you also portrayed yourself as the sole voice of reason in an attempt to re-frame the discussion in your favor.
You say you were being polite and level headed, but it's a bit disingenuous to say that when literally the first portion of your post was talking down to those who were concerned:
If you want to reframe the discussion as "everyone else is being irrational and I am the sole person here acting logical and level headed", it doesn't help if you are framing any critique of your points under the interpretation of "personal attacks" from people who are saying that "you are not allowed any free speech".
If you want other people to be held to your standards of level headed discussion, please make posts that are less inflammatory in tone and hold yourself to the same standards you want us to be held to.
I've yet to understand how getting rid of Net Neutrality regulations stimulates competition in the field; and doesn't instead benefit Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. and harm websites, big and small.
Say Verizon determines that the most profitable material on the Internet is porn. They decide to start a new Verizon porn service, at $50/month. They also block access to all other known sources of porn. Under the FCC's most recent decision, this action would be legal.
(I'm not saying this is likely or smart.)
EFF: "Team Internet Is Far From Done: What’s Next For Net Neutrality and How You Can Help"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/team-internet-far-done-whats-next-net-neutrality-and-how-you-can-help
A good discussion of Net Neutrality
*Gives America A Hug*
Bit late to this but:
Thief- Ajit Pai
Moon- Internet
Light- Net Neutrality
Devil- ISPs