So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

MrMelGibson

Torval said:

TheScavenger said:

Also, I don't get it. My liberal friends were applauding Merkel for forcing Facebook to censor her political opponents because "fake news". Now suddenly they're concerned about a free and open internet? Yeah right!

This isn't about censorship. Do you even understand or comprehend what this technical discussion is about? This is about packet preference at its core. You can't have missed QoS settings on your router. They don't give a damn whether you're an ignorant pig spouting disgusting fascist crap on the internet or the most benevolent philanthropist saving people. They care about where the packets came from and which ones are more important. That will be decided by how much people pay.

So the conservative can still post his fallacious dreams of the returning to the Golden Era and the liberal can post their fantasy of equality through progression. How well that works depends on how much more they're willing to pay and what services provide what they want.

Although since this is up to the ISP, they may not want your conservative bullshit sites and block those unless you pay a lot more. They may give free access to those hated liberal sites, or it could be completely reversed. That's the rub of it all. There are now now guidelines in place to ensure consistency and equality in service/packet access.

This has all been said before. Those who want to burn the world don't care about facts or truth. They just want to win their way. This civil deconstruction is evident in nearly aspect of our society now, and not just in the US.

The short answer no because he is fucking clueless.  

This is a great picture illustrating those against NN.  

SomethingUnusual

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

They heavily censor everything, yet for a while had topless news programs... Still do. Europe is a wild place in parts. 

If you think the government is out to censor you, perhaps you need to be reminded that YOU are the government in the USA. We all are. And a lack of faith is a reflection of yourself. 

But no, people are just going to keep drinking the Kool-Aid. 

MrMelGibson

MadFrenchie said:

Horusra said:

MadFrenchie said:

zymurgeist said:

MadFrenchie said:

SedrynTyros said:

Tiller said:

Horusra said:

Asm0deus said:

Horusra said:

SedrynTyros said:

Horusra said:

All the doomsayers here clutching to government's boots is funny.  The government can not run or regulate anything successfully.  You all can have faith in them I will not.  Less government the better.

It's remarkable that any human being could have such a narrow view of a situation like this.  "Government is bad" is just some stupid trope that's been pushed on you relentlessly for decades.  There are some things that government is good for.  It's too bad that so many folks like you don't realize that yet.

Your government Kool-Aid must taste great.

Your "corporate will save us from govment" kool aid must taste even better.

Corporations and governments only serve one thing and that is themselves.  If either can get away with it they will screw you for money and power.  It is the people that actually have to do something about it.  Media, if we had one that worked, to get information out.  People to actually speak with their wallets. 

So I'm guessing you will be the first to speak with your wallet, go off grid, throw out your cell phone, put up hippy solar panels for power and go down to the nice clean river and dredge up some unprotected water for drinking?

Exactly.  I'm continually amazed by such ridiculous rhetoric. 

The world works the way it does not the way people wish it would, and the way it works is government officials are elected, corporate executives are not.

The government hate bandwagon has been the longest running hate bandwagon in the world.

With good reason. When was the last time a bakery killed 20 million of it's own customers? 

Yes, because corporate entities have excellent track records in honest, up front dealings with the public.  Why in the world were governments ever created in the first place???

To rule over people and control resources for the betterment of those incharge of the governments.  It is a modern day myth that governments are really for the people and by the people.

Lol, no.

Just no.

Your inability to see anything beyond some grand, sweeping, idealistic position prevents you from providing any pertinent input.  You go ahead and refuse assistance from the government when a natural disasters hits in your area though...  I mean, you know, deep down, they're not helping you, they're just sneaking all your prized possessions out the back door, right?

If he gets injured, I'm assuming he will decline disability.  How about if he loses his job? Nope, he will tell the big bad government that he rather live in a box than take their evil unemployment.  Planning to retire? Need Medicare for those health issues?  Ppfftt, not taking that evil Medicare and/or social security.  Sadly, he is a byproduct of how poor our education system in the USA is.

SomethingUnusual

Since we're posting pictures: 

kjempff

Internet and unlimited access to information should be a universal human right.
Net neutrality is a good step in that direction, and obviously not having net neutrality leads to internet service being controlled purely by market mechanisms - which divide users and businesses by purchasing power, potentially disqualifying some people from internet, stopping small businesses/startups and creating monopolies.
I am not really arguing that internet should be free of cost (but that is one solution), and neither do I have an opinion of whether access should be controlled by governments(the people) or companies - It just have to be equally accessible because information is a human matter, not an economic.

Raquis

YashaX

Renoaku said:

Someone was telling me Net Neutrality gives control over to the government about what can be throttled and what cannot, and it was good not having it to begin with?

Again you have it the completely wrong way around. Net Neutrality ensures that no one can throttle specific content, that is why so many people are upset that the FCC is trying to get rid of it.

cameltosis

Wizardry said:

I have not delved into what this Net neutrality is all about,i have no idea but if government is involved,i am scared,there can be no good,only ways to grind more money out of the people.

Lobbyists partially run the government,their money is nothing more than bribes to achieve a rotten agenda to scam the tax payer.So you can bet,if some business"like the giant internet providers" wants to make more money,they are lobbying the government for changes.

Net Neutrality is really simple. 

With net neutrality, if you access Netflix and your neighbour accesses Amazon Prime, both your requests for data and the transmission of that data are treated equally. By law, all internet traffic has to be treated equally. 


Without net neutrality, your ISP can decide to throttle content. So, you might still be able to watch Netflix, but your neighbour might only be able to stream 480p Amazon Prime because the ISP is a competitor of Amazon. 



Removing net neutrality can only be a bad thing for consumers. It does not boost speed for anyone, it only allows ISPs to throttle internet speeds for certain sites. This then opens up the possibility of charging extra money for removing those throttles - either the provider, like Netflix, is going to have to shell out millions, or you, the consumer, is going to have to pay more. 

The only people who win are the ISPs, everyone else loses, including the government. 

Elsabolts

It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.

YashaX

TheScavenger said:

But as I said above, equally as bad as ISPs controlling things, is the government having control of the internet. As seen by Europe and Venezuela.

 1) Net Neutrality doesn't mean the government controls the internet; it helps keep the internet free from the meddling of govt or companies.
2) Europe and Venezuela are nothing alike. I can only assume that you have been listening to too much Fox and Friends or similar propaganda.

laserit

TheScavenger said:

Plus to add to the above though different subject I know...like I said...with my one crappy internet provider, I still get a 1tb limit despite being on "unlimited", but it really isn't unlimited but a 1tb plan...which is false advertising rofl. Its the best and most expensive plan my ISP has. Dunno how they get away with that, and that was way before this passed obviously. Like, installing a few MMOs adds up to a large portion of the bandwidth. I already almost have 200gb used in past 30 days cause of ESO+BDO+youtube/chrome...so lame.

There needs to be more competition with these providers. Right now, ISPs have almost no competition. They have a monopoly. 

But as I said above, equally as bad as ISPs controlling things, is the government having control of the internet. As seen by Europe and Venezuela.

There needs to be a 3rd option. But to start with, definitely more competition and a lot more actual choices to choose from to pick for internet. Not 1-3 choices per area lol.

"I still get a 1tb limit despite being on "unlimited", but it really isn't unlimited but a 1tb plan...which is false advertising rofl. Its the best and most expensive plan my ISP has. Dunno how they get away with that"

It's called a "disclaimer"

ever see that little paragraph of tiny text that flashes by in an instant during some commercials, or in a printed add you need a magnifying glass to read it.

Cleffy

I think it is a little amazing how advocates for net neutrality are misinformed. Yes the adoption of net neutrality rules in 2015 gave the FCC the authority to censor the internet. Net neutrality was not the only thing allowed under the adoption of the ruleset. They even had some undefined rules that the regulator can fine a company if they think it is doing something wrong not listed under a current regulation.
Monopolies only exist through the use of government. This can be seen with monopolies formed during the gilded age which immediately lost their monopoly when they tried to cheat customers. We have duopolies because local governments enforce them. 

Asm0deus

Cleffy said:

I think it is a little amazing how advocates for net neutrality are misinformed. Yes the adoption of net neutrality rules in 2015 gave the FCC the authority to censor the internet. Net neutrality was not the only thing allowed under the adoption of the ruleset. They even had some undefined rules that the regulator can fine a company if they think it is doing something wrong not listed under a current regulation.
Monopolies only exist through the use of government. This can be seen with monopolies formed during the gilded age which immediately lost their monopoly when they tried to cheat customers. We have duopolies because local governments enforce them. 

Ridiculous.  These changes make sure small ISP wont be able to compete at all with big ISP that defend their territories using unscrupulous means.

Unlike  some I am speaking from experience from a country where we had the BIG 3 like you guy do down south and we all were fucked UNTIL the crtc enforced ISP to run under utilities laws and FORCED them to share their lines with small 3rd party ISP, which is also how it works in the UK.

You want free market to prevail and avoid the shitty monopoly/duopoly in the USA then you need to force ISP to share their lines period..... and that will only happen under title 2.

I am not saying the exact NN laws that were in place didn't need tweaking, for example LLU should have been enforced, but what is being done right now is huge step backwards instead of forward..it's not rocket science.

cameltosis

Cleffy said:

I think it is a little amazing how advocates for net neutrality are misinformed. Yes the adoption of net neutrality rules in 2015 gave the FCC the authority to censor the internet. 

Um....what?

How does treating all internet data transmissions equally result in censorship? It's the exact opposite - net neutrality prevents censorship by ISPs. 


I'm sure the FCC has other powers so that they can censor the actual content providers, but net neutrality has nothing to do with that at all. 

Cleffy

The implementation of the rules included with the net neutrality rules gave the FCC the authority to censor. They did not have that authority prior.

Asm0deus

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-is-Pushing-For-a-Shitty-Net-Neutrality-Law-It-Will-Write-140896

In the wake of successfully lobbying the FCC to kill net neutrality, Comcast is pushing for a new net neutrality law. Why? As the lawsuits against the FCC for ignoring comment fraud and the public interest looms, ISPs realize full well it's a legal battle they may very well lose. After all, the FCC will need to prove in court that it not only listened to consumer feedback and expert analysis (it didn't), but that the broadband market changed so substantively in the last two years to warrant such a stark reversal of a popular policy (it didn't).

 Even if the FCC and its ISP BFFs win that court fight, they still have to find a way to keep future FCCs from simply passing new, tough net neutrality rules.

The solution? For ISPs, it's to push a new law that they know they'll quite literally write, submitted to a Congress all-but owned courtesy of campaign contributions. Such law will profess to put the long-standing debate over net neutrality debate to an end, but will be filled with so many loopholes as to be effectively useless.

Octagon7711

From a Commissioner who voted 'no.'

Clyburn slams net neutrality repeal: "What saddens me the most today is that the agency "

holdenfive

The internet is already 'censored'. Google algorithms are manipulated, web hosting services can shut you down if they just simply don't like your content, social media platforms engage in rampant censorship across the board. This isn't going to do anything to your free speech that other entities are not already doing right now, and any impact on your service is going to be at worst negligible and most likely non existent. It doesn't change anything. Trump wanted it gone because he doesn't like Obama policies. The internet circa pre 2015 worked just fine and will work fine without Obama administration regulations. Removing them won't change anything.

Cleffy

I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.

Leviathon77

The industry has existed for decades and haven't run off the rails. In fact, it's the content providers that have gone off the rails sitting behind their stacks of money while the ISP and Content Delivery Companies are standing there holding the blame.

Funny thing happened while the Net Neutrality vote was rightfully being voted down, Disney just bought Fox and not a sound. That practice eliminates competition and increases packaging and unwanted content that the end user has to pay for because the content delivery companies are forced to sell the complete packages at ridiculous rates they'd rather not charge.

So, people leave the television side of the ISP while still expecting increases in infrastructure, maintenance and service repairs that are then handed off to their competition to benefit from despite the billions of dollars invested to get where we are now. It's not a cheap industry to enter, just ask Google who even backed out, and stop looking to other country's silver linings unless you want the crap that comes along with that silver demanding we "be more like them". We all read a few headlines and immediately become experts in someone else's business with no research or actual experience. Leave this one to the pros, the industry doesn't need an HOA to tell them to cut their lawn and put their trash cans in the garage after garbage day. There's already a corporation commission and other governing bodies that will take care of any anti-consumerism practices. Then there's you and your ability to speak with your wallets.

holdenfive

Cleffy said:

I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.

Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.

This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.

TheScavenger

holdenfive said:

Cleffy said:

I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.

Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.

This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.

in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 

In california, I saw TONS of bernie bumper stickers and over the election period saw a total of 3 hillary bumper stickers. That had nothing to do with Russia lol, people just didn't like hillary. Bernie would have had a much higher chance of winning as he had much higher support

I guess people forgot what the internet was like before obama's regulations. Making a big nothing burger out of removing regulations.

BeansnBread

Public Service Announcement:

When you say, "in before <insert something here>," it is how you become the most obvious user of a strawman argument. 

MadFrenchie

TheScavenger said:

holdenfive said:

Cleffy said:

I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.

Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.

This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.

in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 

In california, I saw TONS of bernie bumper stickers and over the election period saw a total of 3 hillary bumper stickers. That had nothing to do with Russia lol, people just didn't like hillary. Bernie would have had a much higher chance of winning as he had much higher support

I guess people forgot what the internet was like before obama's regulations. Making a big nothing burger out of removing regulations.

Please stop spewing that ignorance.  The American intelligence community has repeatedly confirmed the Russian meddling into the election.  They targeted Facebook ads, for one, and paid trolls, for another.

Those things aren't really debatable to anyone living in reality at this point.

Their efficacy might be, but it's telling that a section of Americans are faced with indisputable evidence that a hostile foreign government intervened to influence our elections illegally and those Americans collectively said "Meh."

When America loses its place as the world's largest superpower, it will have been well-deserved based on attitudes like these from large swathes of Americans.

holdenfive

TheScavenger said:

holdenfive said:

Cleffy said:

I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.

Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.

This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.

in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 

So you think that if people only watched mainstream media instead of getting their news online from independent sources that wouldn't have had a serious impact on the election? Just lol.

People rejecting the mainstream media narrative (which online news sources largely enabled them to do, since there was you know, a fucking alternative) was the single biggest factor in this past election. I wasn't talking about Russia, that wasn't really a thing until after the election had already taken place.

So I'll repeat, Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign, because they were. (And just in case I didn't make it clear, thank god),