The FCC Plans To Kill Net Neutrality On June 11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
865
261
11,390
13
I don't understand why certain republicans keep trying to turn net neutrality into a partisan issue. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose, just like everybody else.

A lot of these "liberal media" sources that they are always complaining about are owned by the giant telecom companies - CNBC is owned by Comcast, for example.
Really, I truly don't understand why a "conservative" talk show or website would fight to give their direct competition the power to dictate whether or not they are allowed to continue having a website/podcasst/video streaming/ campaign website etc.

Were Title II regulations a perfect way to implement net neutrality? Not really. But its far far better than the 'nothing' that Congress is currently proposing as an alternative.
 

237841209

Prominent
Oct 4, 2017
56
0
660
6
Why are there still ordinary citizens that support the removal of net neutrality if they don't gain anything from it and rather, lose a lot?
 

kuhndj67

Prominent
Oct 13, 2017
39
0
540
1
The reason regular people are being convinced to support the removal is the same reason people are often convinced to support things that aren't in their best interest... FUD. It's actually pretty easy to do... you spam communications tools (media, social media, etc...) with misinformation crafted to create doubt. Once there's enough BS clogging comms channels and non-experts are confused... they tend to be easy to lead by having an appealing socially engineered story - and the truth of the situation is entirely irrelevant.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
honestly surprised it took this long for them to do this. there is money to be made by removing the restrictions and we all know this is all that matters to the ones pushing it through.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

Probably something to do with the constant drumbeat that government regulations are bad. Unfortunately, not many people remember the era of acid rain, thick smog, and automobiles that were basically deathtraps on wheels.

The problem with regulations is that when they work like they're supposed to, the general public isn't aware of them. So, most people only hear about regulations when they're problematic or ineffective and this cements the association that regulations = bad. And therefore, it seems pointless to try to fix, improve, or streamline them, rather than just dropping them altogether.
 
Well there needs to be a balance between government regulations and free enterprise in a capitalist society. We already have so many government entities in place to prevent anti-trust violations, illegal actions, food safety, wildlife conservation, product safety, etc. The question is where is the line drawn between over government regulation and out of control corporations. Then you have said government entities in place who are supposed to protect us but they failed to do their job.

There are countless more examples out there like that of government beaurocratic failures in doing the exact thing they were supposed to do. Putting 100% faith in government to protect us is no better than saying dump all government regs and put faith in corporations to do the good deed.

Draconian government regulations for example making unrealistic tax mandates on corporate carbon emissions are no better for the consumer than a Verizon and AT&T merger would be (both cost prices to rise). All new cars will require backup cameras in the US as one example. Seriously. That only adds cost to vehicles. I can turn around and look behind me just fine when backing up as well as LOOK behind my vehicle for children which is what triggered this. Thank you government for tacking on $1,000 to my next car's price. And I'm still suspect on the origins of what NN's true intent was anyway. The opinions on it are largely split down political affiliation.

US history is rife with government Trojan Horse regulations that were really an ulterior motive (more control over private lives and the free market). It is also rife with corporate lobbyist paying off politicians to look the other way. So again, where is the line drawn controlling each other? Who monitors the government? Themselves? Fox guarding hen house just like corporations regulating themselves! That, in my opinion, is where the direction the conversation needs to go towards.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
So as it stands right now, I can get on the net and go anywhere, without being forced or coerced in any particular direction. Sounds good to me.

If I want a white list, I'll implement one. If I want a Black List, I'll implement one. Self regulation shouldn't be that difficult.

Seriously don't think I need Uncle Sam telling me that I'm only allowed to view certain Porn sites because they pass regulations. And just who will decide what those regulations will be? Some pencil pushing, Bible bashing, Eco fanatic?

Repealing Net Neutrality is akin to suggesting that the Freedom of Information Act really doesn't apply to anyone but the Government.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

This is the false dichotomy. It's not that either government regulations or corporations are bad or good - they're both devices that can do as much good or harm as the care with which they're used.


I think we agree. IMO, the whole conversation about more or less regulation is simplistic and misses the point. What we need are the right regulations. They way to do that is with transparency and accountability, so we can see what's working and what isn't. That way, anything that's not effective or is doing more harm than good should either be improved or scrapped.

We all know that politicians of all stripes don't love oversight. Government is an easy tool for them to benefit their constituency and attract/reward supporters. That's why transparency is hard to achieve and can only be achieved and sustained if it remains a priority of voters. Of course, they know this and employ wedge issues to divide and distract us.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

I'm not quite sure what you're even talking about. The main point of Net Neutrality is to prevent ISPs from throttling services and implementing differential pricing schemes that give them the ability to pick winners and losers and effectively restrict your choices or potentially increase the cost of services you use.

Whether you're a home user or a business that relies on the internet to reach consumers, Net Neutrality is about giving you more freedom by preventing undue interference from ISPs. It's about making ISPs behave like the utility they are.

Imagine your electricity provider could charge you different rates for powering different devices. Now, let's say they cut a deal with a cheap import TV brand to give customers a discount on electricity used to power that TV and then jacked up rates on other brands of TVs. Now, it just got more expensive to use the TV you want or might already have. As absurd as this sounds, it's exactly the sort of thing we're talking about with online services, and that's what Net Neutrality is designed to prevent.


The Freedom of Information Act is a way of requesting government documents. So, I'm not really sure what it has to do with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

Kinda gets down into details that, while interesting, aren't really relevant to the debate.

recently, internet service providers—Comcast, in particular—have been started to flex their muscle. Transit provider Level 3 says that, as it sends traffic into their networks, the big U.S. ISPs are letting some of its routers overload with data. And amidst these bottlenecks, Comcast is exploring ways of selling its own CDN services that can help companies increase delivery speeds.

For Ammori and others, this seems like a shake-down that lets the service providers get paid at at both ends—by their home subscribers and by the web companies that deliver stuff to these subscribers.
Now, tell me how that's effectively different from the whole fast lane vs. slow lane argument.
 

fedguy

Honorable
Mar 27, 2013
3
0
10,510
0
BIT_USER It has everything to do with it. It explains what it is and how things were, then after the NN. Also read the comments here and see they are not informed from what was really happening before NN.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

No, it doesn't. CDNs started decades ago - not as a response to net neutrality.

The solution advocated by the author (i.e. competition between ISPs) is not practical, in many markets, due to lack of density. Also, it's nearly politically impossible. This is essentially what the Telco act of 1996 tried, and it failed.

The best practical solution available is pretty close to the net neutrality we had (or were to have had). To throw that out without any credible replacement is simply giving ISPs the ability to tax consumers and internet content providers as much as they want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY