DuskSong

That regulation would fail. Infrastructure building and the laying of networking is expensive and new ISPs will have trouble footing the cost and current ISPs can just say they don't want to expand or think it's best to remain in the cities they provide services in. You can't force a company to expand itself. And this FCC isn't going to pass a regulation like that when they're hell-bent on tearing down regulation. The internet is good for business, growth, and innovation- but that approach isn't going to work, we need to see more ISP choice in America, without that the current ISPs will just retain the status quo and attempt to take down NN every chance they get. For now, gov regulation is a necessary evil until that future of more than one or two terrible ISP choices is a reality. IMO, the government should subsidize small ISPs so they can grow and create competition, then when big ISPs are forced to start playing fair because they aren't the only one around who offers decent internet, the government can pull NN protections and I wouldn't care. Competition is key.

True, but remember that a lot of congressmen and women are against Title II protections and want to allow ISPs to do things like that, so I wouldn't be putting all of your faith in Congress to right the wrongs the ISPs would do should the FCC repeal the current protections, because a lot of them were willing to let those actions occur. Unless if the business had a large financial impact that Congress would care about, I'd be doubtful (especially with the state of our government right now) that they'd actually do anything meaningful to correct the bad behaviors of ISPs.

True, but those businesses also run on those ISPs internet as well, and them not using the internet to boycott ISP's bad behavior wouldn't be realistic, so our only real hope for change would be new ISPs that generate good competition to release the chains of government regulation and the amount of greed current ISPs have.

It's an interesting point, and I'd idealistically like to think it'd be easier for us to change an ISP, but because of the monopolies set up by American ISPs, we're dependent on them for access to the internet. It would take massive boycotts to change things, and even then, some ISPs also offer TV services and other things. If people across the country dropped their access to the internet to try to change an ISP, it'd have consequences for the people too, especially when it comes to jobs. And then they still get money from the TV services people purchase. It's because of their monopolies that they can get away with their dirty tricks. I'd be weary of letting the government regulate unchecked, but the government has its own checks and balances in place, too, but I agree that some of the agencies aren't checked enough. I'd love to see a future with more ISP competition so we didn't have to depend on a government to keep monopolies from screwing us, because government agencies don't always reflect the will of the people (such as the FCC right now), but we need it until that future can come, so I'd think of it as a bit of a necessary evil until proper change can happen, but I have yet to see new ISPs sprout and grow.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but the talking points I was providing was trying to say why NN is a good check and balance, that's all. IMO, corporate greed is a reason for keeping NN. I'm not a fan of bureaucrats or the gov being in control of the internet, but it's also important to note that ISPs aren't going to treat us better, atleast, American ISPs wont. You have an interesting view on the topic and I respect it, but please don't throw out arguments brought to the table because of them being the "same old song and dance" because they're still relevant and important aspects of the topic debated in this thread and reasons why people are affirming that we uphold Title II protections. Corporate greed is a problem and a reason why NN is a good check and balance- it keeps ISPs from going further in their attempts to extort every bit of money out of us that they can.

Exactly. The arguments against NN were dead before they were even stated in this thread lol

Especially when Comcast is one of the most hated corporations in America. If NN is repealed, they won't work for the people, and you'll probably have to deal with paid prioritization and throttling to force you to use their services. This is why full free market capitalism won't work- we need regulations because corporations are not inherently good.

Thank you for that last point- it's exactly what we're trying to prevent. If NN is repealed, ISPs plan to screw us over: Throttle, slow, raise prices, without improving the speeds and infrastructure of the services they provide. @Mirage I have to disagree with the points you're trying to make. If we pay more, it's not going to benefit us. ISPs don't plan to improve their speeds, they haven't. They only find more ways to extort money out of us for more of the same, and that's why we need NN. We don't need more money falling out of our wallets because the ISPs want to charge us for access to certain sites or services like they do for TV packages. It has no benefit to us if we pay more. Sigh. Someone wanting to protect us from the greediness of corporations by having government regulations does not make them "Bernie Sanders", you can't go around acting like corporations are always working for the benefit of the people. With ISPs, it's very clear that they aren't and won't.

Exactly why we need NN- because ISPs don't plan to change the status quo and just want to extort money out of us and screw over the people who use their services.

If we have to pay more, it isn't going to make the internet better. The current ISPs have made it clear they are just greedy and don't plan to improve infrastructure or quality of services, it'll just return to throttling, extortion and monopoly like behavior if we repeal NN. The CEOs are greedy and want to fill their wallets. This is why we need NN, because even if people have hope that paying more will eventually improve the quality of internet, it won't. The ISPs of America are stuck in their ways and just want to make more money for themselves while retaining the status quo.

Yes, the Title II and NN rules don't stop data caps- that was never it's purpose. It is to prevent slowing, paid prioritization and throttling. The thing that happened to Netflix was not "Selling", it's services were slowed down to extort money out of Netflix so the normal speeds would return. That's corporate greed and cheating the free and open market we strive for with Net Neutrality protections put into place since. Again, the first sentence of what you said is in favor of corporate greed- corporations don't need more money, they're already well off without getting even worse with their greed.

That's the problem- corporate greed. They spend that lobbying money because they see more money in the long term. And then yes, they want it from their customer base. They want to extort every penny. They already make a profit, and this argument is only promoting corporate greed.

Protecting NN is the protection of an open and free market online, and while I agree to some extent the power that big businesses such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have, startups still happen online and these businesses don't have a track record of attempting to stifle competition- unlike ISPs, so it's really not a "no win" situation, because if you repealed Title II protections, that wouldn't change, and would then create more problems than retaining the protections we currently have in place.

This statement is a clear false equivalence fallacy and being that these two situations are inherently very different, you can't say that applying the same fix to both situations would work. And yes, ISPs have always had jacked up prices in the US, have throttled sites, have tried to extort money out of businesses before. Here's a long ass list of violations of net neutrality before rules were put into place- showing that ISPs can and WILL try to force consumers to use their services. This so called "Free Market" you think will happen with the removal of government controlled NN will create a market controlled by gate keepers. Why shouldn't the internet be free? With the last bit of this quote, you say to let the market settle itself out and let the consumer decide how the internet plays out, a clear contradiction of you saying the internet shouldn't be free. The thing is, when ISPs are unregulated and allowed to stomp on smaller business and control what services are favored, you have the opposite of this "free market" and big business will rule. Your claim of big businesses such as Google and Amazon having to take logistical burdens, but mind you- BOTH of them support net neutrality (also Facebook) so your argument there also falls. The idea of Title II protections and NN give the internet a utility classification, as any developed nation should do- it's almost required for all jobs these days. Having ISPs who have admitted to allowing monopolies (Staying out of eachother's cities and areas for building new infrastructure) with only 1 or 2 actual choices is why we need to uphold these protections. Strip them away and these ISPs will start charging more to access certain websites or services, and the highest bidders will win. That's the opposite of a free and open market. So, to wrap it up- Google, Amazon, and Facebook all support NN, there is no logistical burden and no evidence provided to claim there is. Second, ISPs in America have created monopolies and before NN was put in place, there were lots of shady things done by ISPs that would violate these protections today. Your argument of Google, Amazon and Facebook being monopolies and trampling over smaller businesses is the only thing that could've had credibility- but you also provided no evidence that they have, and there are alternative places to shop, alternative media outlets and atlernative search engines, but they got to where they are by offering higher quality options compared to competitors. ISPs here don't- Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America, prices for internet are screwed up (1TB caps are very popular now, with $10 per 50 gigs over that cap), and they didn't get so big by being popular, no, it costs a lot of money to build networks and infrastructure, they were just the first to do so, and these big ISPs have agreed to stay out of eachother's way. Google, Amazon and Facebook got to where they are by being good services we all love. ISPs got to where they are by being the early bird and then screwing us over. You see start ups on the internet all the time finding success- but you never see new ISPs in America, because of backroom deals and the costs of laying new groundwork for internet. Until there's more choice with quality ISPs that won't act like the rest have- we need Title II and NN to keep the internet open for all. You never see stories of Google, Amazon, or Facebook trampling competition as stated earlier. But ISPs have monopolies, and that's why they tried to shut down Title II, so they could continue to act like monopolies and screw over the American people.