web Help save Net Neutrality! (URGENT!)

[Nightfall Veilwing 1,124]

For those who don't know, net neutrality is under attack again. This time, it's more serious; the greedy chairman at the FCC, Ajit Pai, wants to terminate net neutrality in favor of cable companies.  This a rights violation and it will affect every since one of us since everyone uses the internet daily. Pai believes that the internet companies will make more money if net neutrality is killed off, but they will, in fact, lose money because the majority of internet users won't be able to afford it. Back in the '90s, the internet was a luxury, but now, it's a necessity.

The final vote for whether net neutrality lives or not will be on Dec. 14. So, we don't have much time left. 

Go and have your voice heard! Net neutrality is our right, and it will not be taken away from us without a fight! Getting rid of net neutrality will make the internet companies how cable TV is now. 

Here are some links you can use to have your voice heard and to protect net neutrality and your right for a free internet! 

Also do go on YouTube to hear more about net neutrality and why it's important.

[FCC contacts so you can voice your concerns]

https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact

[Comment on the Net Neutrality repeal proceedings directly]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108

Additional link provided by Alex2002ita

https://www.change.org/p/save-net-neutrality-netneutrality?recruiter=560013857&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=triggered

I do have hope that net neutrality will live because the internet is too big of a voice and the people have more power than you know. So, who will win, millions of people or just 1 greedy guy? 

Let's all spread the word and save net neutrality and keep it the way it is now! 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Millennium Shadow

[Rhythm Red 6,484]

I agree. Net neutrality is basically internet freedom. No one should be able to take that away, and I'll be shocked if they manage to!

[Angle Alastor 3,805]

i agree ! we want the internet to be treated equally ! i dont want the mlpforums to be slowed down or hardly be usable ! it needs to stay ! also was there another topic on this ? 

[Nightfall Veilwing 1,124]

2 minutes ago, Storm Shock said:

Also, was there another topic on this? 

I think there was a few, but not much. But, yeah, this is a dead serious threat against our right to a free internet. 

[Angle Alastor 3,805]

also this isnt helping ! we still need to keep fighting more !

 

[Twilight Karamel 131]

I can't stand these people in high up positions either being this downright stupid, or corrupt. It's beyond obvious that almost every single person nowadays needs internet not only for the ability to buy common amenities but also to pay bills, pay taxes, sign legal documents, sign up for school, send in bloody job applications! If they have to pay hefty fees just to use the bloody internet then exactly how many people will have jobs come the next generation? If you don't have money and you need a job to get money so that you can pay your internet fees to apply for a job, then that's just a paradox! Too much relies nowadays on the internet and now Ajit wants to make it where many people can't even further their lives because they can't pay for access to the ABILITY to further them! 

IMO, there's just way too much lying anymore to trust almost any news network on television.

[Nightfall Veilwing 1,124]

Companies don't care about the customers, only the money, and they'll do anything and everything to get what they want while completely disregarding the voice of the people and our given rights.

[CastletonSnob 3,025]

Alright everyone, post this thread in every forum you go to. Make sure everyone knows about this. 

[Mach33 809]

If he gets rid of net neutrality, he will find himself marked as a primary target by a certain group...Say, Anonymous.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Interdimensional

[Cybestry 31]

I'd like to give my two cents, I personally think such a motion to remove net neutrality is not only unfair to the consumer, but also pretty much suicide for the FCC. I mean, with all the uproar trying to keep the motion from even passing in the first place, there is no doubt going to be protests all over the country, some of them even violent and many different groups, specifically hacktivists will not be happy either, so I have confidence that the if the motion is passed (hopefully it doesn't), it will be overturned because of the sheer amount of citizen disapproval. So in the way I see it, net neutrality hopefully should be safe either way. But I can't say for sure 

[King of Canterlot 9,588]

I can't believe the gov would consider even bringing up the discussion of possibly removing net neutrality, I mean, people use the internet all the time now, this wouldn't just affect a few hundred or thousand people, this would affect millions of people across the country if they remove net neutrality, including me. I shouldn't have to pay to use YouTube or any other website, that's just ridiculous. 

[Nightfall Veilwing 1,124]

8 minutes ago, Cybestry said:

...so I have confidence that, the if the motion is passed (hopefully it doesn't), it will be overturned because of the sheer amount of citizen disapproval. So, in the way I see it, net neutrality hopefully should be safe, either way, but I can't say for sure.

Yeah, something so important to literally everyone will not go down so easily.

I'll pray (not is a religious manner) that net neutrality will survive and live.

3 minutes ago, King of Canterlot said:

I can't believe the gov would consider even bringing up the discussion of possibly removing net neutrality, I mean, people use the internet all the time now, this wouldn't just affect a few hundred or thousand people, this would affect millions of people across the country if they remove net neutrality, including me. I shouldn't have to pay to use YouTube or any other website, that's just ridiculous. 

Sadly, it all comes to money. You know that society has its priorities backwards and misguided when money is the only thing that gets shit done and has a bigger influence than an actual person.

[SoberStarlight 906]

The whole concept of the internet is to be a public tool. When there is a price tag on the internet, it limits people's access to use said tool. I currently am protesting this whole thing, and hope that you all are too!

[DubWolf 16,613]

He also said he won't change his mind based on public perception...

Sounds very much what an authoritarian dictator would do; disregard what's best for the people, shut out opposing views. Why aren't people calling him a communist? This is not what a democracy/republic looks like. He may not have been elected by the people, but as a politician placed in office, he has a duty to serve the commonwealth, not the people who already have enough power.

He won't get away with this if this goes through...

Edited December 1, 2017 by WWolf

[Patty Thundersnow 4,129]

All it boils down to is money. Pai is trying to get big internet to slow down the internet and force us who use it every day to pay for our favorite websites. I call BS on this... moron. We need net neutrality to prevent Big Internet from styfling us from using what is supposed to be free from being regulated.

[Kaneki 1,072]

Unpopular opinion, but I think that not much will change without NN.

I know there's been a few instances where companies were caught blocking things, but the FCC has either fined or ordered them to stop, all without NN. One ISP in North Carolina was ordered to pay $15,000 by the FCC for blocking Vonage, and when Comcast blocked the BitTorrent protocol, the FCC ordered them to stop as well. Plus, many experts, such as Marc Andreessen (the creator of Netscape), Mark Cuban (multi-millionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, with Internet start-ups in his history), and Peter Thiel (creator of PayPal and an investor in Facebook) have all stated that NN would extremely limit investment in broadband networks, since if they cannot charge Netflix or some other company for bandwidth as NN says, the ISP cannot get a return on all that fiber they've been installing in cities (as many ISPs have been doing).

As for the "paid lanes"? That seems like a far stretch, and with many ISPs converting their existing bandwidth to fiber optic, they should be able to handle that traffic. Plus, you know how cell providers are starting to not charge for data on streaming services (such as T-Mobile not charging for data on Spotify, and AT&T not charging your data on DirecTV NOW)? Not allowed on NN. People love this policy, and a lot of people would hate to see it go.

[Denim&Venöm 16,509]

I'm just going to say the same thing I did in the Net Neutrality debate thread. 

First of all, everypony

 

 

Net Neutrality has only been in effect for a few years. Have the ISPs been censoring content and throttling service prior to that?

 

What scrapping net neutrality does is open the doors for competition. The ISPs can't afford to screw up. They want those customers, and if they do things like censor content or throttle service, than they'll go elsewhere and they'll loose out on a fortune. And if all of them can't get their act together, than a new start up ISP will enter the picture and give them what they want. You're afraid of Verizon and Comcast gettign too much power. With net neutrality, it is now the likes of google, amazon and Facebook that are getting too much power.

 

Think of net neutrality this way: Imagine a concert hall. Seats near the front are expensive. Hundreds of dollars. Seats up top are cheap. Like 10 or 20 bucks. What Net Neutrality does is have everyone pay the same. All seats are like $60. Sounds fair right? Well, not until you realize that while it makes premium seats cheaper, it'll be the rich who eat them all up at a bargain, while everyone else now has to pay the same price for seats that are no where near worth that much. That's what's happening.

 

Not everyone needs top tier streaming and bandwidth options. But the little guys, the one's whose small time ventures would benefit from modest service, have to pay more. That's why Google, YT, FB are still on top. They want to be the only option while paying a discount rate. Scrap net neutrality, they'll start receiving competition form mom and pop developers and the services they provide.

 

And on a broader scale, do we really want the government being in control of our internet? You all are paranoid about censorship and throttling. The government can do those same things. Heck, they are in a bigger potion to do so. But they haven't. If they won't do it, then corporations, which don't have as much power or reach, probably won't do so either, just because that will cost them customers.

 

Remember what the internet was originally for. A means of communication to survive and overcome a time of war. If it can survive a war, then it'll survive this. Competition is a good thing. Let the providers fight for my patronage. And if those companies do cross a line somewhere, then we can react. Then we can have congress step in and make laws to rectify the situation. But so far, nothing's happened. 

 

In the end though, no matter who wins, everyone will have to pay more. Net Neutrality stays, you'll be paying for it in taxes. NN goes, you'll be paying for it as a customer. Either way, the price needs to be payed. 

 

That's the big take away. The internet is not free. Somebody has to pay for it. And it'll be a lot as a tax payer, or a lot as a customer. 

 

In the end though, I doubt much will change. The 90s and 00s were fine without net neutrality. This whole debacle will be held up for years in court anyways. Why don't we wait until something does go wrong, before taking up arms at something that could go wrong. 

 

 

Here's a few articles on the cons of Net Neutrality. Look at both sides of the argument before you plant your flag. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/05/19/why-net-neutrality-is-a-dumb-idea/#797f08ea6b41

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world

 

[Celli 4,332]

@Denim&Venom @Cloggedone I suggest you watch The Humanist Report video linked above because Net Neutrality has always been the standard,

On 11/30/2017 at 8:34 PM, Storm Shock said:

also this isnt helping ! we still need to keep fighting more !

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Early_history_1980_–_early_2000s

There has always been regulation.

[Steve Piranha 28,778]

7 hours ago, Denim&Venom said:

I'm just going to say the same thing I did in the Net Neutrality debate thread. 

First of all, everypony

 

 

Net Neutrality has only been in effect for a few years. Have the ISPs been censoring content and throttling service prior to that?

 

What scrapping net neutrality does is open the doors for competition. The ISPs can't afford to screw up. They want those customers, and if they do things like censor content or throttle service, than they'll go elsewhere and they'll loose out on a fortune. And if all of them can't get their act together, than a new start up ISP will enter the picture and give them what they want. You're afraid of Verizon and Comcast gettign too much power. With net neutrality, it is now the likes of google, amazon and Facebook that are getting too much power.

 

Think of net neutrality this way: Imagine a concert hall. Seats near the front are expensive. Hundreds of dollars. Seats up top are cheap. Like 10 or 20 bucks. What Net Neutrality does is have everyone pay the same. All seats are like $60. Sounds fair right? Well, not until you realize that while it makes premium seats cheaper, it'll be the rich who eat them all up at a bargain, while everyone else now has to pay the same price for seats that are no where near worth that much. That's what's happening.

 

Not everyone needs top tier streaming and bandwidth options. But the little guys, the one's whose small time ventures would benefit from modest service, have to pay more. That's why Google, YT, FB are still on top. They want to be the only option while paying a discount rate. Scrap net neutrality, they'll start receiving competition form mom and pop developers and the services they provide.

 

And on a broader scale, do we really want the government being in control of our internet? You all are paranoid about censorship and throttling. The government can do those same things. Heck, they are in a bigger potion to do so. But they haven't. If they won't do it, then corporations, which don't have as much power or reach, probably won't do so either, just because that will cost them customers.

 

Remember what the internet was originally for. A means of communication to survive and overcome a time of war. If it can survive a war, then it'll survive this. Competition is a good thing. Let the providers fight for my patronage. And if those companies do cross a line somewhere, then we can react. Then we can have congress step in and make laws to rectify the situation. But so far, nothing's happened. 

 

In the end though, no matter who wins, everyone will have to pay more. Net Neutrality stays, you'll be paying for it in taxes. NN goes, you'll be paying for it as a customer. Either way, the price needs to be payed. 

 

That's the big take away. The internet is not free. Somebody has to pay for it. And it'll be a lot as a tax payer, or a lot as a customer. 

 

In the end though, I doubt much will change. The 90s and 00s were fine without net neutrality. This whole debacle will be held up for years in court anyways. Why don't we wait until something does go wrong, before taking up arms at something that could go wrong. 

 

 

Here's a few articles on the cons of Net Neutrality. Look at both sides of the argument before you plant your flag. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/05/19/why-net-neutrality-is-a-dumb-idea/#797f08ea6b41

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world

 

While I'm concerned about net neutrality, I admit that I haven't researched much about the subject. BUT, I thought about business competition before this post, and since I've studied accounting, and some economy with it, said competition is, almost guaranteed, a plus for us. Competition is an incentive that ultimately end with us with options, and better services at lower prices, and say whatever you wanna say about capitalism, but that's one of it's wonders among it's flaws

[Celli 4,332]

34 minutes ago, Steve Piranha said:

While I'm concerned about net neutrality, I admit that I haven't researched much about the subject. BUT, I thought about business competition before this post, and since I've studied accounting, and some economy with it, said competition is, almost guaranteed, a plus for us. Competition is an incentive that ultimately end with us with options, and better services at lower prices, and say whatever you wanna say about capitalism, but that's one of it's wonders among it's flaws

Before Title II was in effect these big ISPs still had a monopoly on the market. I'm sorry but that doesn't like competition to me. How do you know the big ISPs won't shut down the little ones like they usually do?

[Steve Piranha 28,778]

31 minutes ago, Celli said:

Before Title II was in effect these big ISPs still had a monopoly on the market. I'm sorry but that doesn't like competition to me. How do you know the big ISPs won't shut down the little ones like they usually do?

I don't, just stated a possible outcome. Doesn't mean I'm a prophet, so it may DO end in a monopoly as we fear

[Celli 4,332]

3 minutes ago, Steve Piranha said:

I don't, just stated a possible outcome. Doesn't mean I'm a prophet, so it may DO end in a monopoly as we fear

It's a very high possibility is the point. Net Neutrality or no, it's nearly impossible for the little guy to start up with the likes of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner/Spectrum having a monopoly. And the big ISPs know that, that's why they want to destroy NN.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Celli

[Celli 4,332]

You wanna know my biggest issue with repealing net neutrality? Ajit is getting rid of all regulations. That means when these ISPs' exclusivity contracts expire, there's nothing stopping them from making new ones. The ISPs know this, and they will want to take advantage of it.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

On 12/2/2017 at 5:32 AM, Cloggedone said:

Unpopular opinion, but I think that not much will change without NN.

I know there's been a few instances where companies were caught blocking things, but the FCC has either fined or ordered them to stop, all without NN. One ISP in North Carolina was ordered to pay $15,000 by the FCC for blocking Vonage, and when Comcast blocked the BitTorrent protocol, the FCC ordered them to stop as well. Plus, many experts, such as Marc Andreessen (the creator of Netscape), Mark Cuban (multi-millionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, with Internet start-ups in his history), and Peter Thiel (creator of PayPal and an investor in Facebook) have all stated that NN would extremely limit investment in broadband networks, since if they cannot charge Netflix or some other company for bandwidth as NN says, the ISP cannot get a return on all that fiber they've been installing in cities (as many ISPs have been doing).

As for the "paid lanes"? That seems like a far stretch, and with many ISPs converting their existing bandwidth to fiber optic, they should be able to handle that traffic. Plus, you know how cell providers are starting to not charge for data on streaming services (such as T-Mobile not charging for data on Spotify, and AT&T not charging your data on DirecTV NOW)? Not allowed on NN. People love this policy, and a lot of people would hate to see it go.

Of course they can handle the traffic. It was never about capacity. Data caps and bandwidth restrictions aren't about relieving congestion. The cost of delivering broadband services has been decreasing for a long time.

AT&T not charging for DirecTV data? DirecTV is an AT&T subsidiary. They're more than happy to bundle TV with your Internet and not charge you extra, nothing above and beyond what they're already charging you for anyway. AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV marked the point at which they decided to quit offering discounts on plans in my area. Do I have another choice? Sure, Comcast. But in many other areas, even that's not an option. You get what you get.

[Jeric 46,834]

Unless we see legitimate infrastructure sub-leasing similar to what we have with MVNOs and cellular, the talk about competition is absolutely preposterous. When it comes to industry, I work within the scope of reality and pragmatism, not theory. 

Lose customers? Not bloody likely in many cases. In my area there is one viable option. 

However, there is a check on abuse. If the ISP's go all draconian with throttling (something that will impact more people), it will be more visible and become a much much bigger hot button topic. Forget economic, social, and defense issues ... this will be a deciding factor to clean house. 

Now if we are talking about things like stopping torrenting. The jury is still out on whether the electorate as a whole will care that much to put in politicians that favor them on net neutrality if they are from an opposing Party.