web Why Net Neutrality Needs To Go

[Mirage 24,774]

1 minute ago, CypherHoof said:

Hasn't so far.

ISPs have managed to roll back the very definitions of high speed internet, so that what Americans are offered outside the major cities is the worst and most expensive in the west (mobile isn't much better either). competition in the US is a joke, so your choice is largely take it or leave it.

But essentially we are talking here the last mine to and from the internet, not the internet itself. The internet itself will still go on quite happily for the rest of the world; it is just the US customers who will have to pay twice for content the rest of the planet only pays once for.

I'm sorry - I have to disagree here. Americans are well aware that much of our internet infrastructure is shit. Our roads and bridges are shit too. We're getting pretty used to shit, especially shit from other countries. The American economy has been declining since the 90's when we thought it would be a good idea to 'globalize'. Our companies didn't grow 'globally' they just left, and other countries didn't play fair they just ripped us off - and all kinds of other 'unforseen' tragedies happened that crippled a great deal of our homeland development.

So if we have pay more to get better - I say go for it. Our state and federal governments are NOT going to help our tech infrastructure (at least not for a long time) - they are broke, largely from taking care of the sick, the old and the unemployed. Thank you very much globalists.

4 minutes ago, Fennekin said:

I iust dont get it, and i probably never will get it.

You express here what most people honestly feel I think. 

 

[Libra 11,691]

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

I'm sorry - I have to disagree here. Americans are well aware that much of our internet infrastructure is shit. Our roads and bridges are shit too. We're getting pretty used to shit, especially shit from other countries. The American economy has been declining since the 90's when we thought it would be a good idea to 'globalize'. Our companies didn't grow 'globally' they just left, and other countries didn't play fair they just ripped us off - and all kinds of other 'unforseen' tragedies happened that crippled a great deal of our homeland development.

So if we have pay more to get better - I say go for it. Our state and federal governments are NOT going to help our tech infrastructure (at least not for a long time) - they are broke, largely from taking care of the sick, the old and the unemployed. Thank you very much globalists.

You express here what most people honestly feel I think. 

 

Alright, fair enough.

im just going to end here and talk about things i do know about: pastel horses. See you around.

[DuskSong 742]

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.

[honk friend 1,978]

Funny how libertarians are so in favor of freedom that they're willing to repeal one practical freedom everyone benefits from so corporations can take advantage of another.

[DuskSong 742]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

Funny how libertarians are so in favor of freedom that they're willing to repeal one practical freedom everyone benefits from so corporations can take advantage of another.

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.

[Mirage 24,774]

2 minutes ago, Annie said:

Funny how libertarians are so in favor of freedom that they're willing to repeal one practical freedom everyone benefits from so corporations can take advantage of another.

Who let Bernie Sanders in here! 

[honk friend 1,978]

Just now, Mirage said:

Who let Bernie Sanders in here! 

Better than a free market capitalist.

[CypherHoof 26,483]

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

I'm sorry - I have to disagree here. Americans are well aware that much of our internet infrastructure is shit. Our roads and bridges are shit too. We're getting pretty used to shit, especially shit from other countries. The American economy has been declining since the 90's when we thought it would be a good idea to 'globalize'.

I didn't say you weren't aware of it, just that your "market" has been divided up into neat little monopoly areas, so as a consumer, you have little or no say in what you get - just if you take it or leave it.  In many cases, state laws actually PREVENT the local governments from setting up not-for-profit MANs, and offer tax breaks for the large ISPs in return for promises to bring broadband to areas of the city that somehow never get kept.

It has happened at the country wide level too. If you follow the NANOG list, you see occasional wars break out where two ISPs, who each have a bunch of paying customers who are paying their own ISP to talk to the other ISP's customers, suddenly find themselves unable to - because one ISP has decided it's customers are more important than the other ISP's, so that other ISP should pay for access to them (paid peering vs the original model, where each ISP paid for the link to a peering point, and traffic was exchanged there)

 

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Our companies didn't grow 'globally' they just left, and other countries didn't play fair they just ripped us off - and all kinds of other 'unforseen' tragedies happened that crippled a great deal of our homeland development.

The same companies ripped off every other country too. At least the corporate sovereignty clauses (where the US government could be forced to pay the same "global" companies if their laws prevented expected profits) got ripped out after Trump abandoned the treaty negotiations.

 

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

So if we have pay more to get better - I say go for it.

Sure, I am in favour of that. but that isn't what NN is preventing - NN stops you paying more for the same, not better.

[DuskSong 742]

1 minute ago, CypherHoof said:

I didn't say you weren't aware of it, just that your "market" has been divided up into neat little monopoly areas, so as a consumer, you have little or no say in what you get - just if you take it or leave it.  In many cases, state laws actually PREVENT the local governments from setting up not-for-profit MANs, and offer tax breaks for the large ISPs in return for promises to bring broadband to areas of the city that somehow never get kept.

It has happened at the country wide level too. If you follow the NANOG list, you see occasional wars break out where two ISPs, who each have a bunch of paying customers who are paying their own ISP to talk to the other ISP's customers, suddenly find themselves unable to - because one ISP has decided it's customers are more important than the other ISP's, so that other ISP should pay for access to them (paid peering vs the original model, where each ISP paid for the link to a peering point, and traffic was exchanged there)

 

The same companies ripped off every other country too. At least the corporate sovereignty clauses (where the US government could be forced to pay the same "global" companies if their laws prevented expected profits) got ripped out after Trump abandoned the treaty negotiations.

 

Sure, I am in favour of that. but that isn't what NN is preventing - NN stops you paying more for the same, not better.

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.

4 minutes ago, Annie said:

Better than a free market capitalist.

 

5 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Who let Bernie Sanders in here! 

 

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.

[honk friend 1,978]

You can't genuinely expect free market capitalism to work when mine and several others' ONLY OPTION for affordable internet is Comcast. That's not going to change if net neutrality is repealed, That only means I have to place my full trust in Comcast to not completely fuck me over because they have basically a monopoly in my area and that's not a risk that I'm willing to take.

[Celli 4,343]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

You can't genuinely expect free market capitalism to work when mine and several others' ONLY OPTION for affordable internet is Comcast. That's not going to change if net neutrality is repealed, That only means I have to place my full trust in Comcast to not completely fuck me over because they have basically a monopoly in my area and that's not a risk that I'm willing to take.

And yet people like @Denim&Venom fail to realize that.

[DuskSong 742]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

You can't genuinely expect free market capitalism to work when mine and several others' ONLY OPTION for affordable internet is Comcast. That's not going to change if net neutrality is repealed, That only means I have to place my full trust in Comcast to not completely fuck me over because they have basically a monopoly in my area and that's not a risk that I'm willing to take.

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.

[Azure Envy 1,093]

I'd argue that Comcast is already doing a fine job of fucking us over to the fullest extent allowable by law especially so when there isn't any viable competition in the area.

Cutting regulation to telecom would only strengthen that capability. They'll even save money not having to hire a social media team to explain why they're so committed to their idea of an "open internet" since it wouldn't even need to be. Nice!

 

[DuskSong 742]

1 minute ago, Azure Envy said:

I'd argue that Comcast is already doing a fine job of fucking us over to the fullest extent allowable by law especially so when there isn't any viable competition in the area.

Cutting regulation to telecom would only strengthen that capability. They'll even save money not having to hire a social media team to explain why they're so committed to their idea of an "open internet" since it wouldn't even need to be. Nice!

 

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

[honk friend 1,978]

10 minutes ago, Azure Envy said:

I'd argue that Comcast is already doing a fine job of fucking us over to the fullest extent allowable by law especially so when there isn't any viable competition in the area.

Cutting regulation to telecom would only strengthen that capability. They'll even save money not having to hire a social media team to explain why they're so committed to their idea of an "open internet" since it wouldn't even need to be. Nice!

 

More or less. I feel like the attitude is "with net neutrality we're getting screwed over, therefore it would be better without net neutrality"

It's a false equivalency. We're not getting screwed over because of net neutrality, we're getting screwed over because that's just how corporations function.

[Mirage 24,774]

13 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

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.

You know, I'd really appreciate it if you and others stop preaching about socialism/capitalism stuff. Let's talk about the actual issue because:

1) Free Market Capitalism does not mean unregulated or unlawful trade. Some of the comments you are others have made are simply not characteristic of the system. They're talking points, I get it, but it's old okay - thus my Bernie comment. It was a joke, and a rather fitting one. Lets get over the platitudes man.

2) Regulation is as arbitrary as 'Capitalism'. While Net Neutrality might be a good check and balance, what if it really isn't? This is where you've misunderstood me - I just want to talk about it, get the facts, learn from experiences, I couldn't care less about 'corporate greed' because whether you want to accept it or not - that's reality and no one will ever change that. There is no such thing as a 'fair' system, and whenever it has ever been tried, it fails miserably.

I believe in people like you and me. I don't trust a few to govern the many - whether its corporate, government or AI. So we should be talking, productively, and sharing ideas.

I mean, if I wanted to hear what some of you are saying all I have to do is go to the NYT homepage or Buzzfeed right? Right. It's old, run of the mill same old song and dance about 'corporate greed'. Who cares! What matters is that people be good to each other in situations like this, and stick together to make things work as well as they can. I'm part of 'we the people' too man - please, include me, I might be able to help.

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,262]

One thing that worries me about Net Neutrality going away is that we might see ISPs censor websites. I can see them overstep their boundaries and censor left-wing and right-wing websites that conflict to their beliefs. 

[DuskSong 742]

39 minutes ago, Mirage said:

You know, I'd really appreciate it if you and others stop preaching about socialism/capitalism stuff. Let's talk about the actual issue because:

1) Free Market Capitalism does not mean unregulated or unlawful trade. Some of the comments you are others have made are simply not characteristic of the system. They're talking points, I get it, but it's old okay - thus my Bernie comment. It was a joke, and a rather fitting one. Lets get over the platitudes man.

2) Regulation is as arbitrary as 'Capitalism'. While Net Neutrality might be a good check and balance, what if it really isn't? This is where you've misunderstood me - I just want to talk about it, get the facts, learn from experiences, I couldn't care less about 'corporate greed' because whether you want to accept it or not - that's reality and no one will ever change that. There is no such thing as a 'fair' system, and whenever it has ever been tried, it fails miserably.

I believe in people like you and me. I don't trust a few to govern the many - whether its corporate, government or AI. So we should be talking, productively, and sharing ideas.

I mean, if I wanted to hear what some of you are saying all I have to do is go to the NYT homepage or Buzzfeed right? Right. It's old, run of the mill same old song and dance about 'corporate greed'. Who cares! What matters is that people be good to each other in situations like this, and stick together to make things work as well as they can. I'm part of 'we the people' too man - please, include me, I might be able to help.

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.

Edited December 3, 2017 by DuskSong

[Mirage 24,774]

2 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

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.

I'm not throwing out arguments that are factual or prudent, at least I don't try to. My only point was that the slogans don't help - propaganda isn't healthy communication. And this leads us to a salient point - which evil are we, as consumers, more capable of fighting? I would argue the ISPs in this case.

Look at it this way - a government agency that can regulate unchecked becomes just as unjust as a corporation monopolizing unchecked. Which is more practical for the consumer to change?

[Celli 4,343]

@Mirage You do not understand that these ISPs have had a monopoly on the market for a while, since before net neutrality. Getting rid of nn will ensure it stays that way, thus stifling competition, which is bad for us. Is that what you want? 

[DuskSong 742]

7 minutes ago, Mirage said:

I'm not throwing out arguments that are factual or prudent, at least I don't try to. My only point was that the slogans don't help - propaganda isn't healthy communication. And this leads us to a salient point - which evil are we, as consumers, more capable of fighting? I would argue the ISPs in this case.

Look at it this way - a government agency that can regulate unchecked becomes just as unjust as a corporation monopolizing unchecked. Which is more practical for the consumer to change?

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.

Edited December 3, 2017 by DuskSong

[Mirage 24,774]

2 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

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. And 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.

Don't forget businesses use ISP's as well...

[DuskSong 742]

Just now, Mirage said:

Don't forget businesses use ISP's as well...

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.

[Mirage 24,774]

7 minutes ago, Celli said:

@Mirage You do not understand that these ISPs have had a monopoly on the market for a while, since before net neutrality. Getting rid of nn will ensure it stays that way, thus stifling competition, which is bad for us. Is that what you want? 

Why would you ask me that? What have I said that ever indicated I wanted monotony?

Then again, it kinda depends on what you mean. Some monopolies are actually good - like public transit and Electric Power. Sometimes, competition is actually not practical, depending on the application (can you imagine the problems of competing energy companies battling over easements, poles and resources! Nightmare...)

Philosophically, I believe the internet and ISPs should be protected under the law, as it pertains to anything else we use, like roads and even electric power, with regard to our constitutional rights, and what is a privilege and what is a right. The internet is not a right, but it isn't just a privilege either - it's a network, like roads for vehicles, where we have rights and privileges, and I don't oppose regulating its freedom, as long as it doesn't turn to complete shit as a result.

5 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

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.

What I meant was businesses like mine - we use the internet for everything we do! If there's content blocking, slowing, etc my point is the outrage would be HUGE. The FCC works under the privilege of Congress - so if they mess things up, goes who's going to show up in front of Bad Street Boys in Congress...

[DuskSong 742]

7 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Why would you ask me that? What have I said that ever indicated I wanted monotony?

Then again, it kinda depends on what you mean. Some monopolies are actually good - like public transit and Electric Power. Sometimes, competition is actually not practical, depending on the application (can you imagine the problems of competing energy companies battling over easements, poles and resources! Nightmare...)

Philosophically, I believe the internet and ISPs should be protected under the law, as it pertains to anything else we use, like roads and even electric power, with regard to our constitutional rights, and what is a privilege and what is a right. The internet is not a right, but it isn't just a privilege either - it's a network, like roads for vehicles, where we have rights and privileges, and I don't oppose regulating its freedom, as long as it doesn't turn to complete shit as a result.

What I meant was businesses like mine - we use the internet for everything we do! If there's content blocking, slowing, etc my point is the outrage would be HUGE. The FCC works under the privilege of Congress - so if they mess things up, goes who's going to show up in front of Bad Street Boys in Congress...

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.

Edited December 3, 2017 by DuskSong