web Why Net Neutrality Needs To Go

[Celli 4,337]

3 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.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did.

The internet is not something that should be monopolized, it's needed for business growth and innovation. It's not right for the likes of Comcast and Verizon to have regional monopolies. It stifles needed competition which is good for everyone. 

I just think before repealing nn we should impose light regulations saying ISPs can't monopolize a region.

[DuskSong 742]

7 minutes ago, Celli said:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did.

The internet is not something that should be monopolized, it's needed for business growth and innovation. It's not right for the likes of Comcast and Verizon to have regional monopolies. It stifles needed competition which is good for everyone. 

I just think before repealing nn we should impose light regulations saying ISPs can't monopolize a region.

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.

Edited December 3, 2017 by DuskSong

[Celli 4,337]

4 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

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.

That's what I'm saying, we need more ISPs.

[DuskSong 742]

Just now, Celli said:

That's what I'm saying, we need more ISPs.

I totally agree, and I think it would solve a lot of these issues.

The scary thing is that current ISPs are pretty corrupt, and Comcast even lobbied to shut down a city from running their own internet for obvious reasons, but they failed. What I want to see is a government that will subsidize the creation of small ISPs across the country to allow new competition so that current ISPs start playing fair and then we can loosen up on regulation, because the monopolies will no longer be there to screw over the country. So definitely, new ISPs are a great fix to our current system, but it'll be a long time until it happens so retaining Title II protections is important because the big ISPs will only continue to hurt us, and that's something Ajit Pai fails to see.

[Mirage 24,747]

2 hours ago, DuskSong said:

I totally agree, and I think it would solve a lot of these issues.

The scary thing is that current ISPs are pretty corrupt, and Comcast even lobbied to shut down a city from running their own internet for obvious reasons, but they failed. What I want to see is a government that will subsidize the creation of small ISPs across the country to allow new competition so that current ISPs start playing fair and then we can loosen up on regulation, because the monopolies will no longer be there to screw over the country. So definitely, new ISPs are a great fix to our current system, but it'll be a long time until it happens so retaining Title II protections is important because the big ISPs will only continue to hurt us, and that's something Ajit Pai fails to see.

In theory, yes, competition is good for the consumer. But remember that ISPs, much like energy companies, have to maintain a huge infrastructure team to install and service their property. They rely on investment and profit to expand their services, and sometimes even subsidies (like in my case). Some little upstart ISP coming in and just taking over what Comcast built is just, well, stealing.

I would love to see more options and competition where I live. But, there is just no reasonable way for a company to run 25 miles of copper or fiber to serve maybe 15 houses.

And so I would like to see state and local governments invest in household infrastructure - problem is, most state and local governments are struggling, and it's about priorities, and high speed internet is not as important as fire engines and water mains.

However you slice it, our communications infrastructure needs more capital. From our cell towers to our cable data, we depend almost entirely on private companies. Therefore I do believe in regulations to keep these companies in check, because as we all believe, the internet has become a way of life, and it should never be controlled by 'special interest' for selective content, or short-sited profit.

I'm really just trying to understand what the hell is going on. Something about all this is just not settling with me - I just find it hard to believe that the FCC is eager to fuck over consumers...it just doesn't compute. There's got to be a better solution to all this.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion and I hope we can keep the red and blue politics out of this.

[DuskSong 742]

16 minutes ago, Mirage said:

In theory, yes, competition is good for the consumer. But remember that ISPs, much like energy companies, have to maintain a huge infrastructure team to install and service their property. They rely on investment and profit to expand their services, and sometimes even subsidies (like in my case). Some little upstart ISP coming in and just taking over what Comcast built is just, well, stealing.

I would love to see more options and competition where I live. But, there is just no reasonable way for a company to run 25 miles of copper or fiber to serve maybe 15 houses.

And so I would like to see state and local governments invest in household infrastructure - problem is, most state and local governments are struggling, and it's about priorities, and high speed internet is not as important as fire engines and water mains.

However you slice it, our communications infrastructure needs more capital. From our cell towers to our cable data, we depend almost entirely on private companies. Therefore I do believe in regulations to keep these companies in check, because as we all believe, the internet has become a way of life, and it should never be controlled by 'special interest' for selective content, or short-sited profit.

I'm really just trying to understand what the hell is going on. Something about all this is just not settling with me - I just find it hard to believe that the FCC is eager to fuck over consumers...it just doesn't compute. There's got to be a better solution to all this.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion and I hope we can keep the red and blue politics out of this.

I try my best not to polarize the situation with party lines, considering I'm independent of staple parties myself. I don't think the FCC is eager to fuck over consumers, I think Ajit Pai is relatively ignorant of the whole situation because his talking points are proven wrong again and again. I love the idea of state and local run internet, and I'm sure there's many that agree, like in Colorado where they defeated Comcast's evil bill to ban the state from having city run internet. That's a big thing ISPs should be and probably are afraid of- people taking control over the internet. I get that it would be unreasonable for ISPs to create infrastructure where you live, it would be a waste of money. I also agree that our communications infrastructure needs more money to work with. With our current situation, in my opinion until the wheels can start turning and the country turns to city and state run internet, NN should be upheld so big ISPs can't fuck us over while they still have the ability to. However, if and when we achieve the idea of lots of America using locally built internet- there's lobbyists and governors and mayors who could try to pull similar things like big ISPs have, the only difference being that we can vote them out of office- but who knows how those events will turn out. I do believe the internet should be in the control of the people, but it's a long and bumpy road with lots of twists and turns to get to a point where it will run smoothly without outside influences.

 

Because even with locally run internet, what happens when bribery and special interests comes back into the picture and someone wants to pass a bill allowing paid prioritization or a special interest group funds a politician that may try to pass something to speed up, lets say, their businesses' news website, while slowing down other businesses' websites in the area? We'd rely on the local government to listen to the people and be stuck in the same position we are with the FCC right now.

Edited December 4, 2017 by DuskSong

[Mirage 24,747]

15 hours ago, DuskSong said:

I try my best not to polarize the situation with party lines, considering I'm independent of staple parties myself. I don't think the FCC is eager to fuck over consumers, I think Ajit Pai is relatively ignorant of the whole situation because his talking points are proven wrong again and again. I love the idea of state and local run internet, and I'm sure there's many that agree, like in Colorado where they defeated Comcast's evil bill to ban the state from having city run internet. That's a big thing ISPs should be and probably are afraid of- people taking control over the internet. I get that it would be unreasonable for ISPs to create infrastructure where you live, it would be a waste of money. I also agree that our communications infrastructure needs more money to work with. With our current situation, in my opinion until the wheels can start turning and the country turns to city and state run internet, NN should be upheld so big ISPs can't fuck us over while they still have the ability to. However, if and when we achieve the idea of lots of America using locally built internet- there's lobbyists and governors and mayors who could try to pull similar things like big ISPs have, the only difference being that we can vote them out of office- but who knows how those events will turn out. I do believe the internet should be in the control of the people, but it's a long and bumpy road with lots of twists and turns to get to a point where it will run smoothly without outside influences.

 

Because even with locally run internet, what happens when bribery and special interests comes back into the picture and someone wants to pass a bill allowing paid prioritization or a special interest group funds a politician that may try to pass something to speed up, lets say, their businesses' news website, while slowing down other businesses' websites in the area? We'd rely on the local government to listen to the people and be stuck in the same position we are with the FCC right now.

All I can say is that all of your concerns are assumptions for the worst. It's a pessimistic view of freedom.

I'm going to have to be honest here about something - why is our popular culture so afraid of economic freedom? Even if we consider the latest bank crash in 2006/2008, which was caused by regulation and government interference, the 'free market' was not responsible for that catastrophe, and it certainly wasn't part of the cover-up and bail -out. I only bring this up because it is the most recent economic scare that is still affected us to this day. So if government over-regulation and mandates caused the largest economic scare in recent memory, why such suspicion over the free market?

I'm just trying to understand where corporations operating in the free market inspire such fierce opposition, when every single affluent country in the world has a strong free market corporate entities. Show me a poor and struggling country and I'll show you lack of economic freedom.

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to see that the FCC shouldn't even have this kind of power. If shit hits the fan by removing NN, then we should use Congress to mandate safeguards that expire every 2 years. I do not want my ISP controlling what I use the internet for - ever. But I also don't want the FCC being involved in it either way (it's not even their role).

 

[Jeric 46,850]

20 hours ago, Twisted Cyclone said:

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. 

This is absolutely a guarantee. The provisions will allow an ISP block on torrent and P2P sites, something that the ISP's have been ready to flip the switch on for a while. 

[DuskSong 742]

1 hour ago, Mirage said:

All I can say is that all of your concerns are assumptions for the worst. It's a pessimistic view of freedom.

I'm going to have to be honest here about something - why is our popular culture so afraid of economic freedom? Even if we consider the latest bank crash in 2006/2008, which was caused by regulation and government interference, the 'free market' was not responsible for that catastrophe, and it certainly wasn't part of the cover-up and bail -out. I only bring this up because it is the most recent economic scare that is still affected us to this day. So if government over-regulation and mandates caused the largest economic scare in recent memory, why such suspicion over the free market?

I'm just trying to understand where corporations operating in the free market inspire such fierce opposition, when every single affluent country in the world has a strong free market corporate entities. Show me a poor and struggling country and I'll show you lack of economic freedom.

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to see that the FCC shouldn't even have this kind of power. If shit hits the fan by removing NN, then we should use Congress to mandate safeguards that expire every 2 years. I do not want my ISP controlling what I use the internet for - ever. But I also don't want the FCC being involved in it either way (it's not even their role).

 

I agree with the majority of what you stated here, but I do want to clarify on if it was regulation that caused the 2008 crash, when Bush was set on deregulation. Everywhere I look points to the deregulation being a cause, just curious about where you heard that viewpoint from.

Edit/Addition:

Im not trying to have a pessimistic view of a free market, there are down sides and up sides to a completely unregulated market and there are lots of consequences when businesses run completely free. I did look up more on the 2008 crash, it seems like there was fault on both banks and the government, but my knowledge on the subject is limited. I do agree with congress putting safeguards in place but still, a lot of congressmen and women do not support the types of protections we strive for and that again leads to even more issues when it comes to keeping big ISPs from screwing us over like they continue to try to do. While there are still representatives that do not do a good job at representing the people, I wouldn't put too much faith in congress either.

Edited December 4, 2017 by DuskSong

[Mirage 24,747]

21 minutes ago, DuskSong said:

I agree with the majority of what you stated here, but I do want to clarify on if it was regulation that caused the 2008 crash, when Bush was set on deregulation. Everywhere I look points to the deregulation being a cause, just curious about where you heard that viewpoint from.

Edit/Addition:

Im not trying to have a pessimistic view of a free market, there are down sides and up sides to a completely unregulated market and there are lots of consequences when businesses run completely free. I did look up more on the 2008 crash, it seems like there was fault on both banks and the government, but my knowledge on the subject is limited. I do agree with congress putting safeguards in place but still, a lot of congressmen and women do not support the types of protections we strive for and that again leads to even more issues when it comes to keeping big ISPs from screwing us over like they continue to try to do. While there are still representatives that do not do a good job at representing the people, I wouldn't put too much faith in congress either.

Bush really had nothing to do with the crash of 2001/2006/2008 (there were several crashes that led up to the finally, then all the eager bailouts, which Bush fully supported).

From Wikipedia:

"Subprime mortgage bubble[edit]
The precipitating factor was a high default rate in the United States subprime home mortgage sector. The expansion of this sector was encouraged by the following factors.

Low interest rates.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),[10][11][12][13] a US federal law designed to help low- and moderate-income Americans get mortgage loans.[14]
Many of these subprime (high risk) loans were bundled and sold, finally accruing to quasi-government agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).[15] The implicit guarantee by the US federal government created a moral hazard and contributed to a glut of risky lending.
Securitization. Many mortgages were bundled together and formed into new financial instruments called mortgage-backed securities, which could be sold as (ostensibly) low-risk securities partly because they were often backed by credit default swaps insurance.[16] Because mortgage lenders could pass these mortgages (and the associated risks) on in this way, they could and did adopt loose underwriting criteria (due in part to outdated and lax regulation).
Lax regulation also led to predatory lending in the private sector,[17][18] especially after the federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws in 2004.[19]
The accumulation and subsequent high default rate of these subprime mortgages led to the financial crisis and the consequent damage to the world economy."

That's just the tip of the iceberg. You have to go all the way to Clinton in the 90's to see the executive and regulatory push for affordable housing.

Anyway, I don't want to discuss that, I'm just trying to understand the pessimism. You see, the most important aspect of an economy are the people in it. When people are negative and fearful, this effects growth, and the over-all behavior of corporations and even government.

Attitude is so important for growth. And informed citizenry is also very critical.

And I never said that the internet didn't need regulation, well, really it is not regulation that's needed, but enforcement of freedom.

[DuskSong 742]

18 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Bush really had nothing to do with the crash of 2001/2006/2008 (there were several crashes that led up to the finally, then all the eager bailouts, which Bush fully supported).

From Wikipedia:

"Subprime mortgage bubble[edit]
The precipitating factor was a high default rate in the United States subprime home mortgage sector. The expansion of this sector was encouraged by the following factors.

Low interest rates.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),[10][11][12][13] a US federal law designed to help low- and moderate-income Americans get mortgage loans.[14]
Many of these subprime (high risk) loans were bundled and sold, finally accruing to quasi-government agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).[15] The implicit guarantee by the US federal government created a moral hazard and contributed to a glut of risky lending.
Securitization. Many mortgages were bundled together and formed into new financial instruments called mortgage-backed securities, which could be sold as (ostensibly) low-risk securities partly because they were often backed by credit default swaps insurance.[16] Because mortgage lenders could pass these mortgages (and the associated risks) on in this way, they could and did adopt loose underwriting criteria (due in part to outdated and lax regulation).
Lax regulation also led to predatory lending in the private sector,[17][18] especially after the federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws in 2004.[19]
The accumulation and subsequent high default rate of these subprime mortgages led to the financial crisis and the consequent damage to the world economy."

That's just the tip of the iceberg. You have to go all the way to Clinton in the 90's to see the executive and regulatory push for affordable housing.

Anyway, I don't want to discuss that, I'm just trying to understand the pessimism. You see, the most important aspect of an economy are the people in it. When people are negative and fearful, this effects growth, and the over-all behavior of corporations and even government.

Attitude is so important for growth. And informed citizenry is also very critical.

And I never said that the internet didn't need regulation, well, really it is not regulation that's needed, but enforcement of freedom.

I agree, and I will read more on the crash as soon as I can, it seems like an interesting event, waiting out the traffic jam from an early dismissal in my car.

Net neutrality is an attempt at enforcement of freedom through regulation of ISP behavior, I would like to see a system where the people are more involved in deciding the outcome of it such as congressional decisions on it. Im hopeful for change and improvement, but I do worry that if and when we no longer allow the FCC to be the ones to decide the fate of internet what will happen when special interests come along, including lobbyists such as ones that work for these big ISPs. I'm idealistically hoping for a fair and open internet if that route is taken, but we also need to make sure that the safeguards you want do not have any lobbyist involvement that would threaten the structure of an open internet that we strive for.

On a side note, it's really interesting to see the different viewpoints on how to go about protecting the openness of the internet and not having it devolve into mud slinging like so many other online debates.

Edited December 4, 2017 by DuskSong

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,242]

Th proposed destruction of Net Neutrality is purely a result of corporate greed and them wanting full power to maximize profit, customer be damned. It is nothing more than that. Think about it. Trump, a billionaire, a corporate moneybags tool, appoints a man that once worked for Verizon at a high level, to be the head of the FCC and that man wants to destroy net neutrality. Does NONE of that sound a bit suspicious?

Just look at the Trump tax plan. It is a tax plan that LOWERS taxes for the richest people and corporations in the US. Any opportunity that these money hungry piles of shit can get to make even more money, they will take. Destroying Net Neutrality will fully open the floodgates to allow anyone involved in the industry of internet hosting to take all the money making opportunities that they want.

[Steve Piranha 29,412]

On 12/3/2017 at 2:29 PM, Denim&Venom said:

Many exclaim that the attempts to repeal Net Neutrality are just attempts for ISP corporations to monopolize the internet. Big business controlling the lives of consumers.

But if anything is the result of corporate greed, it's the net neutrality bill. 

All it does is force the logistical burden of companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google onto the customers. The ISPs are offering an express lane for the astronomical amount of content those web companies provide, but that has to be maintained. 

Think of it like a toll road. A semi-truck has to pay more to use the road than a car does since the truck takes up more space and damages the road more often. So they'll need to pay more to maintain the road. NN pretty much says the trucks can pay as much as the cars and everyone driving a car now has to be the ones paying for the trucks. 

It's the government interfering in the free market, telling companies what to price or construction barriers for entry, instead of letting the market, consumer demand and competition sort things out.

It's similar to the state laws on big box retailers. Laws in the 1930s were established to keep a company like wallmart from low balling their competition, forcing them out of business, then jacking up the prices in a monopoly. All the big stores have to mark up their prices 6% over what they payed, so they can't lower prices and take losses. Sounds like a good idea at first, until you realize that now a barrier for entry has been made for newcomers. Say that does happen. Walmart takes out the competition and jacks their prices back up. What that does is offer an opritunity for a competitor to march on in, offer lower prices for their goods and sway the customers to their side, forcing walmart to make concessions. But since there's now a 6% mark up, only the big retailers can remain and competition is stifled. 

That's what's happening. NN is stifling competition. The government is telling the consumer what to want. It's socializing the internet. And in socialism only the big companies profit. You're afraid of big business taking control when NN is gone? Big business already is in control with Net Neutrality established. Amazon, Facebook, Google and others now get to maintain their iron grip and stifle their competitors, while tossing the burdens of their services onto the customer. 

The internet is not supposed to be free. The internet is not supposed to be fair. there are going to be winners and losers. But get rid of NN, and we, the consumer, will have a choice and our money will go towards a better internet, instead of maintaining a substandard one. 

Equality of status cannot be forced. Just like in Soviet Russia, everpony equal. Equally poor. 

So let the market settle itself out and let the consumer decide how the internet plays out.  Don't forget, Net Neutrality has only been in effect for 3 years. Were ISPs throttling content and hiking prices before that? 

Net Neutrality stays, the very future you fear will probably look like this:

Thing is, you can still fight for Net Neutrality, while being against the bill of the same name. 

 

In the end though, we can't be 100% sure what will happen. It can work out. It can be disastrous. But let's wait until something actually happens before we all over react and take up arms. this will be tied up in court for years, will be changed by the next administration, then changed again by the one after.

I doubt little, if anything will change for the internet user from how things were in 2014. 

 

I can understand why my explanation over competition that may result if NN is take out be dismissed, as I DID in fact stated that my knowledge on the issue is limited, and is basically the collective freak out over it. But there's a good point on that, to study the issue more deeply, as these kinds of freak outs are pretty common over everything, LIKE THE ANTI VAXERS  

[Ocean Melody 116]

On 12/3/2017 at 1:29 PM, Denim&Venom said:

The ISPs are offering an express lane for the astronomical amount of content those web companies provide, but that has to be maintained. 

This would be a great thing except the internet doesn't work this way. First important information, already has priority. Then, there the question of who gets to go in the fast lane. Is money based? Popularity? or maybe the ISPs get to pick and choose. Also, with this argument, what happens to the smaller sites that don't get in the fast lane? Wouldn't it be a safe assumption that they would be left in the slow lane, and how slow is that lane?

 

On 12/3/2017 at 1:29 PM, Denim&Venom said:

That's what's happening. NN is stifling competition. 

Net Neutrality didn't stifle competition. There used to be many more ISPs then they decided to merge. Now they have clear borders and stay out of each other's way. There is a reason why America has one of  the worst internet when compared to other countries such as Korea 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Ocean Melody

[Denim&Venöm 18,553]

To those who are still freaking out, here's a nice little vid that demonstrates both sides of the argument. 

 

[Rhythm Red 6,484]

Uhh... Nah. Net neutrality doesn't need to go.

I really don't care about this whole thing anymore, though. Nothing I can do, anyway.

[Mirage 24,747]

On 12/5/2017 at 11:13 PM, Ocean Melody said:

Net Neutrality didn't stifle competition. There used to be many more ISPs then they decided to merge. Now they have clear borders and stay out of each other's way. There is a reason why America has one of  the worst internet when compared to other countries such as Korea 

This is one of the reasons why we have substandard infrastructure (if we ignore the fact that our infrastructure is very old compared to other countries who weren't developed until recently). Notice the money spent for no other reason than to simply keep people alive. Draw your own conclusions please. I just want you to think a little about what you said.