Support Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality was NEVER PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS!! This is the whole problem, and this is the reason it can be so easily revoked. Obama decided he didn't need Congress to govern and began governing through regulatory agencies and executive orders. Net Neutrality bills had been introduced to Congress many times previously and had always failed to pass, so Obama simply directed the FCC to reclassify the internet as a protected utility.

If you think Net Neutrality has overwhelming support with the populace then great! The bill should have no problem passing. The way it was done was designed to circumvent Congress and this is NOT the way democracy is supposed to work.

And so I say: One more piece of Obama era garbage tossed. Good riddance.

That was quick. Comcast doesnt waste a lot of time

What a fucking disaster. An actual look at deregulation of public utilities since the 1980s shows higher prices and worse service. Publicly owned electric companies have lower rates and less loss of service than the private companies. Deregulation has not achieved is stated goals of better service for consumers and this won't either

I wonder why Congress fails to pass proper net neutrality laws.

Telecom giants spent $11m on first-quarter lobbying

Thinking of cancelling comcast gigabit I signed up for while moving in a rush and going with Sonic despite being vastly slower.

Basically this.

Within 3 months, who do you think gives Congressmen more money: the tax payers paying for their salaries, or the telecom lobbyists who gave them $11.2 million?

You don't need to pay off ever single member of Congress, just whoever has majority control of the Senate and House. Majority is enough to block or pass whatever is currently being lobbied for.

And where did Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast get that money to lobby? From their customers.

So telecom corporations are using consumer capital to fund anti-consumer moves.

If you actually think that legislators will always pass bills based on what the American citizens want, then you are very naive about how influential lobbying is from these telecom conglomerates.

I feel bad for you folks in the U.S. hope it gets stopped down the line but I doubt it will. I'm worried that the UK might follow suit (especially after leaving the EU). Happens too often that when America goes trudging through shit, Britain is just 2 steps behind.

Good luck America. Rake those idiots over hot coals until they do the right thing.

@jmdoane: Yikes.

If I weren't a lazy person, I would also include the Austin Walker tweet of "y'all ever see a take so bad you are forced to immediately go to sleep?"

@sethmode: Don't bother. He's a Trump troll that's all in as long as it upsets liberals and Never-Trump conservatives.

@bladeofcreation: it leads to price setting, etc. That stuff harms the free market and innovation and leads to stagnation. It also means a business is forced to serve a certain thing in a certain way, removing liberties from the people who make up that company.

There are plenty of examples of local government acting under the guise of reducing "bad things" when it comes to ISPs yet "somehow" monopolies and a shitty market for everyone but one business cropped up after.

Even if the Government never did any of that, I want the free market to decide the best solution, NOT the government. It takes time but it usually sorts out what people are willing to put up with and what they aren't rather than big brother just deciding what matters, missing the point, and getting in the way of what people want like data free HBO or whatever.

@onemanarmyy: Some of the particulars of Net Nuetrality and where it could easily lead make it very difficult for small ISPs to survive. Most of the shit getting in their way is local government and other crap, not big scary companies. The most a big company can do is buy someone out without government regulation forcing unfair fees, costs, expense driving regulation, etc. If a company wants to sell to a bigger one instead of do the work to try and make even more mobey and value over time, they have that right.

Government created the massive ISP monopolies we are so used to. I saw the benefits of government regulation and intervention slipping in seattle as suddenly new gigabit alternatives started springing up as it became possible for concast's competition to run fiber. I paid a bit more, moved ISPs, and had gigabit fiber because our shitty local government's actions stopped holding.

@cliffordbanes: which is hugely ironic considering the hardon for fast lanes WADOT has across I5. Fast lanes are only okay if the money goes to the government!

@opusofthemagnum:

Seeing as you're one of the few anti-Net Neutrality voices on this forum, I thought I'd ask you some questions. A Republican congresswoman proposed a change to the law that would prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling any websites. Do you support that move?

If an ISP has the power to completely block a website they find offensive, shouldn't conservatives fear that sort of thing being used against them? And for the liberals here, despite your concerns with freedom of speech and the threat of massive corporations blocking opinions and ideology that they find objectionable, would you support or even encourage IPSs blocking far-right or alt-right websites?

Google, Apple, and Netflix want net neutrality, and major ISPs want it gone. Why would major ISP companies want net neutrality removed if it would lead to more competition? How is that logical? And if "some of the particulars of Net Neutrality and where it could easily lead make it very difficult for small ISPs to survive" as you say, why not just change those particulars instead of gutting the whole system?

If cheaper, faster, and more reliable internet doesn't result from this change, when and how could the FCC admit defeat? How would it be in their interest to do so? How easy do you think it's going to be to change things back to how they were, and how could that ever be accomplished with the lobbyists who are fighting against net neutrality? To perhaps speak your language, remember "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your healthcare plan?" Meanwhile, the best healthcare plans have now doubled in cost, and an entire Republican majority and Republican president can't seem to turn back that clock. Do you really expect this to be any different?

The government doesn't allow the electric company to charge me more for the power I use to run my television, and the water company doesn't charge me more for the water I would run to a fountain. This is despite those things being less of a necessity than a refrigerator or drinking water. We know that it costs the water and electric company the same for any power or water, so it would seem absurd for them to try to charge different prices.

Cable companies offer different packages, but that's HBO telling them that they have to charge a different rate to carry their channel, and you can take it or leave it. Without Netflix demanding money from ISPs, and with IPSs already getting money dependent on bandwidth usage, wouldn't you agree the situation is more like the water and power companies than it is a cable television provider? If not, I'm happy to hear an opposing argument.

In case anyone can't tell, I'm very much for Net Neutrality. While I do think the private sector can often do a better job than the government, I see no reason why any ISP should be able to create a system of "haves and have-nots" when it comes to the internet.

You anti-Net Neutrality people do understand that Net Neutrality is what allows smaller sites like Giant Bomb to thrive?

Is Comcast really throttling and prioritizing certain traffic already?

This and the fact that US government is legally allowed to be corrupt is just so impossible for me to comprehend. I guess it truly just isn't a free country.

@zevvion: A direct exchange of money for services rendered is, in fact, illegal. But, the way lobbyists get around that is by contributing to re-election campaigns. If your campaign is bankrolled by the NRA and has 3 times the money your opponent does(to run negative attack ads and promote yourself), you're that much more likely to win. Of course, that means the NRA effectively owns you when it comes to gun issues.

Another way lobbyists influence policy is by promising future employment to congressmen. After all former congressmen can take advantage of all the connections they made while serving their term. Being a lobbyists is extremely lucrative, think seven figure salaries. So it works out well for all parties involved, except for the average American of course.

Nope.

@opusofthemagnum: Local governments being an annoyance? I'm shocked

I believe I've posted about the issues regarding pole attachment & 'one touch make ready' in this thread already. But to look at that and make the leap that (local) government is the source of all that's bad, regarding this issue, seems quite unrealistic. Why are AT&T and Charter filing lawsuits in cities that adopted the policy? Shouldn't they welcome the competition and just do their best to offer the best product they can? What's up with all the lobbying? Why does mr. Pai keep framing Title 2 regulations as hurting the sick, when Non-BIAS data services are exempted from the rules already?

People are not railing against the 'big scary companies' because they like to cuddle with uncle Government. People look into the issue, see that certain companies can't fucking wait to get rid of title 2 , have skirted and disregarded the rules at times, for years, and have shown that it's not healthy for the industry nor consumers if they're being let loose.

Just because a seemingly pro-consumer option might be used for nefarious shit, doesn't mean that it's better to support the seemingly anti-consumer option, because it might turn out to be not as bad as people think.

@spaceinsomniac: I trust Google, Amazon, and Facebook exactly 0 when it comes to "net nuetrality." Placing regulation on the ISPs leaves them free to avoid regulation because the ISPs are being villianized as if they have done the things all three of those companies have ACTUALLY done. All of those companies were caught biasing their massive contributions to the internet.

You are asking a lot of ifs and ignoring actual actions it seems. Show me examples of major US ISPs censoring legal content on the web.

I don't seek utopia, I seek liberty.

@opusofthemagnum: The difference between Google, Amazon, and Facebook and ISPs is that ISPs can, without net neutrality rules, control everything that comes through the internet. Google, Amazon, and Facebook can only control what they're putting on the internet. Yes, that happens to be a whole hell of a lot of what people will see. Yes, that should be something that's dealt with. No, it's not anywhere near as important as ensuring that ISPs can't discriminate internet traffic.

As far as examples of ISPs slowing down or blocking certain internet traffic, here, here, here, and here. I just don't know how you can say that ISPs haven't been discriminating against certain internet traffic when it took me ten minutes to find four articles detailing how they've been doing just that.

Be aware that the republican "Open Internet Preservation Act" is hot garbage that only addresses 2 of the 3 bright line rules of Net Neutrality. Specifically, restrictions against paid prioritization are left out. Paid priotirization allows ISPs to charge business's(big and small) for priority internet access. It's the thing that stops ISPs from carving up the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes.

There's also a line in there which is troubling. "May not block lawful content, applications, 16 services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management." The caveat reasonable network management is used pretty liberally in the bill. Could ISPs block use "reasonable network management" to block Netflix(cuz its a bandwidth hog)?

Also lawful content is not fully defined. That's troubling because the congresswoman who proposed this bill(Marsha Blackburn), has, in the past, advocated that ISPs block websites that are "Fake News."

@opusofthemagnum: Trusting a corporation to look out for the little guy is beyond naive. Corporations will do anything they are legally allowed to do in pursuit of a better bottom line. They don't care about popularity or ethics.

You can ignore every question that I asked, but it doesn't make for much of a discussion. I don't really like echo-chambers, but there's not much that can be done if the one or two people who hold an opposing opinion refuse to answer questions as to why they feel differently.

I get that Google and Facebook and Twitter have done some shitty things with their power, but the solution to that isn't giving more power to different companies. And you've been shown your examples, so if you'd care to address any of the concerns I posted about, then maybe we can actually have a conversation, and at least have a better understanding of where we're both coming from. How about starting with these two:

Google, Apple, and Netflix want net neutrality, and major ISPs want it gone. Why would major ISP companies want net neutrality removed if it would lead to more competition? How is that logical? And if "some of the particulars of Net Neutrality and where it could easily lead make it very difficult for small ISPs to survive" as you say, why not just change those particulars instead of gutting the whole system?

I'm hardly boo companies / yay government, but I don't see our government doing something wrong by wanting to treat the internet as a utility rather than a paid subscription service. The arguments I made for that opinion can be found above. If you care to challenge that argument and explain why you disagree with that logic, I'd be happy to hear why you hold the opinion that you do.

@justin258: There is ONE social networking site that everyone uses, ONE search engine everyone uses, ONE shopping site everyone uses. Those three companies control so much more than any 5 ISPs do. To ignore that seems crazy to me. You seem to think of it as layered in reverse order. ISPs are access to the internet. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix? They ARE the internet. Net nuetrality or no, they control the internet, not the 30 isps available in my area.

@spaceinsomniac: I would be against that.

As a conservative I see a lot of like minded folks being held back by largely liberal new media (Google/Facebook and the dozens of social media "news" outlets that post videos of cute puppers to reel folks in). I also see most of those people saying that they have a right to do that. We don't believe that the federal government needs to step in and protect our expression using the services of a private business. We believe in using market forces to either change those platforms or create new ones like CRTV and Full30.com

I am not saying no "conservatives" want protection that governs a business' ability to control their own content while also complaining about bakers being forced to cater a wedding or face legal issues. But I am saying me and my camp believe it's on yhe people, not the government, to make things happen. We accept that responsibility because within that responsibility we believe our power and freedoms reside and we know ultimately that access to a youtube channel or website is not a human right (if it was y'all would be fightijg for any internet service in the sudan or wherever and not complaining about slow netflix speeds) and if we can't have it, damn it we'll find another way to enrich our lives.

Personally I feel that liberty is a greater power than entitlement. I believe that most if the abuse people level against corporations only occur because of government intervention and protection because of lobbying, etc.

You compared internet to water and electricity. I would argue that today's people generally have a much greater need for water supply and even electricity than for open, free, fast internet access, let alone for slow shitty censored internet access. Frankly I think treating any of those things as a natural right is absurd: I'm a young uneducated fool but I could figure out how to gather water and heat a shelter without any utilities. That said, there is clearly a difference between having HD all the time (if you pay for it: oh wait your okay paying for HD to Netflix or even GB but not willing to pay the ISP? Hmmmmmm) in netflix and having water piped into your home so you can easily drink.

@opusofthemagnum: i find it odd you feel that abuse only happens because of lobbying when this repeal is only happening because of lobbying(majority of voters want net neutrality). You take away government then all you have is corporate control and while our government can indeed be corrupt they are still put in place for the most part by the people. Corporation on the other hand are liable to nobody besides majority share holders without regulations, you aren't going to vote for your ceo. If you believe lobbying is an issue just imagine a country without the need for it at all, they have no barrier to do what they want when they want because they have all the resources and the people have no control or say.

You could argue that internet is less important than electricity but i would argue it almost is if not just as import(imo). It is a necessity in todays world and having access to it can be the difference between 'opportunities' for success and being kept where you are. Throttling bandwidth, charging more for access to certain sites, or completely blocking access to competitors puts consumers at a disadvantage in todays world because they have less money. The internet is not cable because it is not solo media entertainment, some business only thrive on it, some jobs only exist on it, and equal access to it is required for equal opportunity in todays job space and marketplace.

I would much rather access to the internet be akin to access to the power grid than be held back simply for corporate greed. Sure over regulation is bad but at least we have some say in it with our vote rather than just leaving it to the kindness of some billionaire whose bottom line is to make themselves more money.

Maybe i went on a tangent here but its 5am and i just woke up.

I don't normally throw around the word "strawman" - in fact, I don't think I ever have.

But this is a strawman. What Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. put on the internet isn't the issue here. The issue here is that your ISP can, potentially, block anything they want to. They could, potentially, block all conservative media, as opposed to Google, Facebook, and Amazon only being able to show you stuff on their own websites. If you are going to continue to bump this thread, please, think about the difference first. Or stop trolling - almost all of the points you're making are either obvious what-abouts or points that have already been covered by other people more than once in this thread and that makes me think that you might just be getting a kick out of riling people up.

Where in the USA are there thirty ISPs to choose from?

Hey, remember how horrible the internet was to use in the US circa 2007~2008? Me neither.

@deathpod: the internet today is much different then it was 10 years ago...

@deathpod: ah yes 2007 the height of online streaming, digital commerce, smart phones and high speed internet infrastructure....oh wait no it wasn't