Net Neutrality is Dead.

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

1 minute ago, Mooshi said:

Could be worst, least we aren't taxed on everything outside of breathing. :^)

Give it time  

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

I said this from the very beginning. And I stick with it.

Net Neutrality was a ploy by the FCC, a politically based and motivated move with no real merritt or positive gain for consumers.

Though I have debated this many times in and out of the forum it still stands as true.

 

As it is, Please remember to keep this conversation as political neutral as possible or this thread will be locked.

I mean I always felt is was better than having nothing. I never really saw what the negative effects of it was so never saw what the point of repealing it would be. I mean if we get some good competition then there would be no need for it but we don't so it feels as though the only protection from isps abusing their market position is gone. 

 

11 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

I tend to agree with you.

 

NN is/was a government instituted solution to a government created problem. What we need to do is get rid of the ISP monopolies the government has created when municipalities have given exclusive service rights to ISPs. Once we open up those doors, all of the problems pretty well evaporate with increased competition on the local level. 

Honestly I 100% agree. If we had some sort of way to allow for competitors to enter the maker like Google then this would clear up quite fast. I mean look at what competition did for the cpu market we went from overpriced 4 core cpus to competitively priced 8 and 6 core cpus. I would like to imagine if there was competition in the isp space that we would see lower internet costs and higher internet speeds. 

[kokakolia]

I don’t live in the US of A so I have a huge grin on my face. Not my problem! NOPE! Muhahaha

 

I kinda wanna see how things work out for Americans. I want to know if Net Neutrality is a big deal or not and if it changes things for better or worse. I am fully aware of the cable package system idea where you have to pay extra to use your favourite websites. I just want to see if it actually happens.

 

On another note: the US of A’s problems are the whole wide world’s problems. So brace yourselves, net neutrality posts will flood the internet.

[I-r0k]

Sigh, It sucks to love the internet right now.

[Shreyas1]

You know, I would be fine with this if there was ACTUAL competition with isps 

[NinerL]

There was zero competition before or after Net Neutrality. One of the major issues was Comcast/Verizon/Charter being able to impose a fee on Netflix or any other content provider that puts a 'strain' on their network, either pay or face degraded services, and the potential loss of customers. We're already paying for internet access, the ISP's are just double dipping, those millions in fees Netflix and others will have to again pay out will subsequently be passed on to us. Net Neutrality had put a stop that.

[Wh0_Am_1]

14 hours ago, haowle said:

-snip-

I respectfully disagree with the idea that Net neutrality is a good idea, I believe that it is a shield against the free-market for large corporations, and that it's repeal will likely force large broadband corporations, to become more competitive and innovate which is always a good thing for the consumer. This video discusses some of my reasoning behind my beliefs and opinions, now I do not necessarily agree with all opinions and views expressed in this video. Thank you.

 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Eibe said:

When most of the world political class is dominated by old people who do not understand the technological trends of the present, we cannot do much about it.

Sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant of narratives that just needs to die.  OLD people do understand technology very well, old people invented,  developed,maintain and further develop all the technology you think only young people understand.   Don't confuse politicians who have alternative preferences for how the internet should be regulated with the ability of old people to understand it.  For all you know these politicians have a better understanding of the internet and it's implications in society than you do. 

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant of narratives that just needs to die.  OLD people do understand technology very well, old people invented,  developed,maintain and further develop all the technology you think only young people understand.   Don't confuse politicians who have alternative preferences for how the internet should be regulated with the ability of old people to understand it.  For all you know these politicians have a better understanding of the internet and it's implications in society than you do.

While I hate blanket statements I will say that there are definitely cases where I here politicians talking about the internet and can clearly tell they don't have a good understanding of how it works. That being said the same can be said for the entire population. There are some that I understand it well but also alot that don't. 

 

3 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

I respectfully disagree with the idea that Net neutrality is a good idea, I believe that it is a shield against the free-market for large corporations, and that it's repeal will likely force large broadband corporations, to become more competitive and innovate which is always a good thing for the consumer. This video discusses some of my reasoning behind my beliefs and opinions, now I do not necessarily agree with all opinions and views expressed in this video. Thank you.

Competitive? There would have to be competition to be competitive. 

[Wh0_Am_1]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Competitive? There would have to be competition to be competitive. 

 Competition? Did you know that there are over a thousand ISPs in the US? According to Broadband Now there are 457 ISPs that deal in broadband, and 1,160 that deal in fiber optic, I don't know about you but I would say that there is plenty of opportunity for competition.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

While I hate blanket statements I will say that there are definitely cases where I here politicians talking about the internet and can clearly tell they don't have a good understanding of how it works. That being said the same can be said for the entire population. There are some that I understand it well but also alot that don't. 

Of course their are, but the reality is there are just as many young people who are completely oblivious to the effects of the internet on the world.   Associating a specific ignorance with an age or job is stupid at best.  

 

I personally take umbrage to the notion that because a politician does something we disagree with it must be because they don't understand or worse becasue they are old they don't understand. Both positions are dangerous in a democratic society as they do not address the actual problem, they only point and mock.   If you want to change the way politicians run the country you have to address what they are doing and why they are doing it, pointing your finger and crying ignorance only makes the accuser look ignorant.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Net neutrality regulates rates, network technology, equal opportunity bandwidth for all services and etc. And when it comes to competition, did you know that there are over a thousand ISPs in the US? According to Broadband Now there are 457 ISPs that deal in broadband, and 1,160 that deal in fiber optic, I don't know about you but I would say that there is plenty of opportunity for competition.

You can talk about the number of isps in the us all you want but at the end of the day I have 2 options. Either dsl or xfinity and that is considered lucky compared to some people who only have one option. 

[Wh0_Am_1]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

You can talk about the number of isps in the us all you want but at the end of the day I have 2 options. Either dsl or xfinity and that is considered lucky compared to some people who only have one option. 

Do some more research I am sure that you can find more options, though they aren't as well advertised as Centurylink and Comcast. Also if the government was not regulating the rates, don't you think that there  would be more room for other ISPs to come in and compete? Also with net neutrality, ISPs need to get approval from the FCC for every project they build so they not only need to factor in the cost of the infrastructure but also the cost of approval with less red tape do you not think that it would be easier for smaller ISPs to break into the market? 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

 Competition? Did you know that there are over a thousand ISPs in the US? According to Broadband Now there are 457 ISPs that deal in broadband, and 1,160 that deal in fiber optic, I don't know about you but I would say that there is plenty of opportunity for competition.

Check the latest survey results for ISP options.  You might have 1000's of ISP but 70%+ of the population only has 2 options.  That's not competition. 

[Wh0_Am_1]

Just now, mr moose said:

Check the latest survey results for ISP options.  You might have 1000's of ISP but 70%+ of the population only has 2 options.  That's not competition. 

Indeed because it is very difficult with net neutrality in place for small ISPs to expand.

[ravenshrike]

41 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

I respectfully disagree with the idea that Net neutrality is a good idea, I believe that it is a shield against the free-market for large corporations, and that it's repeal will likely force large broadband corporations, to become more competitive and innovate which is always a good thing for the consumer. This video discusses some of my reasoning behind my beliefs and opinions, now I do not necessarily agree with all opinions and views expressed in this video.

Thing is, this is only true in markets not undergoing regulatory capture with single ISP contracts and laws against upgrading private infrastructure in public areas without the express approval of existing owners. Fixing that would be the actual solution, not NN. Of course, that would be reducing government regulations not making more to offset the effects of regulations already in place, and we can't have that.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Indeed because it is very difficult with net neutrality in place for small ISPs to expand.

Huh?  This has been a problem for small ISP's regardless of NN.   There are many reports of nuisance lawsuits and monopoly laws that make it impossible for small ISP's to get a foot hold.  The whole industry is badly regulated and the consumer laws are a joke.

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-backs-off-nuisance-lawsuit-intended-to-hamstring-broadband-competitors-like-google-fiber.shtml

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Sue-West-Virginia-For-Trying-to-Improve-Competition-139973

 

[Arika]

oh. again?

[Wh0_Am_1]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Huh?  This has been a problem for small ISP's regardless of NN.   There are many reports of nuisance lawsuits and monopoly laws that make it impossible for small ISP's to get a foot hold.  The whole industry is badly regulated and the consumer laws are a joke.

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-backs-off-nuisance-lawsuit-intended-to-hamstring-broadband-competitors-like-google-fiber.shtml

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Sue-West-Virginia-For-Trying-to-Improve-Competition-139973

 

Still I agree with Forbes and Wired on the matter that new neutrality is hurting the free market and therefore our info and our wallets.

[Nocte]

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant of narratives that just needs to die.  OLD people do understand technology very well, old people invented,  developed,maintain and further develop all the technology you think only young people understand.   Don't confuse politicians who have alternative preferences for how the internet should be regulated with the ability of old people to understand it.

They developed and maintain  the infrastructure, not its applications and uses. All the platforms (software) that most of the modern civilisations are using are developed and maintained by young people (e.g. Zuckerberg with Facebook). 

 

They grew up with the cable companies and it makes sens that they support them, just as most of the youngsters favour a netural internet.

 

I think it's normal, not something that's necessarily wrong (even though inefficient maybe?).

 

The world to progress needs continuous change, and we can all agree that change does not come from restraining GPTs (general-purpose technologies). Their pervasiveness across all sectors is too important to be restrained in this way. Sure the internet might need a bit more content regulation (difficult), but it does not need tiering of the service. 

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

For all you know these politicians have a better understanding of the internet and it's implications in society than you do. 

I don't want to sound self-entitled here, but this is quite a big statement. Sure most of them know more about its implications than the average person. 

 

But there are people who study subjects around it and its implications for society and the economy. You do not need to be a politician to study the subject. 

 

I am quite sure that I have a firm grasp of the internet implications in society, both from an economic point-of-view, its correlation with social power and digital divides it may create across the society (too many underestimate the relationship between communication and power - a good read for this, although a bit academic and intensive, is Communication Power by Castells). 

 

Calling out someone and saying that they are just a user and they do not understand it is a bit of a prejudice. 

[Brooksie359]

12 minutes ago, Eibe said:

They developed and maintain  the infrastructure, not its applications and uses. All the platforms (software) that most of the modern civilisations are using are developed and maintained by young people (e.g. Zuckerberg with Facebook). 

 

They grew up with the cable companies and it makes sens that they support them, just as most of the youngsters favour a netural internet.

 

I think it's normal, not something that's necessarily wrong (even though inefficient maybe?).

 

The world to progress needs continuous change, and we can all agree that change does not come from restraining GPTs (general-purpose technologies). Their pervasiveness across all sectors is too important to be restrained in this way. Sure the internet might need a bit more content regulation (difficult), but it does not need tiering of the service. 

I don't want to sound self-entitled here, but this is quite a big statement. Sure most of them know more about its implications than the average person. 

 

But there are people who study subjects around it and its implications for society and the economy. You do not need to be a politician to study the subject. 

 

I am quite sure that I have a firm grasp of the internet implications in society, both from an economic point-of-view, its correlation with social power and digital divides it may create across the society (too many underestimate the relationship between communication and power - a good read for this, although a bit academic and intensive, is Communication Power by Castells). 

 

Calling out someone and saying that they are just a user and they do not understand it is a bit of a prejudice. 

Calling out someone and saying that they are just a user and they do not inderstand it is a bit of a prejudice indeed. Ironically that is exactly what you did to politicians. 

[Nocte]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Calling out someone and saying that they are just a user and they do not inderstand it is a bit of a prejudice indeed. Ironically that is exactly what you did to politicians. 

I didn't say that they do not understand the internet's implications, I said that they do not understand technological trends (where the internet is just one of them). 

 

If they did, then I see no reason why most of them would go forward with this repeal if they are to act for and represent the society. 

 

We already have a digital divide problem (both across individuals and, therefore, businesses), this is just going to widen it. 

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, Eibe said:

I didn't say that they do not understand the internet's implications, I said that they do not understand technological trends (where the internet is just one of them). 

 

If they did, then I see no reason why most of them would go forward with this repeal if they are to act for and represent the society. 

 

We already have a digital divide problem (both across individuals and, therefore, businesses), this is just going to widen it. 

politicians have been doing things that are against the public interests for other reasons than ignorance for a long time. 

[Nocte]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

politicians have been doing things that are against the public interests for other reasons than ignorance for a long time. 

Maybe some of them, but a fully corrupted class of politicians would be an overstatement .

[Guest]

I mean, don't Google and FaceBook collect our data anyway? Pretty much everything on the internet is out there for people to hack or see or whatnot. Just remember whatever you put on the internet is out there forever.