So are there any reasons to hate against net nuetrality?

[Theminecraftaddict555]

I know this has been brought up alot but what are the main reasons why net neutrality shouldn't exist? Just wondering if i can get some info from the other side since i have hard the argument for net neutrality

 

(this guy looks like he got some reasons tho)

[JoeNoIce]

would you like to have microtransactions for the whole internet? that's pretty much what net neutrality is there for to stop ISPs from forcing you to pay more for certain sites they can even block other sites.

[Benjals]

The only reason it shouldn't exist is so ISPs can gain control over how they can offer up access to the internet. Different deals for access to different sites and platforms, all to rake in more cash from the consumers and site owners.
The death of net neutrality has no benefits to the end consumer, just ISPs.

[Mooshi]

I feel a compromise should be made. If an ISP has their own streaming service they want to give quality data to, I don't care. So long as competing streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime video get the base bandwidth you're paying for, it's all good in my eyes.

 

This way ISPs get their priority to push sales of their service while also not hurting competition. Let's say you're paying for 50mbps and you get this speed streaming with Netflix. Let's also say Comcast offers streaming service that gets you 100mbps through that specific service as an incentive to use it, is it really that bad?

 

What people hate, myself included, is not the priority for self service, but the throttling of competition.

[JoeCoke]

There is absolutely no fucking reason to hate it. How could anyone want it gone and have ISPs do whatever they want with the internet? It just makes no sense.

[kilgore_T]

if you are a shareholder in one of the grand comm giants then ye'

net neutrality stands between you and making more on your investment

 

hate that sh*t need mo' money

[Uzume]

Media companies censor information to suit their own interests. Tech companies (Google, facebook etc) censor information to suit their own interests. Why not let ISPs censor information to suit their own interests?

 

It just seems odd to single one layer of the infrastructure and demand that it be free and unbiased, whilst that standard doesn't exist at any other level in our information ecology.

 

(Devils advocate)

[Teddy07]

I hope they slow down some annoying websites so that they disappear.

[avg123]

Why are people hating on ISPs for trying to make more money? They are businesses, they will always try to make more money. It is not their responsibility to provide free and fair service. They can do whatever they want as long as it is not illegal to make more money. 

[ATFink]

21 minutes ago, avg123 said:

Why are people hating on ISPs for trying to make more money? They are businesses, they will always try to make more money. It is not their responsibility to provide free and fair service. They can do whatever they want as long as it is not illegal to make more money. 

The issue comes from a lack of competing ISPs in the market. Most places do not have more than 2 competing ISPs in each specific region. This means cartel(s)/oligopolies will push for anti-consumers practices with no repercussion for the company(s) providing service.

 

If Internet servicing allowed any form of reasonable competition I would be completely fine with repealing net-neutrality, but in the current state of Internet service I am 100% against the repeal of net neutrality.

[avg123]

8 minutes ago, ATFink said:

The issue comes from a lack of competing ISPs in the market. Most places do not have more than 2 competing ISPs in each specific region. This means cartel(s)/oligopolies will push for anti-consumers practices with no repercussion for the company(s) providing service.

 

If Internet servicing allowed any form of reasonable competition I would be completely fine with repealing net-neutrality, but in the current state of Internet service I am 100% against the repeal of net neutrality.

If there is not any competition now, there will be in the future. If they start throttling websites, some new ISPs will pop up which does not throttle websites. That is how markets work. Right now they have no competition because competitiors dont have any major advantage over them. If they start throttling websites, competitiors will have an advantage over them and succeed. That is how it works.

 

Another thing. Net neutrality law only exised for 18 months. Internet has existed for decades. Did the ISPs throttle website before the net neutrality law in those decades? No they didn't. Why are people suddenly acting like as soon as net neutrality law is repealed, ISPs are going to throttle websites?

[PanteaDropper]

I'd be surprised if this net neutrality thing goes in the worst direction. I'd actually bet it will. Alot of Americans don't have access to the Internet or have shit connections anyways. So they won't care either way amd I doubt they are fighting for this saying I won't affect them.

 

Just like how everyone thought that Trump wouldnt be elected so they simply didn't do enough to make sure that didn't happen. Same things gunna happen here.

 

 

[Uzume]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

I hope they slow down some annoying websites so that they disappear.

 

It is a common sentiment. Many people would be quite happy if vast swathes of the internet were made inaccessible. It would only be a travesty if anything they use became inaccessible.

 

This is why it is so easy to take away freedoms and rights these days, because so many cheer when other other people lose theirs. Our society has been divided and conquered.

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, zzrhardy said:

 

It is a common sentiment. Many people would be quite happy if vast swathes of the internet were made inaccessible. It would only be a travesty if anything they use became inaccessible.

 

This is why it is so easy to take away freedoms and rights these days, because so many cheer when other other people lose theirs. Our society has been divided and conquered.

I agree with everything.
 

[trufret]

5 hours ago, avg123 said:

If there is not any competition now, there will be in the future. If they start throttling websites, some new ISPs will pop up which does not throttle websites. That is how markets work. Right now they have no competition because competitiors dont have any major advantage over them. If they start throttling websites, competitiors will have an advantage over them and succeed. That is how it works.

 

Another thing. Net neutrality law only exised for 18 months. Internet has existed for decades. Did the ISPs throttle website before the net neutrality law in those decades? No they didn't. Why are people suddenly acting like as soon as net neutrality law is repealed, ISPs are going to throttle websites?

That is pretty much exactly what they have been doing and Verizon had admitted as much in court.

 

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2005 – Telus blocks access to pro union website

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013 Verizon v. FCC - Judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”

 

Starting a new isp isn't like starting a pizza shop or convenience store.

Unless the last mile Copper/Fiber/Wireless Towers from the distribution center to the residence is publicly owned or required to be sold by the owning ISP at wholesale pricing You need 10s to 100s of millions of dollars to build the infrastructure required while also fending off stalling tactic lawsuits from incumbent ISP.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

 

And if any meaningful competition does arise, the large ISP will just buy them out

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BT-AC058A_CHART_9U_20150526100937.jpg

 

[TheCherryKing]

I thought this was a thread for those who oppose net neutrality! Since it isn't there is no reason for me to be here.

[Shreyas1]

7 hours ago, zzrhardy said:

Media companies censor information to suit their own interests. Tech companies (Google, facebook etc) censor information to suit their own interests. Why not let ISPs censor information to suit their own interests?

 

It just seems odd to single one layer of the infrastructure and demand that it be free and unbiased, whilst that standard doesn't exist at any other level in our information ecology.

 

(Devils advocate)

Fair enough, but you can easily switch the websites you are using, but most people can only switch between two or three ISPs. In other words, ISPs don't have much competition, making them monopolies.

[handymanshandle]

25 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

Fair enough, but you can easily switch the websites you are using, but most people can only switch between two or three ISPs. In other words, ISPs don't have much competition, making them monopolies.

In my area I have quite a few options:
CenturyLink, Comcast, Dish (kinda), Spectrum/Charter and HughesNet.

So if one does something shitty there's probably a better one out there.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, trufret said:

And if any meaningful competition does arise, the large ISP will just buy them out

... or lobby to have them banned or at least make it impossible to build any infrastructure. 

[Shreyas1]

1 hour ago, wcreek said:

In my area I have quite a few options:
CenturyLink, Comcast, Dish (kinda), Spectrum/Charter and HughesNet.

So if one does something shitty there's probably a better one out there.

Sure, but a lot of people don't have that option. You're pretty lucky if you do.

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, avg123 said:

If there is not any competition now, there will be in the future. If they start throttling websites, some new ISPs will pop up which does not throttle websites. That is how markets work. Right now they have no competition because competitiors dont have any major advantage over them. If they start throttling websites, competitiors will have an advantage over them and succeed. That is how it works.

It's not so simple as most ISPs are actually re-sellers of a much larger infrastructure provider, in essence the ISP consumers deal with only provide customer support and billing with everything else handled by an upstream provider. Network providers come under general classifications or Tiers, Tier 1 being the main entities for creating the core infrastructure that makes up the internet.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_2_network

 

The biggest threat comes from Tier 1 and Tier 2 network providers throttling traffic or giving a too greater preference to certain traffic types or customers at the expense of everyone else. As we the general consumer are not their customers we have very little ability to complain about it or influence these providers at all, your ISP may have no say in how traffic is handled and what is or isn't throttled.

 

Operating these large networks and interactions between them is rather complex, with very little standards or policies, however Quality of Service (the more technical name for it) does need to be maintained. A very basic example of this is voice data, this type of traffic does need to take a higher precedence. As to who should be controlling the Quality of Service tagging that in my opinion should be the originating network provider and upstream or higher tier providers should honor that QoS tagging, but as I said before standards and policies in this type of area is basically non-existent.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

So this is coming from someone who actually has worked in the tech and internet industry

 

but I would rather companies fuck us than the government because companies can be boycotted and have competition, if the US government takes control of something they have walls of guns and can't be boycotted.

 

Also remember a few years ago when people said that cell providers had no competition and we would never get unlimited data plans? Them competitors popped up and unlimited data became nearly neccesary, if an ISP starts throttling web sites and making you pay more just leave them get a better data plan or get satellite internet or dial up, you don't need broadband to have internet.

 

Really the big issue is how hard lines are to lay if anything needs new regulations it's line laws that disallow ISPs to buy out cities and be the only line layers there, rather than putting in net neutrality which will just cement the ISPs oligarchys and fuck over little guys AND basicly give netflix and Google and Hulu free money people really need to look at the real consequences of net neutrality and actually research the negatives and just how bad they are.

 

So pretty much let the isps screw us over with BS and deal with it since it is better than the government doing this shit?

[BuckGup]

11 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So this is coming from someone who actually has worked in the tech and internet industry

 

but I would rather companies fuck us than the government because companies can be boycotted and have competition, if the US government takes control of something they have walls of guns and can't be boycotted.

 

Also remember a few years ago when people said that cell providers had no competition and we would never get unlimited data plans? Them competitors popped up and unlimited data became nearly neccesary, if an ISP starts throttling web sites and making you pay more just leave them get a better data plan or get satellite internet or dial up, you don't need broadband to have internet.

 

Really the big issue is how hard lines are to lay if anything needs new regulations it's line laws that disallow ISPs to buy out cities and be the only line layers there, rather than putting in net neutrality which will just cement the ISPs oligarchys and fuck over little guys AND basicly give netflix and Google and Hulu free money people really need to look at the real consequences of net neutrality and actually research the negatives and just how bad they are.

 

So pretty much let the isps screw us over with BS and deal with it since it is better than the government doing this shit?

The problem is most ISPs have local monopolies so the whole just leave them for another is not valid at all. Rememeber over 45 million americans don't have internet and 55 million more have 10Mb/s or less. So ISPs will just screw people even harder. Good example is me. I pay $160 a month for 750Kb/s because there is no compeition. They throttle Youtube, Netflix, and other large sites even with NN. They also cap us at 200gb/s per month

[2FA]

34 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Also remember a few years ago when people said that cell providers had no competition and we would never get unlimited data plans? Them competitors popped up and unlimited data became nearly neccesary, if an ISP starts throttling web sites and making you pay more just leave them get a better data plan or get satellite internet or dial up, you don't need broadband to have internet.

I have 4+ choices for cellular providers, I have one choice for an ISP.

[beavo451]

15 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

I have 4+ choices for cellular providers, I have one choice for an ISP.

And the problem of only having one choice for an ISP? Yeah government regulation probably contributed to that.