Jump to content
kaylee

Net Neutrality – For or Against?

Net Neutrality – For or Against?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Net Neutrality – For or Against?

    • I'm Pro Net Neutrality!
      28
    • I'm Against Net Neutrality!
      7


Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2017 at 1:38 AM, AaronChicago said:

I've never met someone who is against net neutrality. Only bots, and lobbyists.

I'm against it. I'm very much in favour of the "sanctity" of the relationship between buyer and seller and not having a third party sticking their nose in, ie. the government and the crony capitalists (ie the ones against freemarket capitalism). The bottom line is all providers shape traffic and small users are always affected by big users using up the bandwidth. Most unlimited broadband deals are actually limited because beyond certain limited it gets cost prohibitive to not charge more. If a provider gives you a bad deal you go shopping down the road. If the government gives you a bad deal, you're stuffed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
5 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

I'm very much in favour of the "sanctity" of the relationship between buyer and seller

tbh i couldnt agree more, and i agree with the libertarian spirit of @maxotics's points, but where i live (in southern california no less) there is ~ONE~ high speed ISP

how can new ISPs even come up in the game? dont you need zillions of dollars of infrastructure? what about satellites? idek lol

as far as this recent ruling, if there were 15 companies competing for my business, that would be a completely different story. but im super scared of monster ISPs, who also have political motives, who also own massive content libraries being the sole arbiters of the US internet 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kaylee said:

how can new ISPs even come up in the game? dont you need zillions of dollars of infrastructure? what about satellites? idek lol

There are two issues which confuse the matter.  The first is a franchise you need from the government to install cable, or set up microwave towers, etc., on public property.  The reason most ISPs can charge what they want is they got in first (with telephone or cable and can reuse it for Internet) and, like you say, matching what they do is very expensive.  It's probably not as hard as you think to start a high-speed ISP where you live/  What makes it practically unfeasible is the expense you need in legal fees, engineering reports, environmental assessments, etc., in getting the government to give you the right to string cable.  However, the rules are public and there's no real reason you can't do it.  Those phone companies and cable companies did it.  We can elect a government tomorrow that says anyone can string up cable anywhere.  If they did that, you'd have a lot of choices in ISPs.  You'd also have wires all over the place and with each one a bit cash strapped whose to say the service would be good?  There is something to be said about economies of scale in large companies :)

As I said elsewhere, States should build "neutral" network through higher taxes or bond issuance.  But NOOOO.  No one wants to pay for it ;) 

The second issue is one of pricing regulation.  I'm against fixed pricing because economic studies have shown, over the centuries, that any kind of pricing control eventually backfires.  People are just too good at getting around them and the energy they spend doing that ends up in the price of the things you're buying.   That why ending Net Neutrality isn't some crazy idea.  If the companies really do want to raise rates, what's to stop them now?  They do want to raise rates, yes, but on services they can't offer now because of price controls.  They will also LOWER prices on things where there is too much competition or supply.

It's the fear of change that really drives the politics of net neutrality.  If there are problem at least NOW people can say, it's a complete free market, so why don't have have 2 ISPs in Southern California.  Then maybe we can have tax incentives to change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Orangenz said:

I'm against it. I'm very much in favour of the "sanctity" of the relationship between buyer and seller and not having a third party sticking their nose in, ie. the government

WTF

A pro-net neutrality government is not interfering with the free market. They would actually be protecting it.

The internet is the ultimate free-market.

Do you want to pay a middle-man like Verizon to access certain parts of it?

Do you want the network providers to bundle everything and sell it at you - free stuff as well, including this forum?

Do you want a situation like subscription network TV where there's barely any involvement from small content producers like me, and the barrier to entry being astronomically expensive?

Do you want subscription-based internet, or a flat fee for the entire thing, all at the same speed?

12 hours ago, Orangenz said:

and the crony capitalists (ie the ones against freemarket capitalism). The bottom line is all providers shape traffic and small users are always affected by big users using up the bandwidth. Most unlimited broadband deals are actually limited because beyond certain limited it gets cost prohibitive to not charge more. If a provider gives you a bad deal you go shopping down the road. If the government gives you a bad deal, you're stuffed. 

Who says the government would be making any deals at all under net neutrality laws?!

They don't have any involvement whatsoever beyond enforcing the basic fundamental principals of a fully operational internet, which are needed simply for it to work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican party working full for the Rich and the big corporations, as simple as that....some people talk just because they have a mouth, they cannot see beyond their nose, if you give all the power to the ISP they will do whatever they want to make more money, charge whatever they want if you want to watch netflix, youtube etc. Also dump can block any website that criticize him, allow fake news sites like fox news to have high speed access in order to control people with weak minds. I don't want to live in the USA like in Russia where putin and his corrupt comrades kill anybody who criticize them, where all news are pro putin, if you don't then they make you close your doors. Net neutrality is in favor of a FREE INTERNET, it is not that the government is not in between the ISP and the buyer like Orangez is saying, the government is there making sure Cronies ISP won't take advantage of the user...but again thanks to crook dump and crook republicans seems that free internet will be something we had in the old good days when America was great, you know before dump was president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

WTF

A pro-net neutrality government is not interfering with the free market. They would actually be protecting it.

The internet is the ultimate free-market.

 

In the same way the Chinese government "protects" the internet. A regulated free-market is a contradiction in terms. Indeed, it seems strange to me how the language of the whole debate has been taken over and reversed. I suspect in the same way that the "antifa" use violence to fight "fascism". You mention two plan options like having choice in plans is a bad thing or like being able to find and select the cheapest best option for your internet use is a bad thing. I get the impression that pro-NN supporters think providers are just waiting for their chance to provide bad deals, to drive away customers, and go bust. Cue Palpatine "muhahaha ultimate powa!" Like I said, it seems more like everyone (I see I'm in the minority) is leaping on the feed-me-government bandwagon. I'm not convinced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A pro-net neutrality government is not interfering with the free market. They would actually be protecting it.

The internet is the ultimate free-market.

Yes, the Internet is certainly the ultimate free market of ideas, but not of bandwidth.  I can host a website at a company that is connected through Tier 3 providers, or one that has Tier 1 providers, or better, multiple Tier 1 providers.  The idea of "free/neutral" pricing is a fantasy of ignorant consumers.  That is, am I to believe I'd get the same speed/reliability to consumers on a Tier 3 hosting place as a Tier 1.   Are you telling me that the hosting cost of EOSHD has nothing to do with cost for bandwidth?  That a camera blog would have as good access running from his home PC as you have at your hosting provider?   Net neutrality is mostly a fiction.

Eliminating the last vestiges of net neutrality removes a fair bit of hypocrisy from the government, which pretends to give everyone the same access to information.  It doesn't matter how neutral the Internet is if you can't get a connection where you live, or can only choose one.  Don't get me wrong Andrew, I can easily get major pissy about all this.  It's NOT the world I want.  However, it is the world we live in which everyone else seems to want--like lower priced airline seats by playing supply/demand-chicken with the airline, unfair seating orders, etc., etc.,  If we're going to have net neutrality than we need to have equal access for all.  Otherwise, as someone said above, I'd rather know who has got me bent over ;)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orangenz said:

In the same way the Chinese government "protects" the internet. A regulated free-market is a contradiction in terms. Indeed, it seems strange to me how the language of the whole debate has been taken over and reversed. I suspect in the same way that the "antifa" use violence to fight "fascism". You mention two plan options like having choice in plans is a bad thing or like being able to find and select the cheapest best option for your internet use is a bad thing. I get the impression that pro-NN supporters think providers are just waiting for their chance to provide bad deals, to drive away customers, and go bust. Cue Palpatine "muhahaha ultimate powa!" Like I said, it seems more like everyone (I see I'm in the minority) is leaping on the feed-me-government bandwagon. I'm not convinced. 

You are mixing things, or you don't see it, or you don't want to understand...stop watching Fox news 24/7. the Net neutrality is not about to find the cheapest Internet service provider, we have the net neutrality right now and you can go and choose whatever provider price you want with the speed you can afford, that choice is in PLACE RIGHT NOW. If you give a business the power they will use it for their own benefit, they don't care what is good for the people, they only care is about $$$, also that gives dump and his crooks a way to filter all the sites that criticize them, again like in Russia, What a tremendous loss for the United States.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing ISPs to throttle your internet speeds, create slow and fast lanes to stifle competition and giving the green light to extract tolls from content providers to guarantee reliable service to customers is going to make the internet more expensive for all of us. I guess what many still don't understand is that this is a huge handout to corporations that supported dumpf or his cronies during his campaign, just like everything else he's done or tried to do since taking office. Like Repeal Obamacare, which would reward insurers while millions lose their health insurance. Like the new tax law, which will see millions of middle class Americans paying more, while the rich get richer. Like Whitefish Energy, the two-man company his administration awarded a $300 million contract to in order to restore Puerto Rico's power. Passing a law prohibiting customers from suing banks immediately after Equifax negligently enabled a breach of their system - after many warnings by the government to tighten up their security. The greed of some of these corporations knows no boundaries - Equifax even had the audacity to charge people $10.00 to freeze their accounts until the government stepped in. But if nearly 50% of the electorate is willing to vote for an alleged serial sex offender in Alabama (who the president, himself an alleged sex offender, continued to endorse), I guess people get the leaders they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Allowing ISPs to throttle your internet speeds, create slow and fast lanes to stifle competition and giving the green light to extract tolls from content providers to guarantee reliable service to customers is going to make the internet more expensive for all of us. I guess what many still don't understand is that this is a huge handout to corporations that supported dumpf or his cronies during his campaign, just like everything else he's done or tried to do since taking office. Like Repeal Obamacare, which would reward insurers while millions lose their health insurance. Like the new tax law, which will see millions of middle class Americans paying more, while the rich get richer. Like Whitefish Energy, the two-man company his administration awarded a $300 million contract to in order to restore Puerto Rico's power. Passing a law prohibiting customers from suing banks immediately after Equifax negligently enabled a breach of their system - after many warnings by the government to tighten up their security. The greed of some of these corporations knows no boundaries - Equifax even had the audacity to charge people $10.00 to freeze their accounts until the government stepped in. But if nearly 50% of the electorate is willing to vote for an alleged serial sex offender in Alabama (who the president, himself an alleged sex offender, continued to endorse), I guess people get the leaders they deserve.

Well Said jonpais !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I was pro net neutrality until I saw these. It really opened up my mind on the issue. Now Im conflicted. 

Please watch them before you comment and respond with emotions. Take it in and listen to what they have to say. Its important to be educated on both sides. Like I said, Im now on the fence on whether itll be good or bad. Let me know what you think after you watch those! Really interesting stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure what those 2 videos are supposed to demonstrate.

In the case of Crowder he conflates a different issue (the potential effect of price caps on a small ISP) with net neutrality.

Both videos use whataboutism to deflect away from the issue.

 

I don't think either video will educate anyone on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 12:51 AM, kaylee said:

tbh i couldnt agree more, and i agree with the libertarian spirit of @maxotics's points, but where i live (in southern california no less) there is ~ONE~ high speed ISP

how can new ISPs even come up in the game? dont you need zillions of dollars of infrastructure? what about satellites? idek lol

as far as this recent ruling, if there were 15 companies competing for my business, that would be a completely different story. but im super scared of monster ISPs, who also have political motives, who also own massive content libraries being the sole arbiters of the US internet 😳

Have you seen this news? Maybe a answer for a lot of people and start ups..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without mention zero-rating* (some apps are free) allowed by EU regulation is actually a bit different than no net neutrality at all, as it has inaccurately been mentioned as far as the Portuguese case concerns, by the way.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

On the US case, this NN regulation has only existed since 2015, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet architecture at the moment as intended by the universities and scientists who created it. There's a lot of commercial interests to change that, so there's a lot of propaganda and mis-information on the internet and on TV, with funding links back to the commercial and anti-net neutrality government interests.

The Trump government will say to you that they're liberating the internet from their control but it's the opposite.

They are allowing creator control over the user.

There's more money in it for them, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

They are going to get that money from you, by bundling the sites you use into a higher priced premium tarrif.

It also allows them to censor sources of information the Government doesn't like or rival services. Just like they do in China.

A network service provider could for instance prioritise their own rival to EOSHD over me. Or even their own version of YouTube. The customer, you could then say, would leave... It's a free market, blah blah blah. Well, if every single service provider is doing the same shit, it's not a free market.

What we have now is a free market for content creators like me, to provide you with a site at the same speed and price as everyone else, included in your standard internet or cable pricing.

It's a truly level playing field, so don't let big business and government lie to you and manipulate the truth. Especially not a Trump government.

On 17/12/2017 at 1:44 AM, jonpais said:

Allowing ISPs to throttle your internet speeds, create slow and fast lanes to stifle competition and giving the green light to extract tolls from content providers to guarantee reliable service to customers is going to make the internet more expensive for all of us. I guess what many still don't understand is that this is a huge handout to corporations that supported dumpf or his cronies during his campaign, just like everything else he's done or tried to do since taking office. Like Repeal Obamacare, which would reward insurers while millions lose their health insurance. Like the new tax law, which will see millions of middle class Americans paying more, while the rich get richer. Like Whitefish Energy, the two-man company his administration awarded a $300 million contract to in order to restore Puerto Rico's power. Passing a law prohibiting customers from suing banks immediately after Equifax negligently enabled a breach of their system - after many warnings by the government to tighten up their security. The greed of some of these corporations knows no boundaries - Equifax even had the audacity to charge people $10.00 to freeze their accounts until the government stepped in. But if nearly 50% of the electorate is willing to vote for an alleged serial sex offender in Alabama (who the president, himself an alleged sex offender, continued to endorse), I guess people get the leaders they deserve.

That's right, a new tax with the user paying more and usually what starts in the US has a habit of ending up in other countries as well.

The other problem is it is in danger of creating a really segmented internet where you can only ever enjoy one part of it at any one time.

People can't constantly swap and change service providers, they will be in 24 month contracts before long anyway.

If you only have one connection available in your area and it is with a company that is anti-Netflix, would one be happy with their shitty rival version and no alternative? How is that a free market?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 4:08 PM, Orangenz said:

In the same way the Chinese government "protects" the internet.

It is funny that you use this example because this is exactly what the repeal of net neutrality could lead to. What net neutrality fundimentally means is that once you connect to the internet you have full access to it. Any website at the speed your have paid your isp for. Sure not all web hosting is equal some are faster some are slower but that is not the same thing as allowing the ISP to determine the speed for the website. If a site slow it is slow for everyone because the website's host is slow.

Without it the ISP's can pull all kinds of tricks to try and nickel and dime you putting more money in their pockets. For example your ISP might have a deal with microsoft so you can only using bing and hotmail by default. If you want to use google to search then you need to pay an additiona $5 a month. Want YouTube well then you need to pay $5 a month for basic access, $10 a month if you want enough bandwidth to stream HD and $15 a month if you want 4K. Big sites like Amazon will pay up to get a fast high speeds and all the smaller sites that can't pay up will be slowed down putting them at an even bigger disadvantage. There is nothing that the average user of the internet has to gain it is only the large corportations that will benifit from this.

This is just one aspect of it but there is also the fact that the internet is the largest source of information that the world has ever seen. Now corporations will have the ablity to block whatever sites they want, you have an ISP who's owner is very liberal they could block access to conservative sites or vice versa. They now have the abliity to decide what you can and cannot see, to control information, corporations could be the ones "protecting the internet" and with the connections between large corporations and the government there is a huge opportunity for censorship just waiting to be tapped.

This may never happen but now without net neutrality this is something that CAN happen where it couldn't before. I don't see how anyone can support the loss of net neutrality and from the comments I have read so far from those that apparently do, they clearly don't understand what it is in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is true that net neutrality is very young, adopted in 2015 as you elluded to. It was put in place to ensure that the internet stays as it was then, open access for everyone once connected. Without it we are left to the mercy of what the ISP's decide they want to do. The internet won't be turned off, there is no money in that, but it could be fundimentally changed for the worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Reid said:

A pro-net neutrality government is not interfering with the free market. They would actually be protecting it.

 

The only thing any free market needs protection from is government itself.

 

The entire definition of a free market is that it is free of government interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dhessel said:

It is funny that you use this example because this is exactly what the repeal of net neutrality could lead to.

Nothing you said is based on facts. Just bizarre made up sky is falling the uk will explode if it leaves the EU stuff. 

Fact 1: until 2015, the FCC had NO authority over Internet. The Net grew free & unregulated.

Fact 2: With "net neutrality" the FCC declared power to regulate everything said & done on Internet. That's really bad for freedom

You guys are getting everything backwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...