Do you support Net Neutrality?

[Mr Tansill]

Poll should read: Do you support Net Neutrality?

Hey everyone,

I was surprised recently at the amount of disagreement on the net neutrality issue, so I thought I would offer up a poll to see where the majority of us stand.

Simply put, my understanding of net neutrality is the principle that the providers of your internet connection (i.e. ComCast, Verizon, etc.), should not have the ability to discriminate against the different types of traffic (i.e. content) that travel along the wire.

What do you think? Yes or No?

Edited for clarification.

[Lucille]

Rewording is in order. Maybe just remove the "or oppose" part, so we can answer with a Yes or No.

[brushfire]

I think the question would be better worded as "Do you support Net Neutrality".

I have voted to the negative on that question. I am an IT professional, and I understand the implications of so called "Net Neutrality", and the true intentions of the government. There is already binding regulation in place that would address the proclaimed concerns that are to be addressed by "Net Neutrality".

Complete hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr Tansill]

I think the question would be better worded as "Do you support Net Neutrality".

I have voted to the negative on that question. I am an IT professional, and I understand the implications of so called "Net Neutrality", and the true intentions of the government. There is already binding regulation in place that would address the proclaimed concerns that are to be addressed by "Net Neutrality".

Complete hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not familiar with that regulation, and actually think this paints a different picture: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/.

Do you think a company should be allowed to control the speed of traffic based on content?

[Lucille]

Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/11/net-neutrality-is-not-neutrality-it-is-actually-the-opposite-its-corporate-welfare-for-netflix-and-google.html


What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.

Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)
[...]
Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.

Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.

[Mr Tansill]

Ok, I think I understand the crux of that argument, but the author of that Coyote blog frames it in terms of Netflix (and Google) being the ones who "take a huge amount of bandwidth."


Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it.


Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)

I understand it does cost ISPs a lot of money to provide these services. IMO, however, it is not Netflix or Google taking up that bandwidth, but rather the consumers who are actually downloading that content...right? I mean, if Netflix had no subscribers, how much bandwidth would they use? None whatsoever. If no one watched YouTube videos, how much bandwidth would those videos consume? Zero. In that vein, I think it is incumbent upon ISPs to choose a pricing model that accurately reflects the costs of providing their services and then charging the customer appropriately.

See, ISPs already price their product according to a tiered model in which price increases as the capacity to download goes up (source: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html). If ISPs come to the realization that certain products they offer are not "pulling their weight," then they can price them differently. Meaning if they determine a user is actually using their 50 Mbps connection, pulling tons and tons of content, they may have to increase the price for that level of service in order to make it profitable to them. This concept is allowable under the Net Neutrality construct, and prevents ISPs from choosing what you are allowed and not allowed to use your connection for. At the same time, it addresses the ISP claim that they need to be able to charge more in order to provide so much streaming content! There's nothing in the way of them increasing the price of their 50 Mbps connection!

The most apt analogy I can make actually involves Netflix. It used to be, in a not-so-distant past, that Netflix movies were delivered by mail. In their business model, the customer had to pay a certain amount in order to have a movie delivered to their house. Of course, this increase in mail volume to certain individuals' homes did not lead the post office to say "Whoa, whoa, whoa Mr. Consumer...all these extra DVDs are costing us too much to deliver to your house. If you want us to continue delivering these, you will have to pay an extra fee on top of the postage which was already paid by Netflix in order for us to deliver it." Can you imagine if such a thing took place? Postage was already paid! The revolt and uprising would have been unprecedented!

[TheCount]

I understand it does cost ISPs a lot of money to provide these services. IMO, however, it is not Netflix or Google taking up that bandwidth, but rather the consumers who are actually downloading that content...right? I mean, if Netflix had no subscribers, how much bandwidth would they use? None whatsoever. If no one watched YouTube videos, how much bandwidth would those videos consume? Zero. In that vein, I think it is incumbent upon ISPs to choose a pricing model that accurately reflects the costs of providing their services and then charging the customer appropriately.

Precisely.

Imagine if the owner of a toll road wanted to charge Ford because the majority of cars on the toll road were Fords. What would the response to that be?

[Mr Tansill]

Imagine if the owner of a toll road wanted to charge Ford because the majority of cars on the toll road were Fords.

Ha! A good analogy...I need to start a list...

[The Free Hornet]

Wording ... whatever, I voted NO because NN is nebulous concept. As a bill, Lucille is spot on about corporate welfare (or censorship or regulatory capture).

Many NN folk may not realize that some would gladly pay less for an ISP connection that is flakey to Google and Netflix. I.e., dafuq do I care about them? It can even be spotty here - :p - I'll negotiate the level of service needed. The public utility arguments would be more appealing if there was a single public utility that cost me less than $20/month (AT&T, Crook County, IL). That is what typical utility connect fees/month are before getting a drop of water, an once of garbage, a watt of electricity, a whiff of gas, or a drip of sewage. And the ISP I can CANCEL, the other utilities, some of them not so much.

There are many ideas better than NN like defending the constitution, ending the NSA.

[brushfire]

I'm not familiar with that regulation, and actually think this paints a different picture: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/.

Do you think a company should be allowed to control the speed of traffic based on content?

I see, and I stand corrected as the DC court had vacated the "no blocking" aspect of the regulation. It happened in January, I clearly wasn't paying attention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communicati ons_Commission_(2014)


To answer your question about whether a company should be allowed to control the speed on their network, I would say yes. There are different demands, depending on the type of communication. QOS provides the ability to give priority on communication that is latency sensitive, such as VOIP, or video streaming. File transfers can be done in the background and a variance in transfer rates would be less noticeable. By prioritizing, the ISP or company can achieve higher potential for the resources available, and this can translate into more options for the consumer.

Now, the argument is that the companies will use this to throttle and deliberately slow down competitors, or fabricate tiers of service to gouge consumers.

I think this concern about how the ISP's will use QOS or throttling to thwart competition is completely eclipsed by the government control that would be required to enforce so called "net neutrality". Lets not forget either that this is the same government that claims to protect consumers from monopolies. One of the biggest arguments in favor of regulation is to prevent monopolies, yet we see what has happened with comcrap, and their consolidation of the market. Who's really being protected by this regulation?

There's no doubt in my mind that the NSA has their pricks in most ISP networks, but I know for a fact that they are only operating at a fraction of what they could be, and a solid ISP presence would bring surveillance to new levels. Again, how does one suppose the government is going to know that ISP's are being fair - what will have to be done, and how might that be exploited for other (NN unrelated) agendas? These guys are out to have absolute control of the internet, and eliminate any anonymity.

This "net neutrality" is as much of a ruse as sopa, cispa, pipa, etc... Its a pretty face on absolute evil, as I see it.

If they really want to look out for the consumer, they will make it easier for smaller companies to gain access to various frequency bands. Give consumers choice and this "net neutrality" would never be a serious concern.

[cindy25]

true net neutrality maybe but Obama's proposal is not that.

[juleswin]

No to net neutrality but yes to +rep neutrality i.e the principle that the fellow rpf members (i.e. Todd, Angelica, etc.), should not have the ability to discriminate against the different post content. Reps for everybody \o/

But seriously I am always weary when someone tries to propose a radical solution to a non problem. I mean how is any of this any problem at the moment. Also when they say discriminate against certain content providers, does that mean ISPs cannot discriminated based on price? I say no to net neutrality cos I think net neutrality is a solution looking for a non existent problem.

[kpitcher]

Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.

Oh boo hoo AT&T, Verizon and other government mandated monopolies, they're doing this stunt until the press is over and then continue rolling things out. Telco's pulled the exact same thing back in the early 2000s to get rid of the 1996 telco reform that mandated non-monopoly companies to be able to cross connect to existing telco lines. They said there was no reason to innovate because competition would exist and they wouldn't be assured of making money. Bush got elected, Powell's kid was put in charge of the FCC, '96 telco reform was rolled back. Guess what? The telco's didn't suddenly start rolling out broadband.

If this was real free market then I'd say let companies decide what they offer and let the consumer choose. However the ILECs are government mandated monopolies, the baby bells have defined regions. Then you have cable which is a whole other sort of monopoly with cities having signed exclusive deals to the cable companies having agreements not to go into each other's turf (One of the CEOs said exactly that during a merger talk recently). The question is actually

"Do we let monopolies extort even more money by charging both sides of the internet pipe"

PS. Where is our 300 billion in improvements we already paid for? (http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm)

[Lucille]

So who are the six useful idiots?

[Suzanimal]

So who are the six useful idiots?

Exactly what I was wondering...

[Keith and stuff]

I an opposed to the plan that the left and statist Republicans are pushing to increase regulations, fees, and taxes on the Internet.

[CaptUSA]

So let's see...

There is a problem that doesn't really exist, but the government would really like to be able to have the legal authority to regulate the internet. Let's come up with a problem that may potentially exist in the future if we don't regulate it now.

Who in their right mind would think this is a good idea? I know some may want to take sides against one industry or another, but this is about finding a new way to make businesses have to cough up money to influence the politicians.

I've always said that the problem with money in politics has nothing to do with businesses trying to buy influence, it's that the politicians have something to sell - the ability to pick winners and losers in the economy. "Net neutrality" has nothing to do with making the internet "neutral" and everything to do with giving politicians something else to sell.

[charrob]

This is an issue that I don’t understand fully; however, from what I do understand ‘Net Neutrality’ to mean, I think that I’m for it, but am open to be corrected if i'm wrong and not understanding the issue completely.

If Net Neutrality means that the ISPs cannot treat content providers differently, than I am for it (and, so, voted ‘yes’ in the poll).

If networks are just data packets going over the pipelines, it should be the consumer that pays more if more of those data packets are downloaded to his home computer. But the content provider, imho, should not be affected.

ISPs, as well as the Feds, should not be able to ever look inside those pipelines to differentiate or view content. It should be a black box.

Some say why have Net Neutrality if the internet works fine? But I’d ask, is it really fair for Netflix to have to pay more when Comcast (who owns both pipes and content) can give themselves (or anyone else they want) a break for the same amount of data packets going over the wires? This leads to internet fast lanes where those content providers who can afford it pay more; while another startup content provider who is, say, trying to compete with Netflix and Comcast would not be able to afford the fast lanes. Also, with more money coming in, it gives the ISPs an incentive to continue developing fast lanes while ignoring the lower priced slow lanes.

This is a monopoly – wires going through public and private lands to reach homes.

The consumer who downloads huge numbers of data packets to their homes should be charged more, not the content provider. Otherwise small startup content providers with little cash on hand to pay for fast lanes will never be able to compete with the already established content providers.

[TheCount]

If Net Neutrality means that the ISPs cannot treat content providers differently, than I am for it (and, so, voted ‘yes’ in the poll).


This is my understanding of the term, and is why I voted the same as you.

[Dianne]

I want the Federal Government out of my life completely. I don't want the Federal Government spying on me, raping my bank accounts, searching my Grandma's granny panties, telling me what to eat, when to sleep, what to drink, what to smoke, when to wake up, when to go to sleep. Especially some jack legged flim flam man like Obama and his bhole buddy Holder who couldn't pass a drug test to save their lives.

You talk about the fastest way to have half the Congress leave office.... announce surprise drug tests.. Bet 30% of Congress can't pass a Walmart employee drug test.

[parocks]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really fucked things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

[MrGoose]

I voted yes.

I don't want my favorite websites throttled, or outright blocked (has happened before temporarily).

[juleswin]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really fucked things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X8WY_Dq1Vg

[MrGoose]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wireless+Blocks+4chan+Website/article17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5474850/comcast-isnt-letting-customers-watch-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

[parocks]

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.





You just don't know what you're talking about.

There are issues involved here. You don't seem to know what they are.

My description of what's happening is pretty much on the money. I just did this research and I'm not saying that things are going to be better, it doesn't look that way, but "net neutrality" is what what we've had, and there was a court case - here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communicati ons_Commission_(2014)

which is forcing some action at this point. I'd've preferred that we just keep doing what we were doing 1 year ago, but the court case requires some sort of action.

My general tendency is to prefer net neutrality, what we've had.

This is from the above link.

"In response to the FCC's decision of not appealing but establishing new rules, James P. Tuthill, an attorney and lecturer of UC Berkeley School of Law, criticized the decision as the agency could appeal the Supreme Court to seek review, and the Court would likely accept the case because of the significance of the issues and a request by a federal agency."

I think that's close to where my position on this is right now. We had it pretty good before, and if the S Ct simply said "emanations, penumbra, FCC, you're fine" we'd basically have the FCC continuing to do what it has been doing, which is coming up with rules with a foundation in "net neutrality."

"Net neutrality" is a general concept or philosophy, like freedom, and not a specific law.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

No, leave the internet alone.

[MrGoose]

I don't think a lot of you guys fully understand what Net Neutrality does.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

[juleswin]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wireless+Blocks+4chan+Website/article17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5474850/comcast-isnt-letting-customers-watch-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

First of all, I don't think the video actually said ISPs have never throttled or blocked websites. But even if they did, so what? if you don't like it, unsubscribe and join a different service or maybe completely get off the internet. The ISPs don't owe you anything. Also if you net neutrality supporters believe that this new law that has been pushed by all sorts of authoritarian liberals since 2006 is to keep the "net neutrality" law we have now, how come the ISPs were able to throttle or block internet sites in the past when we had a de facto net neutrality? You just cannot have it both ways

Also this stupid line that most Americans only have one choice for ISP is a big lie. Most people in big and average US cities (where the majority of Americans live) already have more than 1 choice for ISP. I have 4+ different options in little ole Omaha.

Just one last thing, I do not believe a word coming from Moot the liberal, gamergate censoring, social justice warrior guy, him saying that his crappy website was blocked for a few hours is just his word. And even if he is correct, then his problem was easily resolved without any net neutrality laws.

So until we see that nightmare scenario you net neutrality advocates are scared about for at least 2 yrs, I say we leave things the way it is now. No invitation to the FCC to regulate any more of the internet. I get really suspicious when scare tactic is used to scare me into preemptively supporting a solution before the problem is upon us.

[juleswin]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

I dunno if I should laugh or cry after reading your post. I am just wondering if your problem is that big giant corporations are not in bed with govt and you want them in bed with government. Cos net neutrality does just that which you seem to be again in your post but will lead to just that with your support of net neutrality.

[CaptUSA]

This bears repeating:

...the problem with money in politics has nothing to do with businesses trying to buy influence, it's that the politicians have something to sell - the ability to pick winners and losers in the economy. "Net neutrality" has nothing to do with making the internet "neutral" and everything to do with giving politicians something else to sell.

The very threat of net neutrality forces businesses on both sides to cough up. Never allow to politicians believe that they have the power to control the market. We've done that too many times - and almost always to our own peril.

[MrGoose]

First of all, I don't think the video actually said ISPs have never throttled or blocked websites. But even if they did, so what? if you don't like it, unsubscribe and join a different service or maybe completely get off the internet. The ISPs don't owe you anything. Also if you net neutrality supporters believe that this new law that has been pushed by all sorts of authoritarian liberals since 2006 is to keep the "net neutrality" law we have now, how come the ISPs were able to throttle or block internet sites in the past when we had a de facto net neutrality? You just cannot have it both ways

Also this stupid line that most Americans only have one choice for ISP is a big lie. Most people in big and average US cities (where the majority of Americans live) already have more than 1 choice for ISP. I have 4+ different options in little ole Omaha.

Just one last thing, I do not believe a word coming from Moot the liberal, gamergate censoring, social justice warrior guy, him saying that his crappy website was blocked for a few hours is just his word. And even if he is correct, then his problem was easily resolved without any net neutrality laws.

So until we see that nightmare scenario you net neutrality advocates are scared about for at least 2 yrs, I say we leave things the way it is now. No invitation to the FCC to regulate any more of the internet. I get really suspicious when scare tactic is used to scare me into preemptively supporting a solution before the problem is upon us.

Many American's have no choice in their Internet. This is a fact.

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/178465-woe-is-isp-30-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider

Simply living without Internet is not a realistic choice today. I personally only have two choices for internet, and the other guy has a max download speed of 15mbps, so it's unrealistic. Luckily the alternative is pretty acceptable. I'm happy that you have 4+ ISPs, just cause things are ok where you are doesn't mean it's ok for everyone else. That's not a valid excuse.


As for Moot. I agree that moot is complete garbage now, but that doesn't discredit his claims. Especially since I remember when this happened and there were users that were verifying it. You don't even address my other two examples (blocking HBO GO and throttling Netflix). These are 3 things I can remember off the top of my head so I'm not sure how many more instances of this are there.

The negatives are already happening. It will get much worse if Comcast and Time Warner merge. Netflix already had to raise their prices after paying Comcast's extortion fees. So even though my internet is fine I am still affected.

Net Neutrality simply says "Don't throttle or block websites".
That's it. Your argument is basically, "It's fine now (it's not) don't change anything!"


EDIT:
Ugh I was just looking at more articles and look at this.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/we-need-real-competition-not-a-cable-internet-monopoly

$15-$20 for speeds 10 times faster than most Americans have. Cell Phone plans at $15. I had a friend from Finland who told me he had a similarly priced plan and I thought he was mistaken at first. It's almost unfathomable.





I apologize if I come off insulting or overly confrontational.

[CaptUSA]

Net Neutrality simply says "Don't throttle or block websites".

No it doesn't. Not even close. It says, "We, the politicians, will decide who, how, when and why the internet is managed."

Do you not trust the market to handle this problem that you perceive? THAT is the question you should be asking - not whether or not you think the outcome is a good one. Since when have you ever known government regulation to provide a benefit? (even if it were passed with the purist intentions?)


If you trusted in the freedom of the market, then if the problem you see would affect enough people, there would be an alternative presented.

[Mr Tansill]

No it doesn't. Not even close. It says, "We, the politicians, will decide who, how, when and why the internet is managed."

Do you not trust the market to handle this problem that you perceive? THAT is the question you should be asking - not whether or not you think the outcome is a good one. Since when have you ever known government regulation to provide a benefit? (even if it were passed with the purist intentions?)


If you trusted in the freedom of the market, then if the problem you see would affect enough people, there would be an alternative presented.

After reading all the responses and hearing disagreement on this thread, I wish I could go back and re-define the terms (more clearly) at the outset to be able to get at the question I really wanted answered. I now see, however, that on both sides of the issue, there is disagreement- including disagreement about the terms being used to discuss the issue. If I could go back and ask the question again, I would first define Net Neutrality as: the principle that a company which provides sequences of 1s and 0s to your home should not be allowed to control the speed at which they arrive, based upon the order in which they are sent. This definition specifically excludes any references to government taxing, regulating, or other action, etc. It is only the principle that there should be no ISP-controlled access based upon the content being accessed.

Simply put, I wanted to have a conversation about whether or not an ISP should be allowed to discriminate against content sent through the internet. What I didn't want to have happen was the bastardization of the terminology "Net Neutrality" to incorporate some imagined government power-grab over the internet, and/or government taxation over the internet - those are separate topics, and the collusion of the three into one is obscuring the issue quite effectively, I think.

Edited to add:

Actually, when I went back to my original post, I was extremely clear on what I meant "Net Neutrality" to refer to. At some point however, the subjects of "government power-grab" and "taxation" were introduced and helped derail the discussion.

[ctiger2]

I'll only support it IF it lines the executive branch's pockets with cold hard cash.

[Mr Tansill]

I'll only support it IF it lines the executive branch's pockets with cold hard cash.

LOL!!!

[CaptUSA]

After reading all the responses and hearing disagreement on this thread, I wish I could go back and re-define the terms (more clearly) at the outset to be able to get at the question I really wanted answered. I now see, however, that on both sides of the issue, there is disagreement- including disagreement about the terms being used to discuss the issue. If I could go back and ask the question again, I would first define Net Neutrality as: the principle that a company which provides sequences of 1s and 0s to your home should not be allowed to control the speed at which they arrive, based upon the order in which they are sent. This definition specifically excludes any references to government taxing, regulating, or other action, etc. It is only the principle that there should be no ISP-controlled access based upon the content being accessed.

Simply put, I wanted to have a conversation about whether or not an ISP should be allowed to discriminate against content sent through the internet. What I didn't want to have happen was the bastardization of the terminology "Net Neutrality" to incorporate some imagined government power-grab over the internet, and/or government taxation over the internet - those are separate topics, and the collusion of the three into one is obscuring the issue quite effectively, I think.

Edited to add:

Actually, when I went back to my original post, I was extremely clear on what I meant "Net Neutrality" to refer to. At some point however, the subjects of "government power-grab" and "taxation" were introduced and helped derail the discussion.

I'm sorry, but I think you are still misunderstanding the issue. The underlined portion of your post displays this. It seems like I've been posting this Bastiat quote lots lately, but I still think it's germane:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

The principle you propose is perhaps a sound one, but somehow you make the leap to insinuate that the only way this can be done is through the government regulating it. THAT's what is at issue in this net-neutrality debate. We do not need "state-enforced equality" of speed of content. The market will take care of this, too.

[Mr Tansill]

I'm sorry, but I think you are still misunderstanding the issue. The underlined portion of your post displays this. It seems like I've been posting this Bastiat quote lots lately, but I still think it's germane:


The principle you propose is perhaps a sound one, but somehow you make the leap to insinuate that the only way this can be done is through the government regulating it. THAT's what is at issue in this net-neutrality debate. We do not need "state-enforced equality" of speed of content. The market will take care of this, too.

I happen to agree with that quote you provided, and submit that yes, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have protections the likes of which Net Neutrality proposes to impose. I also submit, however, that we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where corporations collude against the consumer, deals are reached in secret, and markets in certain regions are fractured enough that companies are effectively local monopolies that have no competitors, or any reason to improve their service - they effectively operate as utilities already, but which aren't subject to the same level of accountability as the government.

This is why I support the idea of Net Neutrality - it is a prevention of abuse by those who "provide a service" using public infrastructure (which our society is increasingly reliant upon) from taking advantage of the privileged position they already maintain: they conduct the vast majority of their business on infrastructure that is owned by the government. Which is another reason it should be subject to (appropriate) government - it should represent the common people's interests - not the interests of powerful lobbies or corporations that have influence in Washington or Texas.

Edited because I accidentally hit "post" prior to being complete.

[CaptUSA]

I happen to agree with that quote you provided, and submit that yes, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have protections the likes of which Net Neutrality proposes to enforce. I also submit, however, that we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where corporations collude against the consumer, deals are reached in secret, and markets in certain regions are fractured enough that companies are effectively local monopolies

This seems to keep coming up as well, lately. Let me try to address this en masse since it's used for several other issues as well.

Government creates problems. More government creates more problems. You cannot fix a government-created problem with more government.

Pick the problem with which you want to deal and apply that axiom. Immigration? Commerce? Economics? War? Health Care?

As it applies to Net Neutrality, you would be fooling yourself that this would "solve" any problems. It will only create more. It restricts freedom. It will limit innovation. It will cost more. And it will most certainly require more government and more regulation to "fix" it again in the future.

[Mr Tansill]

This seems to keep coming up as well, lately. Let me try to address this en masse since it's used for several other issues as well.

Government creates problems. More government creates more problems. You cannot fix a government-created problem with more government.

Pick the problem with which you want to deal and apply that axiom. Immigration? Commerce? Economics? War? Health Care?

As it applies to Net Neutrality, you would be fooling yourself that this would "solve" any problems. It will only create more. It restricts freedom. It will limit innovation. It will cost more. And it will most certainly require more government and more regulation to "fix" it again in the future.

(I 'bolded' the relevant portion of your post for my response)...

I'll abstract your statement one more level: PEOPLE create problems. You cannot fix a person-created problem with more people.

The absolute disassociation with anything government-related by certain people in this crowd neglects and misses the true function government is supposed to serve in our lives. Government is intended to be that organization in which we are all equivalent, have the same right to any service the government provides, have the same rights to being treated fairly, and so on and so forth. Simply declaring government to be absolutely 'bad' is so wholly myopic that it is hard to have serious, constructive conversations about issues. I could alternatively posit that corporations are inherently evil and to be distrusted, but of course such a statement is silly. It is not so simple an issue as to be rolled up in a smug: "Governments create problems. Hence Net Neutrality is bad. The end."

Here is an example of a corporation being unaccountable for their actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster. See, governments aren't the only ones who cause problems...

[CaptUSA]

('Bolded' the relevant portion of your post for my response)...

I'll abstract your statement one more level: PEOPLE create problems. You cannot fix a person-created problem with more people.

The absolute disassociation with anything government-related by certain people in this crowd neglects and misses the true function government is supposed to serve in our lives. Government is intended to be that organization in which we are all equivalent, and have the same right to any service the government provides, have the same rights to being treated fairly, so on and so forth. Simply declaring government to be absolutely 'bad' is so wholly myopic that it is hard to have serious, constructive conversations about issues. I could alternatively posit that corporations are inherently evil and to be distrusted, but of course such a statement is silly. It is not so simple an issue as to be rolled up in a smug: "Governments create problems. The end."


I'm not trying to be smug - I'm trying to be clear. There is a difference between government and the free market. In the free market, if a solution does not work or is unpopular, a new solution will be found. With government, when the solution does not work, more money is stolen from people to try and make it work and more laws and regulations are passed to try and make it work. Dollar votes work far more effectively and swiftly than ballot votes.

[Mr Tansill]

I'm not trying to be smug - I'm trying to be clear. There is a difference between government and the free market. In the free market, if a solution does not work or is unpopular, a new solution will be found. With government, when the solution does not work, more money is stolen from people to try and make it work and more laws and regulations are passed to try and make it work. Dollar votes work far more effectively and swiftly than ballot votes.

I agree with everything you just said 100%. Recognize that the system you are advocating is what I would like too, but which does not, currently exist.

[CaptUSA]

I agree with everything you just said 100%. Recognize that the system you are advocating is what I would like too, but which does not, currently exist.

Right. But we should be addressing the right problem. The reason why that system doesn't currently exist is because the government created a problem. The answer is undoing the problem - NOT giving the government more power because they screwed it up in the first place!

[juleswin]

This seems to keep coming up as well, lately. Let me try to address this en masse since it's used for several other issues as well.

Government creates problems. More government creates more problems. You cannot fix a government-created problem with more government.

Pick the problem with which you want to deal and apply that axiom. Immigration? Commerce? Economics? War? Health Care?

As it applies to Net Neutrality, you would be fooling yourself that this would "solve" any problems. It will only create more. It restricts freedom. It will limit innovation. It will cost more. And it will most certainly require more government and more regulation to "fix" it again in the future.

What he said, now imagine the current situation where there are no real problems with ISP blocking or throttling service and then inject the number one trouble maker into the mix and there is no way the situation will be better 10yrs from now. This debate would make a lot more sense if we are living in the nightmare situation net neutrality supporter envision.

[CaptUSA]

What he said, now imagine the current situation where there are no real problems with ISP blocking or throttling service and then inject the number one trouble maker into the mix and there is no way the situation will be better 10yrs from now. This debate would make a lot more sense if we are living in the nightmare situation net neutrality supporter envision.But the problem the politicians face is that they can't wait 10 years. If this problem were allowed to exist free from regulation for 10 years, then the market would solve it - thereby robbing the politicians of all that lobby money from now until then.

[r33d33]

Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/11/net-neutrality-is-not-neutrality-it-is-actually-the-opposite-its-corporate-welfare-for-netflix-and-google.html


I don't see how this is corporate welfare. Sounds to me like everyone's paying their bit (sic). I still don't see where there's any "welfare". If there were any competition in ISPs, one could imagine a bunch of alternative charging models being tested in the marketplace. Once a little competition was introduced, these models went by the way-side in favor of unlimited data plans. What you'd call preventing "welfare" or "free-riding" I'd call "rent-seeking".

[puppetmaster]

Remember what Ron Paul said. When a bill is named it usually is the opposite of the name. IE. "Feed the children bill" would actually starve the children.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I an opposed to the plan that the left and statist Republicans are pushing to increase regulations, fees, and taxes on the Internet.Yeah, especially when Fascism is running rampant across America..

What ever happen to the billions .gov gave in grants (corporate welfare) to provide fast intenet across the country? It was all a scam between Big Telcos and Big Government to line pockets of each other, while sticking that expense on the clueless taxpayers.

[MrGoose]

No it doesn't. Not even close. It says, "We, the politicians, will decide who, how, when and why the internet is managed."

Do you not trust the market to handle this problem that you perceive? THAT is the question you should be asking - not whether or not you think the outcome is a good one. Since when have you ever known government regulation to provide a benefit? (even if it were passed with the purist intentions?)


If you trusted in the freedom of the market, then if the problem you see would affect enough people, there would be an alternative presented.

I do trust the free market, but you blindly assuming US internet is fine is laughable. We have some of the worst internet providers in the developed world and are even behind many developing nations. The reason we have huge monopolies is that these ISP mega corps pay city councils to ban all other ISPs giving them free reign. The free market isn't allowed to work at all as local governments are actively blocking competition.

How can you all pretend like the US internet is OK?

Your arguments that you come to have no evidence what so ever.

You don't even address my evidence at all.

ISPs ARE blocking websites. ISPS ARE throttling content. These are facts that are happening today. Net Neutrality is not some "Obamacare of the Internet" scheme. Many of you seems to have NO idea what the hell Net Neutrality is or how bad the Internet is for many Americans.

[CaptUSA]

I do trust the free market, but you blindly assuming US internet is fine is laughable. We have some of the worst internet providers in the developed world and are even behind many developing nations. The reason we have huge monopolies is that these ISP mega corps pay city councils to ban all other ISPs giving them free reign. The free market isn't allowed to work at all as local governments are actively blocking competition.

How can you all pretend like the US internet is OK?

Your arguments that you come to have no evidence what so ever.

You don't even address my evidence at all.

ISPs ARE blocking websites. ISPS ARE throttling content. These are facts that are happening today. Net Neutrality is not some "Obamacare of the Internet" scheme. Many of you seems to have NO idea what the hell Net Neutrality is or how bad the Internet is for many Americans.

Um... Please re-read through this thread. I never pretended for one post that everything was "OK" with the internet in the US. Let's say we agree on your definition of the problem. OK? I can accept that.

But to think that the solution is more government regulation? That is the absolute LAST thing you should want to do to correct that problem. I hope you can see the leap of logic you made. You identified a problem (which, by the way was created by government providing monopolies) and then suggest that the only way to remedy the problem is to give more power to the same people who created the problem in the first place.

We need a freer market, not a more regulated one.

[parocks]

Um... Please re-read through this thread. I never pretended for one post that everything was "OK" with the internet in the US. Let's say we agree on your definition of the problem. OK? I can accept that.

But to think that the solution is more government regulation? That is the absolute LAST thing you should want to do to correct that problem. I hope you can see the leap of logic you made. You identified a problem (which, by the way was created by government providing monopolies) and then suggest that the only way to remedy the problem is to give more power to the same people who created the problem in the first place.

We need a freer market, not a more regulated one.

There is no ideology like what you're talking about involved here.

This is an argument about what broadband internet will be treated as.

This is an argument about what the FCC rules will be.

This is not an argument about whether there should be FCC rules.

Very few people on this thread have a real understanding of what is going on presently.

I did a little basic research on the issue. I think I win the most knowledgeable on the issue award. But there's gotta be someone who knows more than I do on this issue.

I get the Government = Bad argument.

No Government isn't a choice here.

[CaptUSA]

Perhaps your research was not as thorough as it could have been...

http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-or-destroying-internet-innovation-investment
http://www.cato.org/blog/fcc-make-internet-service-public-utiity

‘Net neutrality” is a good engineering principle, but it shouldn’t be a legal mandate. Technology and markets surpassed any need for command-and-control regulation in this area long ago. But regulators don’t give up power without a fight. To maintain power, the FCC may try to make Internet service a public utility.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/real-cost-network-neutrality
and finally...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom

The Paul manifesto seeks to rein in anti-trust actions against companies in new industries; to stop attempts to impose “Net Neutrality” rules on broadband providers; to prevent government control of online infrastructure; to broaden private control of the wireless spectrum, and shore up “private property rights on the Internet.”

[MrGoose]

I think you're arguing against having the Internet as a utility, which is reasonable, rather than against Net Neutrality. At least tha'ts what I gather from this thread.

[Suzanimal]

Small government Republicans...
http://i.imgur.com/vLT7SRl.jpg


Net Neutrality Activists Demanding Title II Reclassification Crash FCC Meeting

WASHINGTON, DC––Net neutrality activists who support strong free speech protections through Title II reclassification crashed a press conference organized by Republican FCC Commissioner––and former Verizon lawyer––Ajit Pai this morning when they attempted to unfurl a large banner reading “85% of Republican Voters Support Net Neutrality,” a reference to a University of Delaware poll from November, reported in the Washington Post.

...
http://revolution-news.com/net-neutrality-activists-demanding-title-ii-reclassification-crash-fcc-meeting/#prettyPhoto

[georgiaboy]

My randfather doesn't, and his opinion is one I regard.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468356-Rand-opposes-Net-Neutrality-why-is-this-a-techy-problem&highlight=neutrality

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

No, but there's far too little competition in the ISP market. I don't like the idea of the internet being manipulated by the state or corporate oligopolies. It wouldn't actually effect me, because I use a small, local ISP that likely won't change any policies regardless of what happens, but still.

[Lucille]

I think you're arguing against having the Internet as a utility, which is reasonable, rather than against Net Neutrality. At least tha'ts what I gather from this thread.


First, Mr. Wheeler proposed regulating consumer Internet service as a public utility, saying it was the right path to net neutrality (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/technology/fcc-wheeler-net-neutrality.html).

Cometh The Censor
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-16/cometh-censor


I see with no surprise that Washington is stepping up its campaign to censor the internet. It had to come, and will succeed. It will put paid forever to America’s flirtation with freedom.

The country was never really a democracy, meaning a polity in which final power rested with the people. The voters have always been too remote from the levers of power to have much influence. Yet for a brief window of time there actually was freedom of a sort. With the censorship of the net—it will be called “regulation”—the last hope of retaining former liberty will expire.
[...]
Today the internet is the only free press we have, all that stands against total control of information. Consider how relentlessly the media impose political correctness, how the slightest offense to the protected groups—we all know who they are—or to sacred policies leads to firing of reporters and groveling by politicians. The wars are buried and serious criticism of Washington suppressed. That leaves the net, only the net, without which we would know nothing.

Which is why it must be and will be censored, sooner if Washington can get away with it and later if not. The tactics are predictable. First, “hate speech” will be banned. The government will tell us whom we can hate and whom we cannot. “Hatred” will be vaguely defined so that one will never be sure when one is engaging in it and, since it will be prosecutable, one will have to be very careful. Disapproval of favored groups, or of their behavior, will be defined as hatred. National security will be invoked, silencing whistle-blowers or, eventually, anything that might make the public uneasy with Washington’s wars.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-democracy-is-the-theory-that-the-common-people-know-what-they-want-and-deserve-to-get-it-good-and-h-l-mencken-125667.jpg