Net Neutrality

24

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,772 Senior Member
    OK, now I AM confused. If I had "net neutrality" before the Obama administration implemented "net neutrality" through regulations by the FCC, then why do I now want to continue having "net neutrality" by not getting rid of the regulations? There must be something about this conversation or the Trump administrations intention that I am missing.
    All Obama did was uphold it against attempts to eliminate it. Listen to the non-liberals on the board who actually know something about the issue (ie Dan) and try to avoid having the "alpha is for it, it must be bad" reaction.

    I will admit I wish Wambli would weigh in. I know his company will almost certainly benefit greatly from eliminating net neutrality so he's not 100% unbiased, but he almost certainly understands the issue better than all but a very few here.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,706 Senior Member
    try to avoid having the "alpha is for it, it must be bad" reaction.

    You've spent years playing "point, counter point" on this forum trying to get people to agree with a lot of erroneous information and this is what you've achieved.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    I wholeheartedly support any government policy that changes absolutely nothing regarding my use of the internet. Speed, access, price, is all OK with me as it stands, I want nothing to change one effing bit. However, if the GOP is as eager to lose control of the government as it seems to be, go ahead and screw around with the Internet. 98% of the people use it, and if anything the government does changes it in any way at all, and I mean in any way, they can kiss their seats in Congress good-bye. And Trump can forget about a second term.

    Why? Because any change is SURE to be against the majority of consumers, and for the benefit of providers and/or big corporate users. If providers gave a flying FiretrUCK through a rolling donut about consumers, they'd make positive changes on their own. They'd make it cheaper, faster, and truly unlimited. But they don't. Which absolutely must mean that what's happening now is sure to make internet service more expensive for the average consumer, provide restricted access or slower access, and generally piss everybody off.

    Tread lightly GOP. Lest Net Neutrality become a bigger issue for you than gun control is for the Democrats. And before that issue costs you everything.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »

    Big Corp is the new govt.

    Nope.

    With "Big Corp" I have at least a few choices to purchase a product or service, or I can decline altogether.

    I can't opt out of government; unless I want goons showing up to my house with machine guns and throwing my ass in a rape cage.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Proponents of Net Neutrality maintain that rules that went into effect in 2015 are the only thing standing between rapacious businesses such as Comcast, Verizon (where Pai once worked), and Spectrum and an Internet choking on throttled traffic, expensive "fast lanes," and completely blocked sites that displease whatever corporate entity controls the last mile of fiber into your home or business. Pai says that is bunk and noted that today's proposed changes, which are expected to pass full FCC review in mid-December, return the Internet to the light-touch regulatory regime that governed it from the mid-1990s until 2015.


    "It's telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings," says Pai, pointing toward actions initiated by his predecessor against "zero-rating" services such as T-Mobile's Binge program, which didn't count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and a host of other services against a customer's monthly data allowance. "To me it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data."

    The FCC is not completely evacuating its oversight role. ISPs, he says, will need to be completely transparent with customers about all practices related to prioritizing traffic, data caps, and more. Pai believes that market competition for customers will prove far more effective in developing better and cheaper services than regulators deciding what is best for the sector. "In wireless," he says, "there's very intense competition—you have four national carriers and any number of regional carriers competing to provide 4G LTE, and a number of different services. In those marketplaces where there's not as much competition as we'd like to see, to me at least, the solution isn't to preemptively regulate as if it were a monopoly, as if we're dealing with 'Ma Bell,' but to promote more competition."

    Pai says that one of the major mistakes of Net Neutrality is its pre-emptive nature. Rather than allowing different practices to develop and then having regulators intervene when problems or harms to customer arise, Net Neutrality is prescriptive and thus likely to serve the interests of existing companies in maintaining a status quo that's good for them. In terms of enforcement of anti-competitive practices, Pai says the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is better equipped to deal with problems. "The FTC can take action even in the absence of finding harm, consumer harm," he notes, "so even if consumers aren't harmed, if [FTC regulators] deem a particular business practice, any business practice to be unfair or deceptive, they have authority under Section 5 to take action against it. So that's a pretty powerful tool that they've used even in the last couple of years against telecom providers and others in the internet economy whom they believe are not protecting consumers."


    http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,176 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    ........Also, there's a generational belief system in place here. Baby boomers are more likely to trust big corporations and despise the govt. They also grew up in a generation where a man could work at the same place for 40 years, support a family, and retire with a pension.

    Big Corp is the new govt.
    We're not ALL that stupid. I think most of us realize that big government politicians and big corporate executives all have the same motives: they're in it for themselves, and the public be damned. Sure, they'll throw us a bone now and then, but greed is very powerful in both regimes. I trust neither.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,772 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    And as soon as that happens one provider will figure out the hole, fill it and gain a bunch of market share. I give you FOX News who ate CNNs lunch using that model...

    The internet and access to it is a massive cost to telcos not just locally but worldwide. I think it’s ok to let private businesses allocate and recover their costs so they can continue growing and innovating. You don’t see anyone insisting Apple must run Windows right?
    That's great if you actually have a choice. But almost half of Americans have zero choice in their broadband providers because there's only one that services their area. They hold a literal Monopoly. Don't like it too bad! And I will go back to my earlier point. Those without a choice are predominantly rural which also means more likely to be conservative.

    arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Nope.

    With "Big Corp" I have at least a few choices to purchase a product or service, or I can decline altogether.

    I can't opt out of government; unless I want goons showing up to my house with machine guns and throwing my ass in a rape cage.

    You're only fooling yourself if you think Big Corp operates independently of legislature. They aren't two separate entities anymore, or at least, they are so much more closely linked than they ever have been.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,165 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Nope.

    With "Big Corp" I have at least a few choices to purchase a product or service, or I can decline altogether.

    I can't opt out of government; unless I want goons showing up to my house with machine guns and throwing my ass in a rape cage.
    Obamacare, anyone?

    Edited to add: not sure how net neutrality will pan out. Just trying to point out that we have had some unpleasant mixing of business and law.

    Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
    Overkill is underrated.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    We're not ALL that stupid. I think most of us realize that big government politicians and big corporate executives all have the same motives: they're in it for themselves, and the public be damned. Sure, they'll throw us a bone now and then, but greed is very powerful in both regimes. I trust neither.

    Of course you aren't, and I didn't meant to imply you were stupid. But my grandfather grew up in a time where a man could get his 40 year gold watch at retirement and not worry about his family.

    Here's what our corporations are doing to us now. Copied from Reddit:

    Just look at what they have ALREADY tried to do.

    "There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

    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.

    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 . 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 literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

    The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet."
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,176 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    ............But my grandfather grew up in a time where a man could get his 40 year gold watch at retirement and not worry about his family....................

    You're absolutely right. I started seeing this trend I guess back in the 80's or 90's, where a person no longer could spend his working life and career in one company and be assured of a decent living afterwards. Now most of the benefits go to those at the top, regardless of how badly they have managed/mismanaged the company they work for.

    Along with your last post and posts from others including Alpha, I think I'm better understanding what is going on. I did not know that there have been attempts to limit internet freedom by telecoms.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    You're only fooling yourself if you think Big Corp operates independently of legislature. They aren't two separate entities anymore, or at least, they are so much more closely linked than they ever have been.

    Business has ALWAYS lobbied (donated $$$) for laws that are in their best interest. Our beloved gun manufacturers are no exception.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Obamacare, anyone?

    Edited to add: not sure how net neutrality will pan out. Just trying to point out that we have had some unpleasant mixing of business and law.

    Point taken.

    I was not surprised when Obamacare passed. I've been forced to buy auto insurance since I was old enough to drive.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Of course you aren't, and I didn't meant to imply you were stupid. But my grandfather grew up in a time where a man could get his 40 year gold watch at retirement and not worry about his family.

    Here's what our corporations are doing to us now. Copied from Reddit:

    Just look at what they have ALREADY tried to do.

    "There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

    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.

    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 . 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 literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

    The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet."

    I did not verify every bullet point, but I will mention there was no net neutrality before any of those events you listed. Specifically Verizon in 2013. All of those things you mentioned did not happen or continued to happen for very long without Obama's net neutrality rules.

    My biggest concern with net neutrality is government interferring with business.

    If I ran a buisiness, I wouldn't want to be forced to sell my competitor's product under the guise of giving my customers more choices. Or being forced to sell my product cheaper even when the production costs increased. I know, it's a simplistic view, but comparable.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Net neutrality is what we've had ALL ALONG. It was only given a name in the past few years. Telecoms have been fighting the status quo long before it was named.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,706 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    My biggest concern with net neutrality is government interferring with business.

    If I ran a buisiness, I wouldn't want to be forced to sell my competitor's product under the guise of giving my customers more choices. Or being forced to sell my product cheaper even when the production costs increased. I know, it's a simplistic view, but comparable.

    This is how I see it and no matter what perspective I try to view it from, this is the end result that I see.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,176 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Point taken.

    I was not surprised when Obamacare passed. I've been forced to buy auto insurance since I was old enough to drive.

    The difference between Obamacare and auto insurance is Obamacare forces you to buy insurance for paying for your own healthcare, whereas auto insurance pays for other peoples' injuries and car damage.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,772 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I did not verify every bullet point, but I will mention there was no net neutrality before any of those events you listed. Specifically Verizon in 2013. All of those things you mentioned did not happen or continued to happen for very long without Obama's net neutrality rules.

    My biggest concern with net neutrality is government interferring with business.

    If I ran a buisiness, I wouldn't want to be forced to sell my competitor's product under the guise of giving my customers more choices. Or being forced to sell my product cheaper even when the production costs increased. I know, it's a simplistic view, but comparable.

    Either way it's government interfering with business. It is essentially a power struggle between ISPs and content providers. If you eliminate net neutrality you give ISPs the power to hold specific content generated by other companies for randsom. Basically giving them the power to increase thier profits on the backs of other's efforts. This is already happening to a degree. We allow this to a degree in the retail space where Walmart can basically dictate prices and bully suppliers. But at least companies still have other options for delivering their products including starting their own stores, other retailers, and direct sales. Content creators don't exactly have any other options.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Either way it's government interfering with business. It is essentially a power struggle between ISPs and content providers. If you eliminate net neutrality you give ISPs the power to hold specific content generated by other companies for randsom. Basically giving them the power to increase thier profits on the backs of other's efforts. This is already happening to a degree. We allow this to a degree in the retail space where Walmart can basically dictate prices and bully suppliers. But at least companies still have other options for delivering their products including starting their own stores, other retailers, and direct sales. Content creators don't exactly have any other options.

    Dictate and bully, huh? That isn't Walmart, that's the fedgov you hold so dear. Now you want the gov't to regulate the net, the same as you wanted healthcare regulated. Look how that turned out.

    The next administration will likely be Democratic, so you'll get all the net neutrality regulation you desire. The beauty of executive decrees. One **** POTUS creates a reg, the next **** undoes it. Rinse and repeat...
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Dictate and bully, huh? That isn't Walmart, that's the fedgov you hold so dear. Now you want the gov't to regulate the net, the same as you wanted healthcare regulated. Look how that turned out.

    The next administration will likely be Democratic, so you'll get all the net neutrality regulation you desire. The beauty of executive decrees. One **** POTUS creates a reg, the next **** undoes it. Rinse and repeat...

    I agree with alphasig, and I hold the federal govt in just as much contempt as you do. We have never had a pure capitalistic society. There has always been regulation of business by the govt.

    Since you are so against regulation by the govt, where were you the last 20 years with regards to the telecoms and the FCC?
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    If de-neutralization costs me even a single penny more, or leaves me with any less of anything I have now, the GOP and I are finished. There are only a few issues that are non-negotiable. Gun control is one. the Internet is another. Gun control has cost the Democrats everything. I hope the GOP is smart enough not to let ending Net Neutrality do the same to them.

    And NO, I don't want to hear their side of it.
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,467 Senior Member
    I don't agree with any of the arguments for ending the Neutrality rules. None of them seems to really be a better way to go. Having recently cut the cable TV cord, I appreciate even more how my internet access alone serves my entertainment/productivity needs at half the price that I used to pay. Especially when you consider that there are so many streaming services available now, that I can choose which one I want, which channels I want, and can cancel anytime I want.

    On the WalMart example that was provided, I can absolutely confirm that Walmart bullies companies through the power of their market share into giving them what they want how they want it. My company manufactures items that Walmart carries; they are a pain in the rear because they can be, as the world's largest retailer.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    Walmart is your customer. You can always stop selling to them if it is not profitable or too problematic.

    My customers are Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, and a plethora of airlines. I totally understand fixed pricing, LTC's, right of entry, on site surveillance, etc. We do the same agreements with our suppliers.

    Some OEM's will withold new contracts as leverage to renegotiate old contracts. This is business on planet earth.

    Is it a PITA? Yes it is, but the last thing I want is the government stepping in so Little Timmy can get a cheaper seat to grandma's house at Christmas.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,757 Senior Member
    was any company doing this before the Net Neutrality rules were put into place?

    Are we all just freaking out because it COULD happen?
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,772 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    was any company doing this before the Net Neutrality rules were put into place?

    Are we all just freaking out because it COULD happen?
    See post #42 by buffy
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    Are we all just freaking out because it COULD happen?

    This^

    I never thought I'd witness so much support for an Obama EO on this forum. Like I mentioned before, the next administration can (will?) put net neutrality back into play, and the world will be rainbows and kittens.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,807 Senior Member
    See post #42 by buffy

    See post #46....and sources would be nice...
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,757 Senior Member
    So, some companies tried, and were slapped down by the market with no need to do an EO. Am I reading that right?

    If this is important, pass a law. That's not the place for an EO
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    So, some companies tried, and were slapped down by the market with no need to do an EO. Am I reading that right?

    If this is important, pass a law. That's not the place for an EO

    A few of those were market driven. A lot were sanctions from the FCC. Prior to NN. Which is silly to even say, because it's caused a lot of misinformation, as evidenced in this post, that Obama sat down and created NN right by himself. He simply protected what we'd had since the internet's inception, no more no less. Without it, we're talking about having our options reduced to Comcast.

    Comcast. The most hated corporation in the US. Don't take my word for it though.. https://www.pcmag.com/news/350979/comcast-is-americas-most-hated-company

    https://www.google.com/amp/boston.cbslocal.com/2017/01/11/most-hated-companies-america-comcast-bank-of-america-mylan/amp/

    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Survey-Comcast-Remains-Americas-MostHated-Company-138694

    So, since we prefer unfettered power in the hands of companies, we are turning over our "options" to these guys.

    As posted above, Cali and perhaps others see this in pure partisan terms. It's sad, because of those ignorant of the NN issue, they fail to realize the public at large is against this, and it's not a partisan issue at all. Reducing it to such is myopic. Califfl, the info you need is in the post. I found everyone I searched for. But you don't have to dig into it any further than you have.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I never thought I'd witness so much support for an Obama EO on this forum.

    You're more intelligent than that. Could it be, in fact, that this is much, much deeper than a political party? The FCC has received record numbers of complaints, pleas, and comments on this issue alone. 22 million in fact. That's not partisanship.

    And they've refused to consider them. It was a dog and pony show, which again, should point out is why I (still) despise the govt.

    But this decision is about keeping the internet as it has been, to now, throwing the consumers to the mercy of the Big 3 Telecoms.

    Does it bother no one that the Ajit Pai and Brendan Carr were lawyers for Verizon and Wiley Rein, telecoms, respectively?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.