Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Haven't seen too much on this pretty fucking major topic and I was interested in hearing everyone's opinions, how it affects them, etc.

Personally doesn't affect me too much up here in Canada, although it may be a good idea to buy shares in HostPapa, the Canadian edition of GoDaddy. 
It's still dumb as shit, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tired of hearing about it, but I also don't want people to stop talking about it.

 

I feel pretty helpless. My representative is already on board with keeping net neutrality, and I don't have any social media presence  I can use to spread the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Idiot Cube said:

I feel pretty helpless.

Pretty much it. It's a decision that's going to be handled well outside any control I have. I have no say, and I'm not going to delude myself thinking otherwise, so I'm just stocking up on lube for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but when all of the tech giants band together and demand that the .gov regulate them, color me suspicious on their motives. Net Neutrality is less about the potential of ISPs serving data ala-carte, and more about Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Amazon not paying more for the bandwidth their services use, and rather than charging their customers more for that service, passing it along to everyone who uses the internet, instead of just those users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually conflicted on this. On one hand, the monopolized ISPs wan't to do away with Net Neutrality, on the other, the monopolized tech/social media companies want to keep it, and that's sending me red flags all around. I mean, do we really want the government to keep the power to regulate this stuff? I mean, if it goes anything like cable or other utilities, I say get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it, since when have multiple large corporations banded together to demand regulation, allegedly for the benefit of their customers? If your answer was "Never" you may have some critical thinking skills yet.

 

Google/Netflix/Amazon aren't in this to lose money,  and if ISPs could charge them more for the bandwidth that they use (which is a finite resource, btw), they would have to raise their prices to cover the additional costs of using that bandwidth. With Net Neutrality, we ALL get to pay extra instead of just those who use those services.

 

I find it mildly humorous that the most vocal about this have no problem with trusting Alphabet/Netflix/Amazon, yet most agree with the (%99) bs and a whole lot of them were hot and heavy for Bernie Sanders.

 

CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL! / TRUST THE MEGA TECH CORPORATIONS WHO RUN THE INTERNET, THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR US!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shittiest thing is that the FCC is pushing for states to NOT be allowed to create their own NN rules. Even if California or whatever wants to enact its own net neutrality laws, they can't. So much for state rights, eh?

 

Quote

  CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL! / TRUST THE GIGANTIC MONOPOLY ISPS WHO RUN THE INTERNET, THEY KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR US!

Is what you're saying.

Edited by Medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, gigantic profit-hungry corporations rule the world. Big whoop.

 

The difference is, if the gigantic, profit-hungry ISPs aren't beholden to Net Neutrality rules, they can completely control what you see, hear, and do on the net. They could, for example, bar access to news and social media sites that promote views they don't like. Netflix and Amazon don't have that kind of power over anything outside their own sites and services.

 

(You could argue Google has way too much power over what you see, but at least they can't prevent you from visiting any particular sites)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Caveson said:

Think of it this way, who do you trust more, the gigantic, profit-hungry monopoly, or the even more gigantic, inefficient, power-hungry monopoly to run the internet?

 

Pick your poison.

 

It's not about trust. These laws have a proven track record of working for the benefit of everyone. Repealing them has no tangible benefit in the current landscape of ISP semi-monopolies, and repealing them now can do nothing but harm.

 

Yes, it's all trendy and edgy to be like "Lel the government is evil they shouldn't touch or do anything" right now but fact of the matter is sometimes, as shown in this case, government regulation has a net benefit for everyone but the executives of these ISPs.

 

On the other side, yeah, no shit Amazon/Netflix/Etc. stand to gain from these laws staying in place and that's why they advocate for them. So? What's the issue with that? It's a win-win in that case, that's a GOOD thing.

 

Again, yeah, it's cool and edgy to bitch about corporations making money these days, but at least attempt to look at the bigger picture. Bad for corporations =/= good for everybody else and vice versa. If you want to talk about trust, can always trust a megacorp to do what's in their best interests and they have a lot of swing in that regard. Why be pissed when it swings in your favor because interests align for once? Just so you can shoot yourself in the foot to "stick it to the man"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, John Caveson said:

I'm actually conflicted on this. On one hand, the monopolized ISPs wan't to do away with Net Neutrality, on the other, the monopolized tech/social media companies want to keep it, and that's sending me red flags all around. I mean, do we really want the government to keep the power to regulate this stuff? I mean, if it goes anything like cable or other utilities, I say get rid of it.

 

1908B866-49CB-4FA0-B60B-E245C35DE466.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, John Caveson said:

I'm actually conflicted on this. On one hand, the monopolized ISPs wan't to do away with Net Neutrality, on the other, the monopolized tech/social media companies want to keep it, and that's sending me red flags all around. I mean, do we really want the government to keep the power to regulate this stuff? I mean, if it goes anything like cable or other utilities, I say get rid of it.

tumblr_inline_owua1rUHxk1sp4bke_540.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Idiot Cube said:

(You could argue Google has way too much power over what you see, but at least they can't prevent you from visiting any particular sites)

I only wanted to add that they can only if you get your internet from their Google Fiber service - which is only out in a few highly populated areas - but otherwise, I pretty much agree with this.

While Amazon, Netflix, and co.'s reasons may not necessarily be altruistic in nature - I don't know how they think, maybe it is for all we know - we've already seen ISPs do things against sites/services they don't like or that potentially cuts into their bottom line. 
- Verizon blocked text messages from pro-choice group NARAL, calling them controversial.
- AT&T limited its use of FaceTime to incentivize people to get more expensive data plans.
- AT&T apparently censored a portion of a live-stream of Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza set that contained criticisms of then-president Bush. 
- Comcast blocked BitTorrent, which was ruled illegal by the FCC at the time - now Ajit Pai says it wasn't a big deal
And there's still more!
And this is just some of the shit we know about, there could be many more instances that haven't been published yet.

Trying to compare ISPs to content producers and providers is stupid.
On the one hand, you have companies whose primary service is to sell you connectivity. They sell you access to the internet through their infrastructure.
On the other hand, you have companies who create content or provide services - shows, streaming, social media, online marketplaces, webcomics, art, games, etc. -  that are delivered to you through the internet.

While I won't discount that the potential for reduced revenue, lower sales/usage, and not having to pay out for "priority" or for higher bandwidth caps is a large driving factor in content providers' push to keep net neutrality, that's a pill I'm willing to swallow compared to letting our ISPs have the power to control what we see and do online. If our market for ISPs wasn't so monopolistic - with most places having only one or two, maybe three, ISPs to choose from - it might not be so bad, there would be some potential for The Free Market™ to finally do something useful. But we don't. So it won't.

The internet is a necessity at this point, even if you're just connected through your phone carrier's mobile network. We need to have some kind of protections in place to keep consumers safe from the predatory practices of the companies that control our ability to access the internet. Full stop. We are far beyond the ability of The Free Market™ to do anything useful in regards to ISPs, the only thing we have left is government regulation.

Edited by Stackbabbin' Bumscags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's at a point where government intervention of some kind is necessary either way, yeah.

 

If some legislation was made to break up the mafia-like territorial control agreements all the ISPs have FIRST, then repealing the Net Neutrality rules would make sense and arguments that the free market would sort itself out would hold weight. As-is most people have either no choice or a choice between at most two ISPs (here in Florida it's Comcast and Century Link with MAYBE Brighthouse/Spectrum if you happen to live in one of the like 3 cities they cover), so there is no market.

 

Making it fall under utility rules like light and power makes a lot of sense since that's pretty much the way ISPs have set themselves up. You have little to no recourse if Talquin Electric fucks with you because you have no other options, so it makes sense for them to be government regulated so they can't do that. Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed a sad notion that advocating for less government control over people's lives is considered "edgy", but I digress. Ditto goes for this:

 

2 hours ago, Stackbabbin' Bumscags said:


The internet is a necessity at this point, even if you're just connected through your phone carrier's mobile network. We need to have some kind of protections in place to keep consumers safe from the predatory practices of the companies that control our ability to access the internet. Full stop. We are far beyond the ability of The Free Market™ to do anything useful in regards to ISPs, the only thing we have left is government regulation.

It's like installing an iron lung to a pneumonia patient. I mean sure, it keeps them alive and gets rid of the pneumonia, but now that patient is dependent upon that iron lung to survive, and pulling it out now would kill him. Makes me wonder how we got to this point.

 

2 hours ago, Dr. Rynjinstein, MD said:

It's at a point where government intervention of some kind is necessary either way, yeah.

 

If some legislation was made to break up the mafia-like territorial control agreements all the ISPs have FIRST, then repealing the Net Neutrality rules would make sense and arguments that the free market would sort itself out would hold weight. As-is most people have either no choice or a choice between at most two ISPs (here in Florida it's Comcast and Century Link with MAYBE Brighthouse/Spectrum if you happen to live in one of the like 3 cities they cover), so there is no market.

 

Making it fall under utility rules like light and power makes a lot of sense since that's pretty much the way ISPs have set themselves up. You have little to no recourse if Talquin Electric fucks with you because you have no other options, so it makes sense for them to be government regulated so they can't do that. Same here.

I actually wouldn't mind this as a compromise.

 

After thinking about it more, as much I hate to admit, I suppose I can tolerate Net Neutrality. If anything, it's just the continuation of the status quo, so I suppose it can't get much worse.

 

One question I still have lingering though, is the Internet considered a public property, on par with that of a town square or national park?

 

The answer to that would actually be a big boon to either side of the argument.

Share this post


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

It is indeed a sad notion that advocating for less government control over people's lives is considered "edgy

This is such a bizarre argument to make in this particular case. The only way the government is "controlling" the internet is having a regulation that no one is allowed to control the internet. Your stance is basically akin to this:

 

Major automotive companies start adopting highways across the United States. They are granted permits to set up toll stations along the highways they own, so that on a road owned by Toyota, only owners of Toyota cars can expect to drive with any expectation of a reliable speed. Drivers of every other brand have to drive in slow lanes, or pay tolls to get into faster lanes, or may not be able to drive on those roads at all. Clearly no one wants this. The government steps in and says "This fucking sucks. Roads need to be reliable and accessible to everyone within reason." and sets up a regulation to end the practice. By your logic, the government is being the tyrannical party in this situation even though it's clear they're acting in the best interests of the public, which is their job.

Edited by kayohgee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kayohgee said:

This is such a bizarre argument to make in this particular case. The only way the government is "controlling" the internet is having a regulation that no one is allowed to control the internet. Your stance is basically akin to this:

 

Major automotive companies start adopting highways across the United States. They are granted permits to set up toll stations along the highways they own, so that on a road owned by Toyota, only owners of Toyota cars can expect to drive with any expectation of a reliable speed. Drivers of every other brand have to drive in slow lanes, or pay tolls to get into faster lanes, or may not be able to drive on those roads at all. Clearly no one wants this. The government steps in and says "This fucking sucks. Roads need to be reliable and accessible to everyone within reason." and sets up a regulation to end the practice. By your logic, the government is being the tyrannical party in this situation even though it's clear they're acting in the best interests of the public, which is their job.

Exactly this dude. Sometimes the government actually protects our freedums, believe it or not.

Share this post


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

 

One question I still have lingering though, is the Internet considered a public property, on par with that of a town square or national park?

 

The Net Neutrality "laws" are more a classification than anything. Access to the internet is deemed a telecommunications utility and therefore falls under the same rules as phone service, as a simplification of the issue.

 

"The internet" isn't considered anything much like "the phone network" or whatever is. Access to the internet however is deemed currently as a basic utility along the same lines as phones and cable/satellite TV, whose providers (most of the same companies, in fact, since Comcast, Verizon, and Century Link at least all have their own phone and TV services too) also already fall under the exact same rules that are currently protecting Net Neutrality.

 

I'm unsure if you're arguing that these services should also be "unshackled" from government oversight as well or you've merely misunderstood what's going on.

 

These are not new rules. They've been in place for over 50 years (over 80 in one form or another) [Edit: Correction, over 150 years in one form or another], it's merely the classification of internet access that is fairly recent as a simple ruling on something that has been in place in one form or another since close to the internet's inception, since ISPs have been trying to throttle access to certain sites (among other things) for at least that long.

 

Net Neutrality does not protect from a theoretical threat, all of these laws and classifications stem from ISPs (primarily Comcast) having attempted in the past to do the exact same things people are afraid they will do now.

 

The Wikipedia page is pretty thorough. Some of this I didn't know precisely until now (though I was certain about the Title II classification and what it meant), it's actually an interesting read.

 

As for this:

 

8 hours ago, John Caveson said:

It is indeed a sad notion that advocating for less government control over people's lives is considered "edgy", but I digress. Ditto goes for this:

 

It is when it's blindly assuming and declaring that the government is bad no matter what. By all means, advocate for a smaller government presence where they're not needed or actively make things worse, but complaining about the government making the lives of its people better is asinine. The entire point of a government is to serve its people to the best of its ability. Saying any government intervention is bad is just advocating anarchism which, yes, is edgy. It's probably the most stereotypically edgy emo teen thing that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 5:00 PM, John Caveson said:

 

After thinking about it more, as much I hate to admit, I suppose I can tolerate Net Neutrality. If anything, it's just the continuation of the status quo, so I suppose it can't get much worse.

 

Please expand on this. Do you mean Title II or do you mean the concept of net neutrality? Would you prefer organizations pick and choose what content you see on the web and how fast you can access it? A lot of people seem to think that the regulation IS net neutrality, and because a regulation is bad, net neutrality is bad. 

Edited by Expresate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×