Net Nutrality

[Renegade]

Net Neutrality was implemented and signed into law by the same administration that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" so...not really concerned that it went away...

Negative. First, it is not a law. Second, NN is how the internet was designed starting with the FIRST BBN/IMP, and the internet is still operating today on those principle from day 1 decades ago.

The Fake News Media has Faked Out a lot of people into thinking Obama changed things when in fact he did not.

 

[Lunyfringe]

The main problem is that NN means different things to different people... so you have to look at legislation described as such LINE by fucking LINE, rather than go "oh, look- Net Neutrality, I want that!!!"

 

[pronstar]

Negative. First, it is not a law. Second, NN is how the internet was designed starting with the FIRST BBN/IMP, and the internet is still operating today on those principle from day 1 decades ago.

If that's how it's been operating since day 1, why did the .gov need to enact a law to maintain the status quo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Renegade]

If that's how it's been operating since day 1, why did the .gov need to enact a law to maintain the status quo?

First it was not a law.

Second, Because some carriers tried to violate it, and consumers complained. See-

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history[/QUOTE]

 

[Lunyfringe]

First it was not a law.

Second, Because some carriers tried to violate it, and consumers complained. See-

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

There you go- the DDOS attackers missed their chance, they could have complained their traffic was being blocked!

many of these complaints could also be considered antitrust, just easier to go after them via the FCC.
There are also references to Europe and Canada in that list- which is misleading at best, since the FCC has no jurisdiction there regardless.

From that freepress.net site (in the interest of "consider the source"):

The loss of Net Neutrality would disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. People of color, immigrants, Muslims and LGBTQ communities are under siege by the Trump administration, and online organizing is one of the most effective ways to fight back. But without real Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to control what we see and say on the internet. The future of online activism relies on our ability to safeguard Net Neutrality under Title II.

FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) tactics from a leftist point of view... **** them, and what they want... I DO NOT TRUST THEM AS A SOURCE.

 

[pronstar]

First it was not a law.

Second, Because some carriers tried to violate it, and consumers complained. See-

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

[/QUOTE]

If "it" wasn't a law, then what was violated?

And in each of the US cases cited by that article, didn't the .gov step-in because various other laws were broken?

Imho the .gov is the antithesis of free market capitalism. It should be an invisible hand, not a nanny.

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of less .gov intervention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[karlac]

Negative. First, it is not a law. Second, NN is how the internet was designed starting with the FIRST BBN/IMP, and the internet is still operating today on those principle from day 1 decades ago.

The Fake News Media has Faked Out a lot of people into thinking Obama changed things when in fact he did not.

True that ...
Biggest thing in the recent change is getting out from under imposition of Title II.

 

[SapientHetero]

I'm not super tech savvy but I think I have the basics down.

Net nutrality ends-ISPs can charge users such as Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else they decide to a higher fee for bandwidth. Or they could charge lower fees as they see fit.

Currently with Net Nutrality- all are charged the same regardless of high usage/demand.

I've seen arguments for both sides, and from both political sides. Mostly conservative views as that's what I lean towards but even then there are mixed opinions.

Some see Net Nutrality as big government and on principle believe it should not be law. Instead the market should be allowed to work on its own.

I've seen others who believe ISPs fall in to the same category as other utilities or broadcasters, and that ending Net Nutrality would open the door for ISPs to use pricing to silence "wrong thinkers", a weapon against the growing number of web based conservative outlets.

This seems to be a pretty simplified description but it's about as much as I understand on the subject. I'm curious to know if any of our more knowledgeable members could give insight in to other implications for either side, good and bad.

After 50+ years of watching politics (I didn't pay much attention before age 10), I've recognized that everything politics touches becomes corrupted. Politicians eventually abuse every power they're given to enrich themselves, their buddies or their supporters, or to punish their opponents, or to encourage people to vote for them. Rarely, and then only briefly, do they use the power entrusted to them for the greater good, regardless of the lofty words they use to describe their corrupt acts.

Is the market any better? Perhaps not, as companies exist solely to make money for shareholders. BUT (and this is a BIG but), if I don't like what a company does I can refuse to do business with them, all on my own say-so. If I don't like what government does, I have to convince 50% of the public to go along with my preference (or buy a politician, if I had the resources; unfortunately, I don't).

So, I'll always come down on the side opposite government control. Things may not always be perfect, but if companies piss off enough customers, a competitor will arise to make them happy. If, that is, politicians don't stack the deck to prevent it, as they have in the case of "net neutrality".

 

[TheDan]

If that's how it's been operating since day 1, why did the .gov need to enact a law to maintain the status quo?

Exactly... and what's even worse is it wasn't a law but a regulatory change made through bureaucratic decree.

The main bugaboos that NN is supposed to save us from have never happened en mass and will never happen in such a way that impacts end users. Doing so is bad business, not to mention it pisses off the geeklords that run the thing.

 

[APynckel]

All I need to know about it being good to repeal, is all the big ISP's praising it.

 

[diesel1959]

Sensible Net Neutrality is like Sensible Gun Control . . . they BOTH require the guv'ment to get involved and fuck things up. 'nuff said.

 

[Texas42]

Threads like this make me less sad I went into healthcare.

 

[Renegade]

Imho the .gov is the antithesis of free market capitalism. It should be an invisible hand, not a nanny.

Who do you think it is that enforces free-market capitalism?

Do you like a free market? Yes? You're in favor of net neutrality.

Do you like warlords like in Somalia running the show? Yes? You are against net neutrality.

The gov rules are to keep the market free.

 

[TheDan]

 

[TheDan]

 

[Brains]

 

[pronstar]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TxStetson]

 View attachment 128240


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Stolen. But will probably be seen again.