You only need common sense & not technical knowledge , to see why NET Neutrality is good for the con

originally posted by: grandmakdw


The most hated companies are public utilities, all of them. That is what Obama wants to do, make the internet a public utility, he said as much.
.

Really? Here in Texas, the deregulated private owned energy companies are the most hated while those that live in the few areas that have city owned utilities that refused to participate in the deregulated market love their lower rates.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

i never said that was not the case but the point i am making is that new laws or bills will be hijacked and the best way to get everyone on board is to undo the changes. this is possible and happens all the time. perhaps i am missing something but i see how that decision could just have been a ploy to drive support for new laws when the old ones will work just fine if we exercise the system. we have delivery companies treating packages with respect under the old laws and that is the safest and most prudent way to proceed because the laws have worked for decades. do you see the picture that is being painted by both parties using the courts to herd us into something that will fix the current problems now but can be wielded agaist us in the future? Givin the current layout it is stupid to support any new laws in this matter and by doing so you are undermining our future for a quick fix that will not happen and further support only fuels the decision that was made a couple yrs ago in court.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

i never said that was not the case but the point i am making is that new laws or bills will be hijacked and the best way to get everyone on board is to undo the changes.

"The changes" is a US appeals Court decision. You can't just roll that back. Re-classifying the internet to Title II is the only way to get the desired outcome.

this is possible and happens all the time. perhaps i am missing something but i see how that decision could just have been a ploy to drive support for new laws when the old ones will work just fine if we exercise the system.

There are no new laws being proposed.

Let me make an analogy. Let's say your television service works great. It has worked great ever since you've had it. You watch what you want, when you want. The Messwitme Corporation (makers of ALL satellite boxes) sues the FCC, saying that they actually own your satellite box, so they should be permitted to control the information piped through it and into your home. The FCC can control the information that goes out on the airwaves, but since they don't own your box, Messwitme has jurisdiction there. The FCC loses the case and must comply, because, clearly, they don't own your box.

The only way to get your TV service back to how you want it is to reclassify the information the FCC puts out on the airwaves to an existing classification that no corporation can mess with.

That's what the NN proponents want to do. Just reclassify the Information on the internet as something that providers can't mess with.

do you see the picture that is being painted by both parties using the courts to herd us into something that will fix the current problems now but can be wielded agaist us in the future?

I see the picture being painted that this is a political issue. It is not. You haven't see the "current problems" yet. Did you read the Oatmeal link I posted? Netflix is one of the only users who have been affected so far.

Givin the current layout it is stupid to support any new laws in this matter and by doing so you are undermining our future for a quick fix that will not happen and further support only fuels the decision that was made a couple yrs ago in court.

There are no new laws.

a reply to: deadeyedick

do you see the picture that is being painted by both parties using the courts to herd us into something that will fix the current problems now but can be wielded agaist us in the future?

Without A DOUBT that is a VALID CONCERN and that is what they are trying to do by making this a political issue.

But here is the thing.

1. Obama did NOT really actively support net neutrality because he allowed the FCC and ISP to continue their revolving open door policy.
gizmodo.com...

2. Like Benevolent Heretic said above, Re-classifying to Title II now is the best option :

"The changes" is a US appeals Court decision. You can't just roll that back. Re-classifying the internet to Title II is the only way to get the desired outcome.

3. Re-classifying to Title II was not the solution of Obama or even the FCC (govt) They only pursued this option because of a massive backslash and threats from the consumers about the blatant corruption between the FCC and the people its suppose to regulate .

four million people who wrote the FCC annoyed at the fact that AT&T now gets to literally write and purchase all telecom laws

www.techdirt.com... bbying-cash-should-guide-net-neutrality.shtml

In addition , reclassification is being supported by internet content providers like Google and Netflix and even ATS from the SO posts I have seen. These are the guys that made the internet a SUCCESS.

Internet Business and content providers are the ones asking for it to be Re-classified to Title II not the gov't nor the ISP themselves despite what they say.

Title II with forbearance is the only sensible way forward if we want neutrality rules that not only protect consumers from aggressive duopolists, but help prevent future iterations of the FCC from over-reaching

lol they are wolves herding sheep
i suppose we do not really need freedom anyhow if we can not see clearly what the future holds. i am not saying that yall are wrong but all that will go over like a lead baloon. undoing the previous damage is the only winning option here that protects in the longterm as well as the next two yrs. it is about getting those fundementals back. again if it is good enough for every other packet carrier and worked in the past then it is just a scotus decision away when the alternative will not be accepted due to fear and retoric.