Net Neutrality Is Critical. Don't Let It Die!

originally posted by: Open_Minded Skeptic
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Uh, no. Net neutrality is like saying all cars MUST go 70mph on a freeway, without regard as to who makes them or sells them. What the donald and his ilk are pushing is like saying "Well, if you (GM, Ford, etc) pay us, then your kind of car can go 70, but if you don't pay us extra (new maker of cars), then you can only go 40."

There...fixed it. (yeah, I hate it when people do that, too)

I disagree--and the funny thing is that highways also have minimum speeds in every state that I've been in, so the speed limit that an individual wants to drive, whether it be by choice, necessity, or ability to own a vehicle that can even get to the maximum speed, is up to the individual, not the government.

And besides, speed limits are dictated by the state, not the federal government (for the most part). Also, foot traffic, bicycles, farm equipment, and other forms of legal traffic are not allowed on interstates and are relegated to side roads...is that fair?

So, while my analogy may have been crappy because it was thought up in half a second, yours is even worse.

See, net neutrality is the government saying that they have the right and authority to regulate private ISPs in a way that forces them to provide their products in accordance with how the government deems appropriate.

I don't care how you want to analogize that situation, it's inappropriate use of the federal government, and I say the same thing concerning censorship of television broadcast stations and the like. Using federal regulatory control just to make internet speeds "fair" to all? Give me a break--you get what you pay for in life when it comes to services like these, and if you're not getting what you paid for, that's what the court system is for, not the legislative process at the federal level.

a reply to: Kali74

originally posted by: Kali74
There was such a huge resistance to ending Net Neutrality last time. It's like crickets now.

It's pretty sad.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right now you pay an ISP company (Internet Service Provider) some amount of money per year to have access to the Internet. That connection is known as "dumb pipe" It's a connection to the Internet that has no restrictions on how you use it and it treats all your packets as equals meaning they can flow freely to and from what ever server/client connections you choose to make.

What killing Net Neutrality does is replace those "dumb pipes" with "toll pipes" or "restricted pipes". The big ISP companies will be able to discriminate against certain types of traffic with zero restriction. The FCC laws that are in place right now are there so that ISP corporations can't make deals with other companies to monopolize the Internet. Without those laws there will only be a set of suggested guidelines that no ISP corporation would ever abide by. Meaning that if you want to connect to Netflix or Hulu and stream movies? That will cost you an extra 10.00 dollars per month. You want to play video games with your buddies online? that's an extra 10.00 dollars per month. You want to us an email service outside of the ISP network? There's another 10.00 dollars per month. And that's just the beginning. ISP's have never wanted to be just "dumb pipe" connections. They want priority to go to their content first, and any outside content that isn't on their approved list will get filtered away through restrictive connection speeds.

The damage to the user is two-fold. You'll have to pay higher costs to use the Internet and you'll have to deal with corporate censorship of content big ISP companies decide doesn't need to be given equal treatment. Which is flat out bull. It's not up to a corporation to decide what content should or should not be shared on the Internet. Case and point would be a member of ATS wanting to view this site. Unless the owners pay more to the hosting company or switch to a hosting company that has a deal with the corporations ATS traffic get relegated into the "restricted pipe" until they decide they want to cut a deal with an ISP.

It is not outside of the scope of the Federal Government to maintain a fair and open platform on the Internet. Placing all power in the hands of the companies who provide connections is a big mistake. Look at banking. Things tend to get corrupted very quickly when the regulators of an industry are the very same people working for those companies. Having ISP corporations essentially self regulate themselves is a huge mistake. The Internet will never be the same after Net Neutrality dies.

originally posted by: AnonyMasona reply to: SlapMonkey

Right now you pay an ISP company (Internet Service Provider) some amount of money per year to have access to the Internet. That connection is known as "dumb pipe" It's a connection to the Internet that has no restrictions on how you use it and it treats all your packets as equals meaning they can flow freely to and from what ever server/client connections you choose to make.

Okay, we're on the same page so far (I'm typing as I'm reading...maybe you'll change my mind...)

What killing Net Neutrality does is replace those "dumb pipes" with "toll pipes" or "restricted pipes". The big ISP companies will be able to discriminate against certain types of traffic with zero restriction. The FCC laws that are in place right now are there so that ISP corporations can't make deals with other companies to monopolize the Internet. Without those laws there will only be a set of suggested guidelines that no ISP corporation would ever abide by. Meaning that if you want to connect to Netflix or Hulu and stream movies? That will cost you an extra 10.00 dollars per month. You want to play video games with your buddies online? that's an extra 10.00 dollars per month. You want to us an email service outside of the ISP network? There's another 10.00 dollars per month. And that's just the beginning. ISP's have never wanted to be just "dumb pipe" connections. They want priority to go to their content first, and any outside content that isn't on their approved list will get filtered away through restrictive connection speeds.

See, here's the problem with this approach to arguing for the net-neutrality law: You are employing the slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy.


If I were to flip the script and talk about foreseeable things that the government could start regulating/restricting/mandating because they took regulatory control over ISPs, it would be a slippery-slope argument on its face, but at the same time, looking at the history of how government works when it usurps control over a private industry, it tends to always overstep its original intent and its hand becomes heavier over time almost without exception.

As a consumer, yes, I hope that your soothsaying doesn't come to fruition, but at the same time, I'd prefer that over an overbearing government intrusion into this private-sector industry--once government dips its toe in the water, generally the pool becomes a swamp.

The damage to the user is two-fold. You'll have to pay higher costs to use the Internet and you'll have to deal with corporate censorship of content big ISP companies decide doesn't need to be given equal treatment. Which is flat out bull. It's not up to a corporation to decide what content should or should not be shared on the Internet. Case and point would be a member of ATS wanting to view this site. Unless the owners pay more to the hosting company or switch to a hosting company that has a deal with the corporations ATS traffic get relegated into the "restricted pipe" until they decide they want to cut a deal with an ISP.

This is akin to saying that Walmart shouldn't be able to pick and choose what they sell versus the brands carried by Target, or by any other big-box retailer. Or like saying that all pest exterminators should all carry every brand of pesticide so that you can make sure that you're getting the one that you want. Or all tire stores should carry every brand of tire in every size so that you always have equal access to any and all that fit your needs.


See, a major issue that I have is that it seems that people forget that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are exactly that--they provide a service, which means that they should have full rights to manage that service as they see fit, and if we don't like that as consumers, we can switch providers (if available) or be happy that we have such a "first-world problem" to begin with. But the way that I see it, if I live somewhere that only has one available provider, it's akin to living somewhere where there's only one exterminator, or only a Walmart for all of my shopping needs--yes, it may suck and they may not offer the brands that you desire, but at least you have something.

The government should not be regulating private businesses in such a way--that's an ideological point of view that you are not going to persuade me from, because I fully believe that the consumer and the "free market" (as free as it can be with all of this government intrusion) will handle most of the issues that you mention.

It is not outside of the scope of the Federal Government to maintain a fair and open platform on the Internet. Placing all power in the hands of the companies who provide connections is a big mistake. Look at banking. Things tend to get corrupted very quickly when the regulators of an industry are the very same people working for those companies. Having ISP corporations essentially self regulate themselves is a huge mistake. The Internet will never be the same after Net Neutrality dies.

Here's the reality of life, though: The government rarely every regulates the bare minimum that it should (yes, I do understand that federal regulation is a necessity in some things), and it always, like I already said, tends to take things too far because it gets drunk on its own power to do so (similar to what you're pointing out about banking regulators). I've already noted previously that, at face value, I agree with the premise--the idea--of net neutrality; however, I disagree with the premise of the need for government intrusion into this matter, at this point.

So, maybe we'll just agree to disagree on this topic? Yes, I'm glad that the face value of net neutrality is about maintaining "a fair and open platform on the Internet," but face value is very rarely ever what we get from the federal government.

ETA: I must thank you for a civil debate considering that we have differing opinions--it's so very rare to happen on ATS these days.

”The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation." The comments go on to "urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the Internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the Internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open Internet for everyone."

arsTechnica - The FCC has received 128,000 identical anti-net neutrality comments.

Bwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaa!!!!

That activist Bot sure has a lot of time of time on his/her hands!

Unfortunately, it is also keeping legit people from adding comments. And the article says the FCC has not responded or halted the bot’s posting.

Still is funny!

ETA: The group Center for Individual Freedom is being blamed. FCC has not responded