FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

So who here has Comcast vs. a small ISP? I have a small ISP and pay $125/month for 25 Mbs down..(Crazy for the performance and connectivity issues)

Comcast in the next town over would give me 2 Gbps down for that price....

I don't care if Comcast provides slow lanes, fast lanes, whatever lanes, I'd take that all day, every day.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The second link may be a "states" thing, but the original push to expand the internet backbone was a federal thing. Stop mixing up the facts.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

Did you read that source? The guy in the article supports net neutrality. He just recognizes some downsides too.

Yes Krazy, I did.

That was the point. Someone that supports it getting bit by it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So now you are moving the goal posts back. Since when was the discussion about websites that are "necessities" or not?

I was about to write the same comment. Wardaddy454, you are throwing anything you can on the wall to see what will stick. So Far:

• Net Neutrality allows the government to control the internet
  
• Net Neutrality is Censorship
  
• Other companies block content, so ISP's should be able to
  
• Necessity Websites
  

What is your central argument in favor of repealing Net Neutrality? Why in your eyes is this a good thing?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

He's not getting bit by it. He just sees an inconvenience to it (obviously there are downsides to any policy, so that goes without saying) but fully supports it and can't understand why the FCC wants to repeal it.

a reply to: darkbake

Smoke and mirrors to avoid sandy hook gun talky

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The second link may be a "states" thing, but the original push to expand the internet backbone was a federal thing. Stop mixing up the facts.

Based on the assertions of a shill using Huffpo to sell a PDF file.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Net neutrality is about protecting the public from big evil corporations via regulation, right?

Are Google, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix big corporations? Why are they for net-neutrality, when the regulation wouldn't effect them either way? Any ISP would lose business if they hindered access to those platforms.

To begin with, Net Neutrality is not only about protecting the public from corporations but it is also in place to protect small businesses from the large businesses. If someone comes up with an innovation that makes video streaming much better than Netflix, then with Net Neutrality in place the traffic going to their site and to Netflix would be treated equal, thus giving the small business a chance to compete on a fair footing with the big corporation. Without Net Neutrality rules in place, Netflix can pay a premium to have their traffic prioritized over the new guy because they can afford it and the new guy can't. This gives Netflix and unfair advantage.

Those corporations are for Net Neutrality because with it in place the ISP's can't put additional paywalls in front of their sites. However, without Net Neutrality there is nothing stopping the ISP's from charging more to access their sites if those companies don't pay a premium to the ISP's.

"Not if they're the only ISP in town". True, but net-neutrality makes it harder for startup ISPs to compete. Doesn't seem like it, what with supposedly being neutral, but then we look back at the above companies. They are giants in their field, and can do anything they want. They won't be punished for playing favorites with their content like censoring content of people on the right or stifling competition. They are "too big" now, net-neutrality and greased palms helped them get there. Wonder why we haven't seen a new search engine get big? Or another Youtube/Twitter?

"They're private companies and can do what they want with their service". Then why was the argument for net-neutrality to prevent ISPs from charging other companies for using their infrastructure?

There is nothing in Net Neutrality that makes it either easier or harder for a new ISP to get off the ground. The simple fact is that the cost to enter that market is astronomical. Before a new ISP makes any money at all they must string cable and fiber over a wide area and build a network infrastructure. Oh and on top of that you have to fight lawsuits from the other ISP's that are worried you are affecting their monopolies.

It appears in this last little bit that you are arguing that since private companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can decide what content appears on their products that ISP's should be able to charge more money or block access to their services. I find this funny, because you are upset that these companies are blocking certain users but that is exactly what the repeal of Net Neutrality does for ISP's. But, the difference is that the ISP's can block access to anything they disagree with on the ENTIRETY of the internet. They can now block whole domains. I agree that something should be done about censorship at the above mentioned companies but that is a completely different issue than Net Neutrality.


Now, with all of that said you never answered my question. How is Net Neutrality censorship?

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

So who here has Comcast vs. a small ISP? I have a small ISP and pay $125/month for 25 Mbs down..(Crazy for the performance and connectivity issues)

Comcast in the next town over would give me 2 Gbps down for that price....

I don't care if Comcast provides slow lanes, fast lanes, whatever lanes, I'd take that all day, every day.

I live in a town with Comcast and WOW. I have WOW and pay $50 for 300Mbs down, Comcast would charge me $80, with Xfinity of course. I can get 1 Gbps from WOW for $80 without buying any other service. I was told net-neutrality would prevent bundling.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The second link may be a "states" thing, but the original push to expand the internet backbone was a federal thing. Stop mixing up the facts.

Based on the assertions of a shill using Huffpo to sell a PDF file.

It's actually a book and you are welcome to actually debunk it instead of merely writing it off because you disagree with the premise, but I doubt you'll do that.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

ETA: And I did answer. Did you not click the link in the bold text?

Did you even read this article? Here is a quote:

This paperwork costs around $800 in legal and filing fees in addition to two weeks' labor costs for the person doing the paperwork.

But it's a burden he's willing to shoulder because it means customers get better service without a contract and hidden fees for less than what Comcast offers in its limited service area.

Ok, wow, so Net Neutrality introduces an additional $800 plus two weeks labor to an ISP..... That is....so unduly burdensome.

Also, no you did not answer me. You linked to an article about Twitter censoring content that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

So, I ask again, how is Net Neutrality censorship?

I had to laugh at the conspiracy subreddit people going ape# over a video of the FCC folks laughing about the one fella getting called a potato.

The video was titled "FCC literally laughing at us after voting against net neutrality" or some such wildly misleading thing.

And yet some CTs still wonder why the world at large doesn't take us seriously.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

He's not getting bit by it. He just sees an inconvenience to it (obviously there are downsides to any policy, so that goes without saying) but fully supports it and can't understand why the FCC wants to repeal it.

Figures you didn't read the article.

He has suspicions about why the Title II repeal is Pai's most public objective, though: It's a distraction from the ongoing changes to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) framework. Simply put, in 2016 the FCC voted to open the 3.5Ghz band for licensed and unlicensed use. Booth said. "Having the availability of 3.5Ghz coming in was a very good thing for us and other small businesses that utilized wireless spectrum." the new frequency availability would be a boon for his customers. It'd enable, faster speeds and other innovations — precisely what Pai says repealing Title II will offer.

Welp nobody answered my question so I am going to chalk this up to the lefts version of the they are coming for our guns... until some form of proof is available that they plan on taking the internet away from us its much ado about nadda.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Heres one example of why you are wrong

Let Comcast shoot itself in the foot, and drive traffic towards smaller ISPs

ETA: And I did answer. Did you not click the link in the bold text?

Also, no you did not answer me. You linked to an article about Twitter censoring content that has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

So, I ask again, how is Net Neutrality censorship? (^right there)

Sigh.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The second link may be a "states" thing, but the original push to expand the internet backbone was a federal thing. Stop mixing up the facts.

Based on the assertions of a shill using Huffpo to sell a PDF file.

It's actually a book and you are welcome to actually debunk it instead of merely writing it off because you disagree with the premise, but I doubt you'll do that.

You're right, I'm not going to buy a book just to debunk it.

If Net Neutrality had been working all along, entities like Google, Twitter and Facebook wouldn't have been censoring opinions/viewpoints as they indeed have.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

So now you are moving the goal posts back. Since when was the discussion about websites that are "necessities" or not?

I was about to write the same comment. Wardaddy454, you are throwing anything you can on the wall to see what will stick. So Far:

• Net Neutrality allows the government to control the internet
  
• Net Neutrality is Censorship
  
• Other companies block content, so ISP's should be able to
  
• Necessity Websites
  

What is your central argument in favor of repealing Net Neutrality? Why in your eyes is this a good thing?

Its a good thing because the government shouldn't have power over the internet. There is nothing neutral about that.

You're worried about corporations curating content, and I ask you how it would be different with government in control. I say this with the guy I voted for living in the WH.

I look across the pond and see governments using their control over the internet to show up at peoples houses and arrest people for comments made on a web forum much like ATS (censorship). Wheres the neutrality in that?

That is my central argument.

Well it's clear that some folks in this thread have no clue what net-neutrality really means.

No wonder we lost it.

Well the good news is if all the fear mongers and their predictions here are correct. Kids might start going outside to play again. But to think ISP's are going to go out of their way to piss off customers and end up losing money, just seems silly to me.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Well the good news is if all the fear mongers and their predictions here are correct. Kids might start going outside to play again. But to think ISP's are going to go out of their way to piss off customers and end up losing money, just seems silly to me.

Corporations are motivated by money, so they'll do the things that will lose them money...