Do you support Net Neutrality?

[parocks]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really fucked things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

 

[MrGoose]

I voted yes.

I don't want my favorite websites throttled, or outright blocked (has happened before temporarily).

 

[juleswin]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really fucked things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.

 

[MrGoose]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wireless+Blocks+4chan+Website/article17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5474850/comcast-isnt-letting-customers-watch-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

 

[parocks]

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

There are issues involved here. You don't seem to know what they are.

My description of what's happening is pretty much on the money. I just did this research and I'm not saying that things are going to be better, it doesn't look that way, but "net neutrality" is what what we've had, and there was a court case - here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_(2014)

which is forcing some action at this point. I'd've preferred that we just keep doing what we were doing 1 year ago, but the court case requires some sort of action.

My general tendency is to prefer net neutrality, what we've had.

This is from the above link.

"In response to the FCC's decision of not appealing but establishing new rules, James P. Tuthill, an attorney and lecturer of UC Berkeley School of Law, criticized the decision as the agency could appeal the Supreme Court to seek review, and the Court would likely accept the case because of the significance of the issues and a request by a federal agency."

I think that's close to where my position on this is right now. We had it pretty good before, and if the S Ct simply said "emanations, penumbra, FCC, you're fine" we'd basically have the FCC continuing to do what it has been doing, which is coming up with rules with a foundation in "net neutrality."

"Net neutrality" is a general concept or philosophy, like freedom, and not a specific law.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

No, leave the internet alone.

 

[MrGoose]

I don't think a lot of you guys fully understand what Net Neutrality does.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

 

[juleswin]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wireless+Blocks+4chan+Website/article17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5474850/comcast-isnt-letting-customers-watch-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

First of all, I don't think the video actually said ISPs have never throttled or blocked websites. But even if they did, so what? if you don't like it, unsubscribe and join a different service or maybe completely get off the internet. The ISPs don't owe you anything. Also if you net neutrality supporters believe that this new law that has been pushed by all sorts of authoritarian liberals since 2006 is to keep the "net neutrality" law we have now, how come the ISPs were able to throttle or block internet sites in the past when we had a de facto net neutrality? You just cannot have it both ways

Also this stupid line that most Americans only have one choice for ISP is a big lie. Most people in big and average US cities (where the majority of Americans live) already have more than 1 choice for ISP. I have 4+ different options in little ole Omaha.

Just one last thing, I do not believe a word coming from Moot the liberal, gamergate censoring, social justice warrior guy, him saying that his crappy website was blocked for a few hours is just his word. And even if he is correct, then his problem was easily resolved without any net neutrality laws.

So until we see that nightmare scenario you net neutrality advocates are scared about for at least 2 yrs, I say we leave things the way it is now. No invitation to the FCC to regulate any more of the internet. I get really suspicious when scare tactic is used to scare me into preemptively supporting a solution before the problem is upon us.

 

[juleswin]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

I dunno if I should laugh or cry after reading your post. I am just wondering if your problem is that big giant corporations are not in bed with govt and you want them in bed with government. Cos net neutrality does just that which you seem to be again in your post but will lead to just that with your support of net neutrality.

 

[CaptUSA]

This bears repeating:

...the problem with money in politics has nothing to do with businesses trying to buy influence, it's that the politicians have something to sell - the ability to pick winners and losers in the economy. "Net neutrality" has nothing to do with making the internet "neutral" and everything to do with giving politicians something else to sell.

The very threat of net neutrality forces businesses on both sides to cough up. Never allow to politicians believe that they have the power to control the market. We've done that too many times - and almost always to our own peril.

 

[MrGoose]

First of all, I don't think the video actually said ISPs have never throttled or blocked websites. But even if they did, so what? if you don't like it, unsubscribe and join a different service or maybe completely get off the internet. The ISPs don't owe you anything. Also if you net neutrality supporters believe that this new law that has been pushed by all sorts of authoritarian liberals since 2006 is to keep the "net neutrality" law we have now, how come the ISPs were able to throttle or block internet sites in the past when we had a de facto net neutrality? You just cannot have it both ways

Also this stupid line that most Americans only have one choice for ISP is a big lie. Most people in big and average US cities (where the majority of Americans live) already have more than 1 choice for ISP. I have 4+ different options in little ole Omaha.

Just one last thing, I do not believe a word coming from Moot the liberal, gamergate censoring, social justice warrior guy, him saying that his crappy website was blocked for a few hours is just his word. And even if he is correct, then his problem was easily resolved without any net neutrality laws.

So until we see that nightmare scenario you net neutrality advocates are scared about for at least 2 yrs, I say we leave things the way it is now. No invitation to the FCC to regulate any more of the internet. I get really suspicious when scare tactic is used to scare me into preemptively supporting a solution before the problem is upon us.

Many American's have no choice in their Internet. This is a fact.

http://www.extremetech.com/internet...-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider

Simply living without Internet is not a realistic choice today. I personally only have two choices for internet, and the other guy has a max download speed of 15mbps, so it's unrealistic. Luckily the alternative is pretty acceptable. I'm happy that you have 4+ ISPs, just cause things are ok where you are doesn't mean it's ok for everyone else. That's not a valid excuse.


As for Moot. I agree that moot is complete garbage now, but that doesn't discredit his claims. Especially since I remember when this happened and there were users that were verifying it. You don't even address my other two examples (blocking HBO GO and throttling Netflix). These are 3 things I can remember off the top of my head so I'm not sure how many more instances of this are there.

The negatives are already happening. It will get much worse if Comcast and Time Warner merge. Netflix already had to raise their prices after paying Comcast's extortion fees. So even though my internet is fine I am still affected.

Net Neutrality simply says "Don't throttle or block websites".
That's it. Your argument is basically, "It's fine now (it's not) don't change anything!"


EDIT:
Ugh I was just looking at more articles and look at this.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/we-need-real-competition-not-a-cable-internet-monopoly

$15-$20 for speeds 10 times faster than most Americans have. Cell Phone plans at $15. I had a friend from Finland who told me he had a similarly priced plan and I thought he was mistaken at first. It's almost unfathomable.





I apologize if I come off insulting or overly confrontational.

 

[CaptUSA]

Net Neutrality simply says "Don't throttle or block websites".

No it doesn't. Not even close. It says, "We, the politicians, will decide who, how, when and why the internet is managed."

Do you not trust the market to handle this problem that you perceive? THAT is the question you should be asking - not whether or not you think the outcome is a good one. Since when have you ever known government regulation to provide a benefit? (even if it were passed with the purist intentions?)


If you trusted in the freedom of the market, then if the problem you see would affect enough people, there would be an alternative presented.

 

[Mr Tansill]

No it doesn't. Not even close. It says, "We, the politicians, will decide who, how, when and why the internet is managed."

Do you not trust the market to handle this problem that you perceive? THAT is the question you should be asking - not whether or not you think the outcome is a good one. Since when have you ever known government regulation to provide a benefit? (even if it were passed with the purist intentions?)


If you trusted in the freedom of the market, then if the problem you see would affect enough people, there would be an alternative presented.

After reading all the responses and hearing disagreement on this thread, I wish I could go back and re-define the terms (more clearly) at the outset to be able to get at the question I really wanted answered. I now see, however, that on both sides of the issue, there is disagreement- including disagreement about the terms being used to discuss the issue. If I could go back and ask the question again, I would first define Net Neutrality as: the principle that a company which provides sequences of 1s and 0s to your home should not be allowed to control the speed at which they arrive, based upon the order in which they are sent. This definition specifically excludes any references to government taxing, regulating, or other action, etc. It is only the principle that there should be no ISP-controlled access based upon the content being accessed.

Simply put, I wanted to have a conversation about whether or not an ISP should be allowed to discriminate against content sent through the internet. What I didn't want to have happen was the bastardization of the terminology "Net Neutrality" to incorporate some imagined government power-grab over the internet, and/or government taxation over the internet - those are separate topics, and the collusion of the three into one is obscuring the issue quite effectively, I think.

Edited to add:

Actually, when I went back to my original post, I was extremely clear on what I meant "Net Neutrality" to refer to. At some point however, the subjects of "government power-grab" and "taxation" were introduced and helped derail the discussion.

 

[ctiger2]

I'll only support it IF it lines the executive branch's pockets with cold hard cash.

 

[Mr Tansill]

I'll only support it IF it lines the executive branch's pockets with cold hard cash.

LOL!!!

 

[CaptUSA]

After reading all the responses and hearing disagreement on this thread, I wish I could go back and re-define the terms (more clearly) at the outset to be able to get at the question I really wanted answered. I now see, however, that on both sides of the issue, there is disagreement- including disagreement about the terms being used to discuss the issue. If I could go back and ask the question again, I would first define Net Neutrality as: the principle that a company which provides sequences of 1s and 0s to your home should not be allowed to control the speed at which they arrive, based upon the order in which they are sent. This definition specifically excludes any references to government taxing, regulating, or other action, etc. It is only the principle that there should be no ISP-controlled access based upon the content being accessed.

Simply put, I wanted to have a conversation about whether or not an ISP should be allowed to discriminate against content sent through the internet. What I didn't want to have happen was the bastardization of the terminology "Net Neutrality" to incorporate some imagined government power-grab over the internet, and/or government taxation over the internet - those are separate topics, and the collusion of the three into one is obscuring the issue quite effectively, I think.

Edited to add:

Actually, when I went back to my original post, I was extremely clear on what I meant "Net Neutrality" to refer to. At some point however, the subjects of "government power-grab" and "taxation" were introduced and helped derail the discussion.

I'm sorry, but I think you are still misunderstanding the issue. The underlined portion of your post displays this. It seems like I've been posting this Bastiat quote lots lately, but I still think it's germane:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

The principle you propose is perhaps a sound one, but somehow you make the leap to insinuate that the only way this can be done is through the government regulating it. THAT's what is at issue in this net-neutrality debate. We do not need "state-enforced equality" of speed of content. The market will take care of this, too.

 

[Mr Tansill]

I'm sorry, but I think you are still misunderstanding the issue. The underlined portion of your post displays this. It seems like I've been posting this Bastiat quote lots lately, but I still think it's germane:


The principle you propose is perhaps a sound one, but somehow you make the leap to insinuate that the only way this can be done is through the government regulating it. THAT's what is at issue in this net-neutrality debate. We do not need "state-enforced equality" of speed of content. The market will take care of this, too.

I happen to agree with that quote you provided, and submit that yes, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have protections the likes of which Net Neutrality proposes to impose. I also submit, however, that we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where corporations collude against the consumer, deals are reached in secret, and markets in certain regions are fractured enough that companies are effectively local monopolies that have no competitors, or any reason to improve their service - they effectively operate as utilities already, but which aren't subject to the same level of accountability as the government.

This is why I support the idea of Net Neutrality - it is a prevention of abuse by those who "provide a service" using public infrastructure (which our society is increasingly reliant upon) from taking advantage of the privileged position they already maintain: they conduct the vast majority of their business on infrastructure that is owned by the government. Which is another reason it should be subject to (appropriate) government - it should represent the common people's interests - not the interests of powerful lobbies or corporations that have influence in Washington or Texas.

Edited because I accidentally hit "post" prior to being complete.

 

[CaptUSA]

I happen to agree with that quote you provided, and submit that yes, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have protections the likes of which Net Neutrality proposes to enforce. I also submit, however, that we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where corporations collude against the consumer, deals are reached in secret, and markets in certain regions are fractured enough that companies are effectively local monopolies

This seems to keep coming up as well, lately. Let me try to address this en masse since it's used for several other issues as well.

Government creates problems. More government creates more problems. You cannot fix a government-created problem with more government.

Pick the problem with which you want to deal and apply that axiom. Immigration? Commerce? Economics? War? Health Care?

As it applies to Net Neutrality, you would be fooling yourself that this would "solve" any problems. It will only create more. It restricts freedom. It will limit innovation. It will cost more. And it will most certainly require more government and more regulation to "fix" it again in the future.

 

[Mr Tansill]

This seems to keep coming up as well, lately. Let me try to address this en masse since it's used for several other issues as well.

Government creates problems. More government creates more problems. You cannot fix a government-created problem with more government.

Pick the problem with which you want to deal and apply that axiom. Immigration? Commerce? Economics? War? Health Care?

As it applies to Net Neutrality, you would be fooling yourself that this would "solve" any problems. It will only create more. It restricts freedom. It will limit innovation. It will cost more. And it will most certainly require more government and more regulation to "fix" it again in the future.

(I 'bolded' the relevant portion of your post for my response)...

I'll abstract your statement one more level: PEOPLE create problems. You cannot fix a person-created problem with more people.

The absolute disassociation with anything government-related by certain people in this crowd neglects and misses the true function government is supposed to serve in our lives. Government is intended to be that organization in which we are all equivalent, have the same right to any service the government provides, have the same rights to being treated fairly, and so on and so forth. Simply declaring government to be absolutely 'bad' is so wholly myopic that it is hard to have serious, constructive conversations about issues. I could alternatively posit that corporations are inherently evil and to be distrusted, but of course such a statement is silly. It is not so simple an issue as to be rolled up in a smug: "Governments create problems. Hence Net Neutrality is bad. The end."

Here is an example of a corporation being unaccountable for their actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster. See, governments aren't the only ones who cause problems...