End of Net Neutrality

BigRedBuster said:
The internet is a much different animal now than in 2014.  That's almost 4 years ago.  That's a millennium in technology.

Let me ask you this.  Why do you support this move?  I am honestly open to the argument from the other side.  I just don't understand what that other side is and would like it explained to me.

How was this regulation detrimental.
Click to expand...
I never said either way if I supported NN or not. I am trying to 'member what i paid for my current tier of Internet in 2014 and I don't think it was much different. I had Comcast back when they were throttling torrent traffic. Which is really a misnomer, they'd tank your entire download speed while torrent traffic was active. 

I agree with you that the Internet is a different bigger beast than in 2014. As someone who works for a company that relies on some of these ISPs to supply fast/reliable/cost effective internet connectivity,  as well as the content providers to generate accurate search content for clients and to our/their customers I support an open Internet.  Though the concept of open internet (separate topic) in my mind is hard to explain accurately when content is moderated/promoted by apps/search engines/etc based on what type of content is being requested (not talking about any illegal stuff). 

So short answer is I would prefer to keep the NN rules in place. 

 
I'm more or less an unabashed liberal. I'd love to hear the viewpoint of anyone who supports this. I live in a bit of an echo-chamber. It also seems as though there's a relatively high level of bi-partisan position on being against this move. When I talk to folks (either side of the aisle), there seems to be concern over the influence of money in politics. Everyone has their own solutions, but is this an issue that we could actually get behind on a bi-partisan basis? 

Not looking to pick a fight or anything, just some perspective. 

 
GM_Tood said:
I never said either way if I supported NN or not. I am trying to 'member what i paid for my current tier of Internet in 2014 and I don't think it was much different. I had Comcast back when they were throttling torrent traffic. Which is really a misnomer, they'd tank your entire download speed while torrent traffic was active. 

I agree with you that the Internet is a different bigger beast than in 2014. As someone who works for a company that relies on some of these ISPs to supply fast/reliable/cost effective internet connectivity,  as well as the content providers to generate accurate search content for clients and to our/their customers I support an open Internet.  Though the concept of open internet (separate topic) in my mind is hard to explain accurately when content is moderated/promoted by apps/search engines/etc based on what type of content is being requested (not talking about any illegal stuff). 

So short answer is I would prefer to keep the NN rules in place. 
Click to expand...
Thanks, and sorry if I misinterpreted your views.

I was just hoping there was someone here that supported the other side and could explain it to me.

 
Huskerzoo said:
I'm more or less an unabashed liberal. I'd love to hear the viewpoint of anyone who supports this. I live in a bit of an echo-chamber. It also seems as though there's a relatively high level of bi-partisan position on being against this move. When I talk to folks (either side of the aisle), there seems to be concern over the influence of money in politics. Everyone has their own solutions, but is this an issue that we could actually get behind on a bi-partisan basis? 

Not looking to pick a fight or anything, just some perspective. 
Click to expand...




Here's where I just don't understand the Republicans.

They support certain issues that I see could come back to really bight them in the a$$ later.

Let's say George Soros goes out and buys up the vast majority of ISP companies.  Then, he manipulates liberal websites to be more prominent on the internet than conservative sites.  Would they be happy then?  Liberals wouldn't be happy if the Koch brothers would do that.

Keeping Net Neutrality helps ensure voices are heard.

 
a write up about the chairman of the fcc

https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-buy-this-crap-1821277398

On Thursday, the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission and its chairman, Verizon BFF Ajit Pai, will hold a vote on whether to repeal Barack Obama-era net neutrality rules. If passed, the FCC would allow ISPs to begin setting up a tiered internet designed to suck as much money from customers’ pockets as possible while screwing with their ability to access competitors’ content, or really anything that might suck up amounts of bandwidth inconvenient for their profit margins.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Here's where I just don't understand the Republicans.

They support certain issues that I see could come back to really bight them in the a$$ later.

Let's say George Soros goes out and buys up the vast majority of ISP companies.  Then, he manipulates liberal websites to be more prominent on the internet than conservative sites.  Would they be happy then?  Liberals wouldn't be happy if the Koch brothers would do that.

Keeping Net Neutrality helps ensure voices are heard.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent that is already being done...twitter/facebook/google. These sites are promoting/moderating content and user accounts based on specific content being requested or posted. Why are these companies allowed to filter what consumers are seeing?  Loss of NN will definitely promote this if ISPs charge more if you want CNN or Fox News based on how the company's political views are.

 
GM_Tood said:
To a certain extent that is already being done...twitter/facebook/google. These sites are promoting/moderating content and user accounts based on specific content being requested or posted. 
Click to expand...




They're doing that within their free platforms, and based primarily (entirely?) on your online behavior. That's a very, very different thing.

 
GM_Tood said:
To a certain extent that is already being done...twitter/facebook/google. These sites are promoting/moderating content and user accounts based on specific content being requested or posted. Why are these companies allowed to filter what consumers are seeing?  Loss of NN will definitely promote this if ISPs charge more if you want CNN or Fox News based on how the company's political views are.
Click to expand...
You don't see a difference between a service like Twitter doing this compared to an ISP service?

 

 
Full Disclosure:  I'm for Net Neutrality.

One of the arguments I've seen is that certain users (people who stream a lot) use a lot more of the ISP's bandwidth when compared with a user that uses it more for social media, online shopping, checking e-mail, things like that.  So the rationale is the user who uses more of the bandwidth should be charged more, when they are a more "expensive" customer to the ISP.

 
teachercd said:
Okay, that is sort of what I was thinking...like when cell phones first came out...the prices were all over the place, high/low/middle...then they clearly all colluded and made prices that are all similar.  Maybe there will be a "cheap" service.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but for your "cheap" service your speed will be cut dramatically, as will your access to certain sites.

 
RedSavage said:
Full Disclosure:  I'm for Net Neutrality.

One of the arguments I've seen is that certain users (people who stream a lot) use a lot more of the ISP's bandwidth when compared with a user that uses it more for social media, online shopping, checking e-mail, things like that.  So the rationale is the user who uses more of the bandwidth should be charged more, when they are a more "expensive" customer to the ISP.
Click to expand...
I can see that point.  But I would have a hard time believing my prices would go lower.  The ISP would most likely leave my prices as they are and raise the "streamers".

 
RedSavage said:
Full Disclosure:  I'm for Net Neutrality.

One of the arguments I've seen is that certain users (people who stream a lot) use a lot more of the ISP's bandwidth when compared with a user that uses it more for social media, online shopping, checking e-mail, things like that.  So the rationale is the user who uses more of the bandwidth should be charged more, when they are a more "expensive" customer to the ISP.
Click to expand...
ISP's can already charge differently based on usage. What they can't do (well, they can now that NN is repealed) is charge differently depending on what sites or content you use.

 
Part of the complication is that certain things (video, namely) consume more bandwidth than others. You can effectively close off large, important parts of the internet to people even with "neutral" metered usage. This wasn't always an issue with the internet, hence a fight to keep it open. And even before the repeal of NN, companies practiced things like zero-rating that seem both substantively shady and against the spirit of net neutrality. On the one hand, free Youtube! Streaming YT video doesn't count against your 4G LTE data caps. This is attractive to consumers, and raises the barrier for small companies. 

We could talk about this, or we could wrap a bow around it with "the problem is that proponents of net neutrality don't have inspiring leaders and poor messaging." Apologies for the snark, it's just that we can go that route with literally any topic. We don't for the problems we are interested in solving, rather than ascribing to unchangeable forces. Even if, in this as well as other cases, the sheer lack of voter power is a pretty tough nut to crack.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top