re: For those that still think Obama's net neutrality is good

quote:

---

Tell me how NN will give me/us more options?

---

NN has nothing to do with more options. you dont seem to even understand the basic concept of the argument that youre actively involved in.

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."

Net neutrality needs to go away

quote:

---

private companies should do as they please and the customers/builders of the world will solve the problems.

---

in no way are private companies allowed to do as they please in the US. the antitrust laws alone prohibit that.

quote:

---

Oh my sweet summer child.

I'm very conservative fiscally, and big on free market. But you can't just throw the buzzwords like "MUH competition" and assume that it's better that way.

There is no free market here, and realistically you can't do an about face now, AT&T and Comcast have too much of a trenched in advantage.


You know why net neutrality was a convention between ISPs up to a few years before the FCC made it policy, all the way back to the start of the Internet? Because no one could make the whole network themselves. But in a sense of community, they didn't use the Internet as leverage.

Let's use your example, of a start up using a lack of net neutrality to build competition.

Big ISPs get threatened, they now charge new ISP specifically higher rates to use their backbones.

New ISP now has to charge in line with old ISP.

Threat eliminated.

Status quo maintained

And no, a new start up isn't building their own backbones Wastefulness aside (lots of dark fiber out there), it is incredibly expensive. Government routinely gives the biggest companies hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to build and expand that infrastructure

But yes. "MUH FREE MARKET"

And no, net neutrality has NOTHING to do with the slower speeds. I can cite a number of factors. But it certainly isn't net neutrality that is stifling competition. That is something else entirely, primarily the fact that hard wired internet connections are governed by monopolistic companies. Net neutrality tries to stifle one negative outcome of this monopoly

---

StraightCashHomey usually does the heavy lifting in these threads. I applaud you both for your community service in this thread.

quote:

---

Since these 2015 regulations passed, Google and Facebook have moved to become the judge, jury and executioner of the content we read on the Internet, under the guise of eliminating “fake news.”

---

Meanwhile.. anyone with internet access can still publish an article on thousands of free-lance news sites, blogs, or social media.

Strange how that works.

I didn't read the article. Does it discuss the "unlawful content" issue and packet equality? "Lawful content" and pseudo-fascist censorship have been my main issues with so-called net neutrality as "implemented" a couple years ago.

It's fun to say you are pro net neutrality because it sounds fair, enlightened and equitable. But there are major insidious issues lurking with the Obama version.

Has something changed (honest question, as I stopped following the issue) since this Forbes piece?

This University of Kansas Law School student got it (although she needs a better editor):

quote:

---

Instead of seeking to hinder[] content, the FCC’s order gives the impression of being content-protective. §8.5 of the order prohibits service providers from blocking what is designated as "lawful content:”

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or
nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.”

However, nowhere within the new FCC order is lawful content defined nor does it state what an ISP's obligation is regarding unlawful content. Instead, the order states that the no-blocking rule “does not prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials. The order further states that “this obligation does not impose any independent legal obligation on broadband providers to be the arbiter of what is lawful.”


The language of these two statements certainly does not prevent ISPs from being arbiters of what is lawful. They simply do not have the obligation of seeking out and blocking any unlawful content.

---

LINK

I don't want to go slippery slope here, but the unlawful writing is on the wall, imo.

quote:

---

There is the issue right there. Internet access is access to the internet. To whatever you can find, whatever you want to do. I don't want Cox to tell me what internet channels they offer. The mere existence of channels means the isp has absolute control over what you see and read. frick that.

---

This right here. We don't need to go back to ISPs being AOL.