re: In 11 days, net neutrality will be repealed, how will you celebrate?

quote:

---

quote:
And don’t even think about torrents or porn. They’re illegal and throttled on all packages!


As they should be.

---

porn should be illegal :GOP: :GOP:

quote:

---

So it’ll reverse to just like things were 2 years ago when no one was botching about the “problem” net neutrality “fixed”

---

Early history 1980 – early 2000s[edit]
See also: Communications Act of 1934
While the term is new, the ideas underlying net neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications practice and regulation. Services such as telegrams and the phone network (officially, the public switched telephone network or PSTN) have been considered common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they have been akin to public utilities and expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment. They have been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to ensure fair pricing and access.

In the late 1980s the Internet became legally available for commercial use, and in the early years of public use of the Internet, this was its main use – public access was limited and largely reached through dial-up modems (as was the Bulletin board system dial-up culture that preceded it). The Internet was viewed more as a commercial service than a domestic and societal system. Being business services, cable modem Internet access and high-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, had always since their creation been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, unlike telephone services (including services by dial-up modem), and not as a telecommunications service, and thus had not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.

However, by the late 1990s and early 2000s the Internet started to become common in households and wider society. Also in the 1980s, arguments about the public interest requirements of the telecommunications industry in the U.S. arose; whether companies involved in broadcasting were best viewed as community trustees, with obligations to society and consumers, or mere market participants with obligations only to their shareholders.[23] The legal debate about net neutrality regulations of the 2000s echoes this debate.

By the 1990s, some U.S. politicians began to express concern over protecting the Internet:

How can government ensure that the nascent Internet will permit everyone to be able to compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to all willing customers? Next, how can we ensure that this new marketplace reaches the entire nation? And then how can we ensure that it fulfills the enormous promise of education, economic growth and job creation?

—?Al Gore, 1994, [24]
In the early 2000s, legal scholars such as Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig raised the issue of neutrality in a series of academic papers addressing regulatory frameworks for packet networks. Wu in particular noted that the Internet is structurally biased against voice and video applications. The debate that started in the U.S. extended internationally with distinct differences of the debate in Europe.[25]

quote:

---

In 11 days, net neutrality will be repealed, how will you celebrate?

---

Here's the deal. I don't support the repeal of net neutrality because net neutrality is a regulation that stops companies from regulating the internet that I can consume. This is a problem because not only are the ISP's; Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc., not only some of the worst companies in the nation, they are also charging more than almost any other first-world country for the slowest speed of almost any other first-world country.

Not only that, but this bill gives them the ability to control what sites get the most traffic, or whether they get any traffic at all. This is AN EXTRA SERVICE they would be allowed to do. For instance, say they don't like tigerdroppings.com at all, and would rather people go their site verizonfans.com. If NN is repealed, nothing is stopping them from being able to block or throttle td.com to oblivion in order to force favor into their own site.

Now, this may seem like free-market, but it's not. Essentially a company is using a MONOPOLY to stymie any competition they have on a platform to oblivion, with seemingly no cost. Throttling your internet is an action they have to be conscious of doing. This is further exacerbated by the fact that most people can only use one cable company's service at any specific home. These cable companies have very little to no competition as it is, and as long as they aren't openly competing for households, your price will never go down. This is such an obvious thing now that it almost seems like collusion.

Furthermore, it could completely allow propoganda. They simply have to throttle or block all sites that cater to beliefs they oppose, and wham we're China. fricking China.

That's why I'm against the repeal Net Neutrality, and will always be against the repeal of NN. Net Neutrality forces ISP's to create a free-market on the internet, and I support that.



TLDR: Repealing net neutrality would allow ISP's to restrict certain messages, aka propoganda, as well as stymie competition unfairly. Therefore, I'm against the action to repeal NN.

He is going to link to stories about Google and Facebook

quote:

---

I believe google was censoring/changing search results.

---

everytime

and they just don't get it

quote:

---

You dint think they are?

---

sure they are

now tell me all the search engine options you have vs ISP options you have

quote:

---

They already do charge more for higher speeds. Or do you think everyone pays the same price and gets 100/mbps a second?

---

I don't care what everyone else pays. See how simple that is? I pay extra for a nice seat on an airline. I pay extra to get premium channels on TV. I pay extra for bandwidth.

If you want to fly coach go ahead. Don't hate me because I pay a bit extra and GET a bit extra. The telecoms aren't GIVING out the bandwidth they pay to maintain. There is no free lunch.

quote:

---

I don't care what everyone else pays. See how simple that is? I pay extra for a nice seat on an airline. I pay extra to get premium channels on TV. I pay extra for bandwidth.

If you want to fly coach go ahead. Don't hate me because I pay a bit extra and GET a bit extra. The telecoms aren't GIVING out the bandwidth they pay to maintain. There is no free lunch.

---

What's your point? In one post you're saying ISPs should have the right to charge for their bandwidth and you're also acknowledging they already do. So what are you arguing for or against?