re: What is net neutrality?

Two problems with that rosy posting, which is so bad it was either typed by an anti-NN shill or someone horribly ignorant of the issue and yet spent 5 minutes watching just FCC propaganda:

The FTC will literally be able to do nothing. They have publically stated this. They had little legal basis of enforcement which was then stripped when AT&T fought a long battle which ended with the courts saying that they had no teeth with which to impose NN restrictions. It was EXACTLY this lawsuit that caused the FCC to classify fully ISPs under Title 2 restrictions. On by the way, wanna know the legal angle they used? The boogie man arguments from the “other side” mostly involve the restrictions associated with Title 2 impede their freedom. But they flat out crafted their arguments that they were excempt common carriers under Title 2 and this not liable to any other form of regulation.

But now they suddenly want to be under the FTC as the ideal?

Of course they do.


LINK


2) As for the statement that priorization would be a bad thing, here is a sampling of real works examples that directly contradict it. People who want net neutrality aren’t invoking boogie men.

quote:

---

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.


AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.


VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

---

At the end of the day, an ISP is analogous to a logistics company.

I pay x money to receive a certain amount of bandwidth. Netflix pays a frickING MASSIVE amount to upload their stuff.

UPS gets paid a certain amount to deliever the package from a certain place, to a certain place. Period. They don’t look down, see it’s something from Amazon, and immediately jack up prices based on the label.

So why is it okay with ISPs?

And to use the twitter post example, why is it acceptable to get pass through extortion charges from Netflix. Comcast’s fees still go to the consumer.

And spare me innovation and network investment arguments. They didn’t do it before either. The expensive part was already done, owned by Comcast, Berizon, et al but mostly paid by the government. There is so much dark fiber lying around it’s rediculous.

quote:

---

The internet was OK before Obama enacted NN. Care to speculate why?

I don't understand people that want the Government to have more control over us.

---

A) define "better". I have access to more content for less or equal money than I did in 2008. I could literally never leave my house and have no problem meeting all of my needs through the internet. I really don't know why you think the internet was better then vs. now. Average internet speeds are ~420% faster now than at the beginning of 2008 and we're still greatly lagging behind the rest of the developed world in that regard because ISP companies did whatever they wanted to with money that was supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

B) Obama was elected in 2008. The internet was still in a very nascent stage at that point in time. Smart phones were only a few years old. People were still getting Netflix primarily through DVDs sent in the mail. They started offering streaming services in 2007.

C) People don't want the government to have more control over "us". They want the government to have more control over "them". The "them" that needs to be controlled so they don't just look at people as dollar signs. Was Bell Systems doing right by people when they had a monopoly over communications and forced us to buy phones from them and pay a license fee for each phone? If you live near one of the refineries do you want to trust that company to "do the right thing" and make sure they aren't polluting or would you rather the government force them to cut pollution. Without that government oversight, the air in BR would look like Beijing.

Net Neutrality is supported by Soros, Schumer, and most Dems in Congress.

Repeal is supported by Ron Paul, the Heritage Foundation, most Repubs in Congress, and the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Pick your side.

quote:

---

Net Neutrality is supported by Soros, Schumer, and most Dems in Congress.

Repeal is supported by Ron Paul, the Heritage Foundation, most Repubs in Congress, and the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Pick your side.

---

Those guys will literally line up to repeal ANYTHING Obama did. They don't give a shite if it's good for the American people or not.

quote:

---

hose guys will literally line up to repeal ANYTHING Obama did. They don't give a shite if it's good for the American people or not.

---

This is actually a very important issue. Freedom is at stake. I see no reason to question their motives

Net Neutrality is what prevents the internet from being run like TV. Without it, in theory, providers can offer website packages (like channels). They can also dial down the effectiveness of streaming services. One of the big fears there is an example like the following:

Comcast buys a portion of Hulu. Comcasts then slows the streaming ability for Netflix, Amazon and the like so you are more likely to use Hulu.

Basically net neutrality means that every corner of the internet remains as accessible as it is today by your average citizen

quote:

---

Freedom is at stake,but you are sitting on the side arguing against it.

---

If you can look at the list of people on each side of the issue and truly believe NN increases freedom, then your world view is very different than mine.

It's a term that makes most people forget everything they learned in economics class

quote:

---

If you can look at the list of people on each side of the issue and truly believe NN increases freedom, then your world view is very different than mine.

---

Yes, you believe firstly in partisanship and choosing opinions based off of if your team supports it or not, and I believe in developing opinions based off of analysis and then seeing which side agrees with it on a case by case basis. That's why you can develop opinions just by looking at who supports it. Gotta toe that party line.

You've been duped by rich men whose interest is only making themselves richer into supporting destructive, corrupt, and anti competitive policy.