re: Where do you stand on net neutrality?

quote:

---

So why do the isps want to do away with net neutrality? What is their motivation? You think they are doing it to be nice?

---

Honest opinion.....Hey watch my left hand dance around here while my right hand is tearing this SOB down. It's a sheer technique to take focus from where it should be....it seems to be working. I also don't believe they really care if it stays or goes....but they want you to think they do. I think the same could be said for content providers like Netflix, Youtube, Google, Amazon, etc.....I think my point on that is proven with the relatively small amount of effort those big boys have put in keeping NN which in your opinion is they side they are on right?

quote:

---

Why do you believe the public will be better off after removing these rules?

---

I don't believe that they will be....but I don't see, and have seen no proof of, any way that we are better off with NN than we were prior to 2015. If anything data caps and bandwidth pricing has gotten worse since then.

quote:

---

Why do you trust the federal government's position on this issue?

---

I don't.....I just think given where we are today that what they are doing now is probably better for us than the alternative. It is in no way good....I've already explained what would be good and also stated that this government won't do that.

quote:

---

It appears most don't understand that being anti-regulation aligns you WITH the federal government on this issue.

---

So?

quote:

---

If you believe the government screws you every chance it gets, why are you taking the government's side on this?

---

I actually much like yourself believe that the ISPs screw you every chance they get....they just own the FCC lock, stock, and barrel. Like I said earlier I think they can do less harm this way than the other. I understand that isn't a convincing argument for you, and I don't expect it to be.

quote:

---

I don't believe that they will be....but I don't see, and have seen no proof of, any way that we are better off with NN than we were prior to 2015. If anything data caps and bandwidth pricing has gotten worse since then.

---

You should read up on what actions preceded the implementation of the NN rules.

The telecoms sent up a bunch of trial balloons (as the regulatory landscape was unclear) of super shitty practices and got smacked down.

Taking away NN makes it clear that they are free to roll out those shitty practices nationwide.

quote:

---

What did they get smacked down by? I assume this also preceded NN.

---

They were smacked down by a bunch of federal judges.

Federal government saw that there was a need to clarify/update the existing regulatory framework and that's how we got NN.

That's typically how these things shake out. A split in the courts leads to updated regulation. Doing away with regs and going back to the courts is extremely inefficient and moving backwards.

Doing away with the existing regs is also seen by the courts as a tacit approval of the actions the regs previously barred, so going back to the courts will also be much much more fortuitous to the telecoms in the future.

Eta: Basically, we did "fine" prior to the 2015 NN rules because the telecoms hadn't begun to roll out their increasingly shitty practices. As they started to, the government put up a roadblock to prevent that path of bad behavior from continuing. Now the telecoms and FCC are telling us that the roadblock is unnecessary and anti-free market despite the documented facts that the telecoms were beginning to seize control over the content of the internet prior to its implementation. The telecoms want the public to believe this was a preemptive strike against them and the "market". They don't want you to know it was in direct response to actual events and anti-free market practices that were occurring with increasing frequency.

quote:

---

I mean I'd probably feel different if there were a real problem that we were solving rather than something that might become a problem.....please don't show me the flier from reddit again I'm done with it.

---

Read my edit. The marketing campaign has worked on you just like it has on much of the public.

NN wasn't some solution in search of a problem. It was in response to actual actions and practices on the part of the major telecoms.

quote:

---

So why do the isps want to do away with net neutrality? What is their motivation? You think they are doing it to be nice?

---

My money goes elsewhere if they don't.

What makes you think an unelected bureaucrat will be nice? The difference is that ISPs don't have guns.

quote:

---

Why do you believe the public will be better off after removing these rules? 

---

Because it wasn't the Fedgov's job.

quote:

---

Why do you trust the federal government's position on this issue? 

---

Because this admin said "we don't have the power to do this."

quote:

---

If you believe the government screws you every chance it gets, why are you taking the government's side on this?

---

Because they are backing off of what was not their charge to begin with.

quote:

---

f you've all contacted your congressmen and they won't/can't help you on NN....then it's time to put in a new congressman.

---

I have done this and every Louisiana legislator has essentially stated that they will support whatever the FCC says regardless of the popular opinion.

This is a whole separate topic, but as expected, all the Republican whining about dem legislators rubber stamping the Obama admin are suddenly ok with rubber stamping the trump administration. It's the worst thing in the world when "they" do it, but there's nothing wrong when "we" do it.

quote:

---

It's the worst thing in the world when "they" do it, but there's nothing wrong when "we" do it.

---

The net effect here is that they are undoing what Obama did in a nutshell.....so I'm not sure they consider it "we" doing anything other than undoing what the bad guy did.

quote:

---

I have done this and every Louisiana legislator has essentially stated that they will support whatever the FCC says regardless of the popular opinion.

---

I'm sure they told the folks in Lafayette that for years....sometimes it takes you to take fight on yourself. Like I said the people have to get behind the local government....not the damn useless FCC.

quote:

---

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

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.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

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.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results. MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

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.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

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.

---

Btw, here is what non-neutral Portugal gets from a subsidiary of the largest telecom in the country:

Your dumbass argument is that we should trust companies that are held in lower esteem than the IRS with regulating the internet.

quote:

---

But then below that is regular, unrestricted internet access for €19.99/month for 10GB.

---

Stop that. Don't you know that you need to accept that screenshot as a comprehensive look at the only form of internet access anyone in Portugal is granted?

Should I post a screenshot of my flat rate unlimited internet access from 2015 in a pre-NN time?