FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

To those opposing the FCC ruling: I'm interested in knowing your opinions on 1) the FCC's assurance that ISPs will have to inform customers of any services which are being throttled or otherwise affected in a unfavorable manner and 2) the practice of zero-rating, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.

So you're saying they have to inform us before they take away net neutrality. Basically, they're still implementing shitty policies, but at least they gotta tell us about it.

Zero-rating is not good because it again allows ISPs to pick the fast lane for websites. This is still contrary to net neutrality.

[John Denver Fan]

I think that net neutrality needs to stay even that i'm a Republican and support Trump, I think that they shouldn't appeal it.

[Tetragrammaton]

On 12/17/2017 at 2:05 AM, SoulWeaver said:

I'm not hugely familiar with the Great Firewall, and so don't have an opinion on it right now. I would need to take a closer look and figure out exactly what I think on it, but I'd be happy to let you know my thoughts once I get them figured out.

Basically, China blocks the citizens to access google, facebook....

[Johann]

6 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Can I get some clarification on the human right to "access any and all information at all times"? This isn't a human right. There's information certain people cannot and should not have. There's certain information that you have to pay money to get. Should I be able to obtain advance information about undercover military and police operations at will? Do I have a right to know the contents of a sociology textbook which I do not own and have not paid for? People are denied the right to information all of the time for various reasons. Some of these are good reasons, as in a system where the government keeps no secrets and writers are not rewarded for their work, you inevitably see peacekeeping forces that are always a step behind in catching criminals and demotivated authors. I don't think anyone here is arguing that people should have access to all information at all times.

Pretty sure that @DragonFlames was referring to "access to any and all information at all times" in a broad sense of what the internet currently provides. Strictly in the realm of accessing information, we need tools like the internet as a means of educating and increasing awareness, which is essential in keeping our government, businesses, etc in check. In relation to this, you might be interested in learning about the Freedom of Information Act (which grant rights to citizens and non-citizens regarding the request of information from government sources).

6 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

To those opposing the FCC ruling: I'm interested in knowing your opinions on 1) the FCC's assurance that ISPs will have to inform customers of any services which are being throttled or otherwise affected in a unfavorable manner and 2) the practice of zero-rating, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.

1) If it doesn't actually stop throttling, etc, then it's an empty gesture. Customers are still powerless.

2) Another practice of giving ISPs too much control over what gets through and what doesn't. It's crap.

[SoulWeaver]

15 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Basically, China blocks the citizens to access google, facebook....

Ok, but I need to know more than just the very basics of something before I go forging an opinion. Just knowing China blocks Google, Facebook, etc., doesn't lead me to any thoughts as to why they may do that or what made them implement the system. Charging into a discussion or debate with only half the knowledge you need is often worse than going in completely blind.

[Tryhard]

It's worth noting that polls estimated that 83% of all Americans, including >70% of Republicans opposed this move. You want to talk about how 'will of the people' or 'democracy' works in America, that's pretty much what you have (not to mention the repeal that Trump signed that had a 6% approval rating from Americans of a law that prohibited telecom companies from selling on/sharing customers personal private information like web browsing history without their consent)

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

Just so people know...

This repeal is about legislation that has been around for a grand total of two years.  I'm not really for or against NN (mostly b/c it wasnt doing anything).  However, the fear-mongering kind of needs to stop.  If you think the repeal of net neutrality is going to set us back to the dark ages, I'd ask you to recall what the internet was like 2 years.  I know I have not seen a  singular difference in the past two years.  I've actually been paying more in the last two years because cellular companies started making me buy my phone from a third party or rent it through them which costs roughly 3x as much. 

Net Neutrality is fairly pre-emptive.  It's banning ISPs from doing something that they weren't really doing in the first place.  Yes, there's a small handful of things ISPs were doing that net neutrality has banned but these minor situations largely resolved themselves before NN took over.

Again I'm not really for or against it but I'm also not completely insane.  Going back to what internet was like two years ago is not the end of the world.  I actually used to be very strongly for NN, but after reading how copletely insane people are becoming over the repeal, I'm kind of in the middle now.  The end of NN is not one of the four housemen, I promise.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

No, there was violations prior to 2015. Net Neutrality was created for the express purpose because ISPs were beginning to take advantage of consumers, such as Comcast throttling websites. As I said earlier, and you can check the link for some examples.

On 12/14/2017 at 10:25 PM, Tryhard said:

Even though there was no net neutrality prior to 2015, there were certain things that were enforced to stop ISPs from abusing their attempts to violate what would become known as net neutrality. It's also worth noting that the near-real time deep packet inspection required to throttle or filter traffic without performance issues that ISPs didn't want to do wasn't possible until relatively recently.

Violations like these: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

As summarised by someone:

• In the early days of the Internet, ISPs treated all traffic the same.
• Companies begin to realize that they have the technology to filter traffic to block the use of competing services (Madison River) or slow down traffic on certain sites (Comcast).
• FCC tries to stop this using their existing regulatory power. In the first case, Madison River was classified as a Title II service (because it was a DSL provider) so their enforcement stuck. In the Comcast case, FCC was told by a federal court that they didn't have the authority to regulate Comcast because it wasn't classified as a Title II service
• In response, the Obama administration applied the Title II classification giving the FCC legal teeth to enforce net neutrality.

Just because you haven't noticed a difference doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Just so people know...

This repeal is about legislation that has been around for a grand total of two years.  I'm not really for or against NN (mostly b/c it wasnt doing anything).  However, the fear-mongering kind of needs to stop.  If you think the repeal of net neutrality is going to set us back to the dark ages, I'd ask you to recall what the internet was like 2 years.  I know I have not seen a  singular difference in the past two years.  I've actually been paying more in the last two years because cellular companies started making me buy my phone from a third party or rent it through them which costs roughly 3x as much. 

Net Neutrality is fairly pre-emptive.  It's banning ISPs from doing something that they weren't really doing in the first place.  Yes, there's a small handful of things ISPs were doing that net neutrality has banned but these minor situations largely resolved themselves before NN took over.

Again I'm not really for or against it but I'm also not completely insane.  Going back to what internet was like two years ago is not the end of the world.  I actually used to be very strongly for NN, but after reading how copletely insane people are becoming over the repeal, I'm kind of in the middle now.  The end of NN is not one of the four housemen, I promise.

do you read any posts in here before you state your opinion or do you like soapboxing

like right now your viewpoint is "i'm not anti-NN anymore because those other people hate it" pretty much, because the rest of what you said is pretty false

furthermore, the fear-mongering is not about setting us back to the dark ages; it's a legitimate restriction of otherwise freely accessible information, for no other reason than profit (which has many, many bad implications). i don't believe anyone has said otherwise

stop arguing against strawmen and actually read what people say instead of pretending they said something else

[Lushen]

13 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

No, there was violations prior to 2015. Net Neutrality was created for the express purpose because ISP were beginning to take advantage of consumers, such as Comcast throttling websites. As I said earlier, and you can check the link for some examples.

Just because you haven't noticed a difference doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

I referenced those.  I am aware there are some minor things that were going on before NN was enacted.  However, there are very few of these situations.  People like to reference them all and then say "and many more" when the "many more" part isn't really true.

Nevertheless, the free market solved all these issues before NN did.  To my knowledge NN (at least the 2015 part of NN) didn't suddenly ban anything that was going on b/c ISPs already stopped doing these things before 2015.  If anything, these examples show that NN is not necessary in America.

AT&T Blocking Skype ended in 2009
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon stopped blocking mobile wallets in 2013
The FCC fined AT&T for blocking Facetime because the legislation that was currently in place ALREADY made what they were doing illegal.  This was in 2012.  They were fined up to $100m

These cases are actually evidence that title 2 doesn't really need to exist.  In many cases the free market did not work in ISPs favor.  In others, it was already illegal.

 

Oh here's lord raven attacking me instead of responding to what I've said again...

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

How is Comcast blocking BitTorrent, one of the highest profile torrent sites at the time by forging packets to interfere with user traffic, while denying they were doing so and telling customers that were having issues that it wasn't their fault, a minor issue?

The free market never took care of that, by the way, and for cases where the company eventually stopped, it wasn't because consumers raised a riot about them. The way some people go on about it you would imagine the free market is a magic wand. 

Net neutrality gave the FCC the legal means to pursue and punish such infractions for big providers like Comcast.

But if you truly think Title II doesn't need to exist, how does getting rid of it benefit in any way? Answer: it won't benefit anyone unless ISPs want to screw over consumers to benefit themselves, and frankly I don't think you should trust ISPs when they have lied repeatedly.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

Oh here's lord raven attacking me instead of responding to what I've said again...

probably because you didnt read any discussion; you just came in and said "wow its not the end of the world"

if you want a discussion, maybe you shouldn't strawman huh???? and maybe you should read posts earlier in the thread instead of pretending to be a "let's all calm down" moderate????

[Ae†her]

What else exists out there that could prevent Telecom companies from interfering with connections to different websites other than Title II? That's right, nothing could stop them for a while, and the kind of power this places on these companies is tremendous. There is absolutely no good reason for ridding of NN, other than increasing the profits of some of the biggest and wealthiest companies in the US. 

[Lushen]

44 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

How is Comcast blocking BitTorrent, one of the highest profile torrent sites at the time by forging packets to interfere with user traffic, while denying they were doing so and telling customers that were having issues that it wasn't their fault, a minor issue?

The free market never took care of that, by the way, and for cases where the company eventually stopped, it wasn't because consumers raised a riot about them. The way some people go on about it you would imagine the free market is a magic wand. 

But if you truly think Title II doesn't need to exist, how does getting rid of it benefit in any way? Answer: it won't benefit anyone unless ISPs want to screw over consumers to benefit themselves, and frankly I don't think you should trust ISPs when they have lied repeatedly.

Ok.  Let's be totally honest.  95+% of the crap that people download from BitTorrent is illegal.  Let's just get that out of they way.  Additionally, the reason they blocked bitTorrent is because it uses a crapton of download and upload speed.  It basically turns your computer into a 24/7 internet muncher.  This costs ISPs more money which is why they don't like you using it.  

The same goes with netflix.  There were literally 'netflix hours' in my dorm where the internet would stop working alltogether because too many people would try to watch netflix at the same time.  It's more expensive.  Of course we consumers side with Netflix when they tel us that ISPs are the greedy ones because we get our TV from them, but it's not really true.  Netflix, Google, etc. censor a heck of a lot more than ISPs do.

I am in favor for the majority of Net Neutrality.  But the 2015 legislation is preemptive and unnecessary in my view.  I don't think its really hurting anything, but its not necessary either.  So to answer your question I don't think there is a benefit in removing it.  Likewise, there wasn't much of a benefit for it either.  This would not be a big deal if the Reddit, Twitch, and YouTube community didn't ban together to teach young people that nn is the Jesus of the internet and ANY attack against him is a cardinal sin.

Take a look at some of these tech companies you're siding with...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

Ok.  Let's be totally honest.  95+% of the crap that people download from BitTorrent is illegal.  Let's just get that out of they way.  Additionally, the reason they blocked bitTorrent is because it uses a crapton of download and upload speed.  It basically turns your computer into a 24/7 internet muncher.  This costs ISPs more money which is why they don't like you using it.  

The same goes with netflix.  There were literally 'netflix hours' in my dorm where the internet would stop working alltogether because too many people would try to watch netflix at the same time.  It's more expensive.  Of course we consumers side with Netflix when they tel us that ISPs are the greedy ones because we get our TV from them, but it's not really true.

Someone who uses bitTorrent on a regular basis is probably 10x more expensive than someone who doesn't.  But ISPs are supposed to charge them the same amount?  It can only be based on speed and not usage?

I am in favor for the majority of Net Neutrality.  But the 2015 legislation is preemptive and unnecessary in my view.  I don't think its really hurting anything, but its not necessary either.  So to answer your question I don't think there is a benefit in removing it.  Likewise, there wasn't much of a benefit for it either.  This would not be a big deal if the Reddit, Twitch, and YouTube community didn't ban together to teach young people that nn is the Jesus of the internet and ANY attack against him is a cardinal sin.

Netflix, youtube etc are widely used enough that they need to actively improve their internet in order to sustain it. This is not a fault of the consumer, it's a fault of the product not providing the necessary infrastructure.

I don't think reddit/twitch/youtube convinced people of that, considering I doubt a majority of the population uses all of those services and they're still in favor, and this was prior to Ajit Pai's announcement of repeal which led to everyone talking about net neutrality.

In fact, you said so right now you're in favor, and if repealing NN is objectively worse than keeping it, then why repeal it in any circumstance? We've seen a lack of NN in other countries going heavily in favor of the business and not the consumer, and in the US there isn't enough regional diversity in ISPs to allow a neutral internet that is ultimately decided by the free market rather than legislation. The free market has not corrected the issues you've brought up, as many people have brought up in this thread with multiple degrees of evidence. Your backup argument here is that "bittorrent is used illegal;y anyway," even though bittorrent is used legally in many cases.

It sounds like your issue is more with federal government doing anything than actually being anti-NN.

Also, if companies cared enough about bittorrent, then they'd sue and take it down entirely just like Napster. They certainly have the means to do so.

[Phoenix Wright]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Ok.  Let's be totally honest.  95+% of the crap that people download from BitTorrent is illegal.  Let's just get that out of they way.  Additionally, the reason they blocked bitTorrent is because it uses a crapton of download and upload speed.  It basically turns your computer into a 24/7 internet muncher.  This costs ISPs more money which is why they don't like you using it. 

3

who cares? isp's don't own the fucking internet!

[Lushen]

8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Netflix, youtube etc are widely used enough that they need to actively improve their internet in order to sustain it. This is not a fault of the consumer, it's a fault of the product not providing the necessary infrastructure.

I don't think reddit/twitch/youtube convinced people of that, considering I doubt a majority of the population uses all of those services and they're still in favor, and this was prior to Ajit Pai's announcement of repeal which led to everyone talking about net neutrality.

In fact, you said so right now you're in favor, and if repealing NN is objectively worse than keeping it, then why repeal it in any circumstance? We've seen a lack of NN in other countries going heavily in favor of the business and not the consumer, and in the US there isn't enough regional diversity in ISPs to allow a neutral internet that is ultimately decided by the free market rather than legislation. The free market has not corrected the issues you've brought up, as many people have brought up in this thread with multiple degrees of evidence. Your backup argument here is that "bittorrent is used illegal;y anyway," even though bittorrent is used legally in many cases.

It sounds like your issue is more with federal government doing anything than actually being anti-NN.

Also, if companies cared enough about bittorrent, then they'd sue and take it down entirely just like Napster. They certainly have the means to do so.

Ajit Pai's announcement pretty much circulates around Youtube, Reddit, Twitch, etc.  I don't even know where I can find the original.  

I did not say I was in favor.  I said that I am no longer against ISPs.  I actually listen to them and to tech companies and am somewhere in the middle.  I used to think ISPs were evil but I've realized that a ton of that comes from propaganda coming out from Netflix. 

Netflix doesn't say "Text RESIST to ____ because I want more money"
They say "Text RESIST to _____ to preserve internet freedom"

Netflix, Google, etc. love nn for personal reasons.  Listening to them just because you buy their cool tech crap and hating ISPs just because they're like your electricity company isn't a very constructive way to get the real story.

Often times these torrent websites are hosted outside the US so companies can't sue them.  They are not 'fine' with them.

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

who cares? isp's don't own the fucking internet!

I mean.  You can complain because comcast is your only provider in the area.  Or you can realize that if comcast didn't exist you would not have internet at all.  And acc't to FCC (not sure if its actually true), the reason comcast remains the sole provider in these areas is because small ISP firms cannot compete with larger chains due to federal regulation.  That's the claim the FCC is making.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Phoenix Wright]

Just now, Lushen said:

 

I mean.  You can complain because comcast is your only provider in the area.  Or you can realize that if comcast didn't exist you would not have internet at all.  

2

you're right. were it not for comcast, the internet would simply cease to exist.

[Zasplach]

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

It's worth noting that polls estimated that 83% of all Americans, including >70% of Republicans opposed this move. You want to talk about how 'will of the people' or 'democracy' works in America, that's pretty much what you have (not to mention the repeal that Trump signed that had a 6% approval rating from Americans of a law that prohibited telecom companies from selling on/sharing customers personal private information like web browsing history without their consent)

The US is a republic and for basically 200 years a deferential republic, public will only means so much, Jacksonian democracy not withstanding.  

In terms of net neutrality, when we're talking about economic arguments because that's basically that's basically the crux of the argument, how much should the Federal government participate  in the internet provider market, we should all clarify how much true capitalism plays a role in a market.  I think an ideal situation is a market where both producers and consumers have easy access to produce and consume the product; internet access is basically like a utility, something that we as a society have basically decided needs to be highly regulated because the high cost of becoming a producer, it basically takes these huge multi-media corporations to have the means to get the internet to the consumer.  

I don't expect that this repeal will result in a huge slowdown of the internet for most people, but it opens a window, and I'm not making a slippery slope argument, it just seems needless to open the door to this on what is basically a public utility.  An average person in the 21st century needs the internet almost as much as they need power and water, strange but true.

[Lushen]

Just now, Phoenix Wright said:

you're right. were it not for comcast, the internet would simply cease to exist.

In some areas it actually literally would.  Then other ISPs would enter the region and guess what?  They're now the sole provider.  And it's fairly expensive to build all the infrastructure it takes to reach a small town of only 100 people so....now they have to up their price to help pay for it.  

[Tryhard]

Isn't it more because of buy-outs or mergers of startup/smaller providers?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

Just now, Tryhard said:

Isn't it more because of buy-outs or merges of startup/smaller providers?

Now you're talking about monopoly laws which are already in place.

[Tryhard]

If there's monopoly rules in place, they don't seem to do a very good job considering a lot of America has a monopoly for their ISP choice, or at best the other option is much worse and they are more or less forced to go with the former.

13 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Listening to them just because you buy their cool tech crap and hating ISPs just because they're like your electricity company isn't a very constructive way to get the real story.

They're not like my electricity company, though. If they were then they wouldn't care about throttling access to certain webpages or what I'm using it for. That's kinda what we're hoping for, to treat the internet service as if it was a utility.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

In some areas it actually literally would.  Then other ISPs would enter the region and guess what?  They're now the sole provider.  And it's fairly expensive to build all the infrastructure it takes to reach a small town of only 100 people so....now they have to up their price to help pay for it.  

look fella. providing access to the internet and owning the internet are very different. removing title ii protections from the internet makes it easier for internet service providers to control what people see. to control the traffic on the internet. the internet should essentially be treated like public roads, but right now you think they should be treated like private roads. that's simply dangerous.

and for what it's worth, if private roads were as prolific as isp's grip on internet accessibility, i'd argue for more government regulation too.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Zasplach]

8 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

If there's monopoly rules in place, they don't seem to do a very good job considering a lot of America has a monopoly for their ISP choice, or at best the other option is much worse and they are more or less forced to go with the former.

There are mostly monopoly laws on the books that let the federal government fight monopolies to break them up, basically the Sherman anti-trust laws that broke up Rockefeller's monstrosity and what the Trump administration is attempting to use to keep AT&T from merging with Time Warner, but except in the case of public utilities where governments create public-private boards to run/oversee the utilities, if monopolies aren't being fought by the Justice Department the only remedy the Feds have is the creation of specific rules by either the Congress or the specific bureaucratic department in charge of the regulation of that sector of the economy, the FCC and internet for example.  

Edited December 18, 2017 by Zasplach