OT: Net Neutrality
November 21st, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^
All it takes is one yes vote to dismantle everything.
Wanna watch Netflix? Better pay a premium for that! Wanna go to MGoBlog? Nope Brian will have to pony up cash to whatever ISP is willing to allow traffic there.
What a farce.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:08 PM ^
For an ISP to not allow traffic to any site (especially a popular one) would be crazy, and against their best interests. Simply, it would be bad business.
But damn those ISPs for spending billions over the years upgrading global networks to get the internet to the advanced state it is in today! What right do they have!
November 21st, 2017 at 6:14 PM ^
What if I told you the US is actually the most throttled and expensive place to have internet?
We pay the most to have the slowest internet due to lack of competition enabled by ISPs buying our politicians.
Kick rocks.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:18 PM ^
Wait wait wait! My point was that ISP's spent money building infrastructure to create advanced internet networks. And you are refuting that by saying the problem is ISPs bought politicians?! Don't you realize that my viewpoint is strongly against cronyism and in favor of more freedom...
November 21st, 2017 at 6:22 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 11:12 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:25 PM ^
They make that money back and then some.
Companies like Comcast have already been caught throttling connections in the past. This passing will enable that kind of behavior screwing the customer over. It will be the new norm.
Your argument has no merit when there are only 2 companies to choose from when it comes to internet in most places, both of which throttle connections already.
If there were 10+ ISPs battling it out in every market, then I would be all for lifting net neutrality because competition = win for consumers.
That is not the case when most places have very few options to pick from.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:29 PM ^
I think we actually are pretty close to agreement here. But the question I would ask is why are there only 2 companies to choose from? Why are there monopolies on utilities in many areas?
We'd both agree that's a problem. But anyway this discussion has already gotten a bit too political so we will just leave it there.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:32 PM ^
I agree cronyism enabled there to be less competition, but at this point we are far too down the rabbit hole.
If you lift regulations now, do you think big mega-corporations will allow for small companies to make it? What stops them from routing out any form of competition due to sheer resources at their disposal?
I don't think that is viable anymore. Enforce anti-trust laws and keep the regulations we got in the books already.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^
Just posted this below, but I am actually hopefully that wireless access could be somewhat of an answer to the problem. There are more than enough ISPs out there - the problem is really local access. Let's hope one way or another competition can be increased (which would also make net neutrality a non-issue, and was my original point).
November 21st, 2017 at 7:08 PM ^
net neutrality = govt. control- this does not end well- i trust the market more than the govt.- this easily leads to censorship then dictatorship
don't kid yourself- 'neutrality' is in the eye of the beholder- who are the refs/
November 21st, 2017 at 8:24 PM ^
The "I trust the market" rhetoric sounds great, but we're not talking about a free market. We're talking about ISPs that are essentially monopolies in each of their respective markets. What you have posted is what ISPs would have us all believe (i.e. NOT allowing ISPs to run their monopolies as such is "govt. control"). That is hardly the case. What net neutrality does is prevent the ISPs from double dipping - they can't charge both the content provider (e.g. Netflix) and the consumer (i.e. you) twice for the same thing.
If you think of the ISP as a railroad, they want to charge the coal mine to deliver the coal to your doorstep and charge you for receiving it. This drives costs up, antithetical to your stated trust in "the market". I don't blame ISPs for wanting to exert their monopolistic practices. I do blame those who choose to inflict the monopoly upon all of us and those who fall too easily prey to their nonsense arguments over bogeyman goverment control.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:32 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:26 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 10:33 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 7:13 AM ^
That's like saying we should ditch the 1st amendment becuase it's government control.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:37 PM ^
This is part of the problem. The internet is not viewed as a utility nor a tool, but a luxury, which is outrageous and will help sink the US to the bottom in the future should this bill be passed.
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:34 PM ^
Utliities have monopolies because it is impossible to run ten sewer systems, ten sets of power lines, ten lilnes of cable, etc.
It's a shitty system because of the requirement for the phyiscal infrastructure. There is not an elegant solution. That is why utilities are heavily regulated.
Far FAR fucking scarier than paying extra for Netlfix is that this is just one component of a concerted effort to control the news that gets to the general population. We are hurdling backwards as a country, and it is sad and scary to see - especially due to the fact that my kids are going to live in the aftermath of the god-awful mess we are making right now.
November 21st, 2017 at 9:47 PM ^
The country is going backward. I remember a time when I could keep my doctor if I liked him.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:24 PM ^
I had to change doctors I liked back in the nineties when I was in Wisconsin. The first time was because my employer changed HMOs; the second time was when I changed employers; and the third time was when I changed employers again (I wound up back at the second HMO).
In Canada I can keep my damn doctor.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:33 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:30 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 3:38 AM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:47 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:50 PM ^
Can you really call that internet?
November 21st, 2017 at 9:53 PM ^
Carrier pigeons don't count as internet.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:15 PM ^
Nice try. It should be a puclic utility. This isn't hard. Our citizens should have the same access to information as the rest. An educated population should come first.
November 21st, 2017 at 8:22 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:56 PM ^
Public utility means much less expensive because you eliminate the need for ever-increasing profits and proper investment is motivted by helping the community rise above others. Case in point: Longmont Colorado just rolled out a public municipal internet service that offers 1000Mbs speed for $49 per month (go ahead, google it!). For-profit ISP's are greedy pigs that fatten themselves in lieu of making adequate infrastructure investment. They want to throttle now because they know they are falling ever further behind with more 4k and other high-bandwidth needs in the pipeline.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:57 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:15 PM ^
If you're interested, this link is a very easy way to contact those in DC that work for you.
November 21st, 2017 at 5:59 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:03 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:07 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:10 PM ^
Sadly in today's world of cronyism, yes it is.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 11:55 PM ^
So next you're going to tell me there's no substantial difference between the government regulating coal mining effluent versus Don Blankenship regulating it.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:11 PM ^
'Instead of government regulation, we will have corporate regulation. Which master do you want?'
govt has the police- i fear them a lot more- and you should too
November 21st, 2017 at 10:03 PM ^
Corporations control the government police. See: Standing Rock.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:09 PM ^
Chattanooga Tennessee said fuck you to the ISPs and now has public owned internet.
Of all places.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:33 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:56 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:45 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:17 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:28 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^
Not going to discuss the public utility thing, however the whole country being wireless is a great point. A lot of the lack of competition for ISPs stems from local monopolies due to infrastructure, easement rights, etc. So in theory removing the need to run wires to certain areas will help everyone. I mean, think how many ISPs are really out there, there's no shortage. It's just a matter of local access.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:37 PM ^
There's a reason they broke up the Bells the first time around and it's high time they did it again.