I feel like this is one rare issue that may temporarily unite people across political lines. Regardless of political parties, we'd allllll be totally and royally screwed by this.
@JakobJeanCiccone, We can only hope...
@JakobJeanCiccone, Like the end of the drop boxes
@JakobJeanCiccone, yea like I don't even see why this is still a thing if everybody hates it
@addibruh, here's what it boils down to: politicians love having more power. If they have a way to get more power, they will take it in any form. The power of total censorship has always been out of their grasp, but now it's there. Website saying something bad about you? Block it. Someone wanting to return net neutrality? Block their internet access entirely.
@tiburon, it's going to force people onto the dark web, which they will then implement legislature to make illegal altogether, which shouldn't be that hard considering some of the shït that's on the dark web.
People are saying this is America's problem and doesn't affect the rest of the world. A lot of posts about this are being deleted from subreddits because the mods deem it to be irrelevant.
I just wanna say one thing to anyone that doesn't think this affects them because they don't live in America.
If America falls, so soon will the rest of the world. Not to mention most of your favorite content providers are likely American based, and will suffer immediate consequences.
If there's something you can do, then do it. I'm Australian, and I sent my email to America's Congress.
Look into net neutrality. Im not an expert on it, but it doesn't seem to be the best honestly, all websites get even priority speed. That means even the most fringe and idiotically low traffic sites get equal attention, while high traffic sites get less priority than they would otherwise have. I'm not an expert on it, and perhaps im looking at it wrong but it sounds like internet equivalent socialism.
@StiffWood, Yes and no. There is no 'lower' priority since everything is at the highest priority companies care to give at the moment. Secondly, I guess you could call it internet socialism but the thing is 'idiotic/fringe' sites can range from 4chan to the start of Facebook before it became the next big thing. That is where the issue lies, Net Neutrality is the online form of Fair Competition laws that prevent monopolies so new and wonderful sites can rise up, like Kickstarter or Patreon or whatever the next big 'fringe' site is.
P.S Edit - The capacity to reach everyone does not equal automatically reaching everyone, it just means if you want to get on the train and people want to have you on it, you can.
@TheCruzanator, when i said idiotic, i said idiotically low traffic. I believe sites that accrue more traffic should get more priority. Like a shrek fantasy site should not get the same speed and attention as youtube. Simply because the shrek site will have waaay lower traffic than youtube. Steben crowder did a video on net neutrality which kind of sheds light on the other side of it. Its an interesting watch
@StiffWood, if it is a pure (read no external influence) form of more visitors=more resources with the baseline NOT equalling dial-up (because that would still stifle new great content) then I would be fine with that. It is fair game which is the purpose of Net Neutrality, fair game and no monopoly/conflict of interest.
Oh, boy, more propaganda for terrified idiots.
@Doctor Krieger, companies like Comcast already screw people over on a regular basis and there have been half a dozen cases of companies trying to subvert net neutrality already. I'm really not sure what part of this you aren't getting.
@I Are Lebo, because things were fine before 2015, and handing to government controo over a huge portion of people's lives is almost always a bad idea. I'm not really sure what part of this you aren't getting.
@Captain Swordsman, who do you want to control the internet? People who have regional monopolies and who’s only goal is to increase profit? Or people who have to please constituents?
@Captain Swordsman, net neutrality is not about handing the internet over to government control, it's about not allowing corporations to seize that control from the people.
@Captain Swordsman, also, just so you know, net neutrality may have only been made legislation in 2015, but it has existed and has been defended and attacked since the 90s, so I'm not sure how you are thinking that companies simply wouldn't take advantage of such a blatant legal loophole.
They tried before, some still try even with the legislation.
@I Are Lebo, and what happened when they tried? Did the governments giant mech robot fight Comcast's giant mech robot? I feel like there is a major misunderstanding of basic market principles. An ISP, or any company's, goal is to generate revenue or increase stock price. Neither of these goals are achieved by abusing customers. We just had a huge example of uproar changing the strategy of a company, EA. There are already market forces to correct any potential abuse from an ISP. NN has a net negative effect on our internet, the only positive one is a hypothetical.
@Doctor Krieger, Educate yourself you ignoramus - https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
Some highlights - The principle that protects free speech and innovation online is irrelevant, they claim, as blocking has never, ever happened. And if it did, they add, market forces would compel internet service providers to correct course and reopen their networks.
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.
And so on.
@NotCaveJohnson, Wrong. See above comment (minus ignoramus because you didn't immediately resort to calling others daft).
@Captain Swordsman, Also wrong, see above comment.
@TheCruzanator, AT&T and apple are well within their rights to make that type of arrangement. Even if it is what our people would call a "dick move". Market forces aren't instantaneous and I'm skeptical of whatever pressure the FCC was able to apply to both those companies to cause them to change.
Windstream is also within their rights to do that. Also a dick move,and as a result poeple loose confidence in the search engine or the platform and stop using it... Market forces.
The real crux of the argument is that you do not have a right to dictate how a company runs it's business. If you think it's unethical shop somewhere else, if you can't shop somewhere else then that seems like a pretty good market opportunity for a competitor. You don't have a right, none of us do. They are free to use their resources as they see fit, as are you. If they abuse their resources and customers they lose revenue and stock price and the market corrects the behavior. NN is not necessary and unethical.
@NotCaveJohnson, Wrong agaaaain. You have many good points but you are ignoring 2 critical things. The first being a market stranglehold which occurs. Many times competitors cannot enter the market due to these contracts which create pseudo-monopolies. And what does the US have federal laws on? Monopolies. So it is assuredly NOT within their rights, they simply want people to *think* that. Secondly as applies to capitalism it would benefit all parties to not waste time on terrible business decisions, as these Net Neutrality rules stop them before money needs to be wasted on reverting them. As such, it is ethical, capitalistically sound, and right in the spirit of current laws.
@NotCaveJohnson, Oh and the impact would be the same as telecommunications, which sits in the same set of market pseudo-monopoly. They are forced to have a baseline in order to avoid monetary destruction. The same also applies to power companies that either own or 'rent' the power grids from the governments. The positives are all around you. You just have to look.
@NotCaveJohnson, no, there are market forces to respond to abuse, not to correct it. No one can force EA to not screw their customers over, and there are large areas that are only covered by one internet service provider, because the laws regarding monopolies have enormous loopholes. Comcast already regularly screws over their customers in areas where they don't have any competitors, and as the market shifts more and more into streaming services from cable TV, these companies will have very strong incentives to obfuscate access to their competitors sites. With the removal of net neutrality they'd be stupid NOT to intentionally charge more or slow down access to their competitors, especially when their competitors offer a better service.
On top of that, censorship of content WILL become an issue, because once again, your only tool will be to complain or switch your services, which if they feel strongly about a certain topic will not change jack shït.
@NotCaveJohnson, furthermore, companies do not have the right to use their service to restrict access to other companies products, which as the above comment by TheCruzanator points out, companies already try.
This would be like if everyone had to use taxis to get around, and the taxi company wants to implement legislation saying that the taxis can refuse to take you certain places. Sure, you can go to a different taxi company to go to McDonald's, but if the only taxi company near you refuses to go to McDonald's, you're screwed over. You having to start your own taxi company just to get to the places you want to go is not a reasonable solution to a problem that does not need to exist in the first place.
@TheCruzanator, I don't disagree that regulation has positive aspects. But I argue that those positives are not exclusive to it. A free market has those benefits as well. I mean a real free market. Market strongholds aren't permanent once established, traditionally the only reason they can persist is by continuing to provide a beneficial service at a rational price or by lobbying the government to bar out future competitors. But eventually an abusive Monopoly dissolves and gets over thrown by disruptive innovations. Like ride sharing services to regulated taxi services.
It would only benefit all parties in the immediate short term. Long term it stifles the industry. It restricts opportunity for innovation by removing the profit motive of disruptive technologies. NN is a quick way to a slow moving stagnant industry. It's unethical because... I'm on a plane right now, I'll tell you in 3 hours.
@NotCaveJohnson, seriously? Really truly, seriously? "I'll answer your comment, but not by actually answering it"
Give one single example of how net neutrality stifles the internet. NN allows for amateur porn or streaming services to make money, it allows sites like Patreon and Kickstarter easy access to crowdfunding, it allows sites like YouTube and Twitch to monetize, it allows social media sites like Facebook to have advertisements and make money that way, and it allows anyone to host any site on any topic
That is the exact opposite of stifling. The removal of net neutrality is the source of suppression. Going back to the taxi analogy, this would be like legislature being implemented where the taxi drivers are not only being allowed to dictate where you can and can not go, but they can also dictate how much uber costs and whether you have access to it at all
The companies who own the radio towers want the power to dictate how the data is used. This is a VERY bad thing for freedom
@NotCaveJohnson, But the market forces can’t act when those forces have no other options. These ISPs have colluded to cut up the country into territories where there’s only one or two options so that way the market can’t protest them with an alternative. So now they want to get rid of NN so that way they can throttle and fvck with internet speeds all they like without being threatened by market protests cause nobody has any other option.
@Captain Swordsman, who fed you that garbage?
@Proactive Citizenry , net neutrality is a scam. Seriously just look it up instead of believing everything but the comment section on a distracting pixel collection app tells you.
@NotCaveJohnson, afraid you're talking nonesense, friend. The end of Net Neutrality is the end of the Internet as we know it. It benefits no one but the corporations.
@Captain Swordsman, we are backing up our arguments with data and real world examples. You are not.
Educate yourself instead of spewing ignorance.
@I Are Lebo, wait what? You're backing up your argument with data and real world examples? Cause all I've seen sp far is rhetoric and hypotheticals. Where is this supposed "data" I'm not seeing here? And by the way, I did educate myself. You should try it yourself sometime.
@Captain Swordsman, look at TheCruzanator's comment, showing companies abusing their customers by blocking access to apps that compete with their own versions.
If you shut your eyes and plug your ears, you won't see the evidence. So don't ignore the evidence and blame us for not providing any.
Net neutrality prevents wholesale abuse of powers.
Furthermore, you yourself have provided no evidence, so stop being a hypocrite.
@I Are Lebo, NN prevents companies from responding to predictably high traffic. Like the Superbowl, or New year's, or other major events that have specific sites that have higher traffic. No fast lanes with NN. When your mother's Etsy page has the same access to the internet as Facebook and Instagram despite the orders of magnitude discrepancy in user traffic the internet is crippled by NN. NN prevents accommodation of user needs and traffic. Equal access, all the time, no exceptions, even when it is to the detriment of the customer.
The internet is not a right. You're not entitled to any of it. It doesn't matter how dependent we've become. It's an amazing tool that has allowed humans to make tremendous advancements but it's still a privilege.
@NotCaveJohnson, first and foremost, that's entirely factually incorrect. The speed and connection strength of a particular site depends on the strength and maintenance of the server that the site is hosted on. The internet as a whole is not hosted on one big console. That's why one site can go down without it taking the entirety of the internet down.
Secondly, these companies that are attempting to restrict access to the internet DO NOT OWN THE INTERNET. The internet is a global resource consisting of trillions of different sites hosted and owned by different people. Internet Service Providers are not selling you the internet, they are selling you access. It is entirely okay for the ISPs to restrict the amount of megabytes of data you are able to access through their platform, charging additional money for the privilege, not right, to access it more.
The removal or keeping of net neutrality doesn't change that. What it DOES change is makes it legal for these providers to charge more
based not on the amount of this resource that you consume, but the manner in which you consume it. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. This is clear cut abuse of power.
The removal of Net Neutrality opens the door to wholesale abuse by allowing your internet service provider to declare literally any site they wish to be off limits, and they have arranged things so that many, many people will not have an alternative. It is not about the addition of 'fast lanes', it's about adding paywalls to services that do not cost extra money to access.
The end of Net Neutrality is the end of the Information Age.
@I Are Lebo, ISPs control bandwidth, that is the service they provide. NN prevent bandwidth from becoming a bottleneck in some case while also preventing the bottleneck from being opened up to accommodate simultaneous requests.ie High user traffic.
There are services that allow you to access a network through LTE from a number of cellular carriers.ISPs don't own the internet, your right, they provide the service of quick convenient access. You don't have the right to dictate the terms, only the right to consent or not to the terms. If you want to use the government as leverage by the threat of force you are being unethical.
The information age is not in jepordy. Paywalls can be easily circumnavigated with VPN tunneling and other tools. Information flows too freely for it to be hidden behind paywalls. It would be a laughable tactic not worth engaging in,and if it does happen it will be circumnavigated.
@NotCaveJohnson, please, enlighten me. If Comcast releases their own streaming site and then blocks access to Netflix or Hulu to their customers, how exactly will they get around that?
@I Are Lebo, a few options... VPN tunneling (but Netflix and Comcast could potentially catch this), use cellular data, in the case of Netflix you can download things to watch later on your mobile device and display it on your TV (I watched DeathNote in Europe by doing this because it wasn't available), and most importantly jump on the first opportunity to drop Comcast and use an ISP that's not barring you from the services you want. You'll have the money you save from not using Comcast to potentially pay for a data plan that would accommodate your usage. Ultimately I think that Comcast would lose more revenue from loosing customers than they would gain from their streaming services profits. Plus content from hulu and Netflix is available in hard copies as well.
@NotCaveJohnson, I'm sorry to put this so bluntly and rudely, but what you just said is retarded.
Expecting the average consumer to have such in depth knowledge of the workings of the internet to know how to perform VPN tunnelling, or expecting people to use cellular data to avoid the fact that their ISP has declared that they have the right to determine what content we as consumers are allowed to peruse is not a reasonable attitude in any way shape or form.
The short answer is that if net neutrality is revoked it will be a disaster for consumers AND for small business owners, and if you can't pull your head far enough out of your ass to figure this out, then there's no benefit in discussing this further.
Legislation like this has been shut down five times already, and with good cause.
@NotCaveJohnson, also just so you know, the logic of your argument regarding ways to get around this, is absolutely no different than telling gun owners that if firearms were outlawed, they can still buy guns off the black market. The argument has no leg to stand on. You should not establish laws that you will have to sneak around on a regular basis.
@I Are Lebo, this Thanksgiving do yourself a favor and ask how many of your relatives know what the hell a Kodi box is. You underestimate the useless knowledge people are willing to aquire just so they can catch an episode or game of thrones.
@NotCaveJohnson, this is entirely irrelevant. The existence of devices that can allow these harmful practices to be sidestepped are not a reason to allow harmful, manipulative legislature to be passed. This would be like telling Xbox fans that they will implement the DMC, but that's okay because they can just jailbreak their console to disable it. Nevermind the fact that getting caught illegally downloading your tv after this legislature passes means you can face criminal charges. Nevermind the fact that you're just flat out assuming the technical capabilities of total strangers.
I've personally never heard of a Kodi box, and I know a lot of people on the internet that aren't capable of so much as downloading a proper anti virus software.
There is no benefit to the public to repeal net neutrality, and MANY reasons not to. Trump is being his usual self and is being a scumbag to the general public to help the 1%ers.
How are you seriously this blind? Are you just trolling me? Honestly!
@I Are Lebo,
Calm your tits. I am saying there are market pressures to prevent abuse from being a permanent fixture. That loosing customers is incentive for ISPs to not be dicks, and when they are they lose. We all lose. That greed as a motive, from a rational perspective, produces the same benefits as net neutrality without the negatives of restricting the rational allocation of resources. ISPs have a lot of leverage right now. That is subject to change, it always is.
the harmful and unethical legislation was NN. It should have never been placed in the first place because now big companies can lobby the government to get special treatment and block out competitors.
Don't play identity politics. I don't care if the rational and ethical course of action benefits assholes, it's still the rational and ethical course of action that should be taken.
@I Are Lebo, You don't have a right to dictate how a company runs it's business.
@NotCaveJohnson, you very clearly do not understand what net neutrality is. NN is that pressure that prevents companies from abusing their customers over the internet. The lack of net neutrality will ALLOW big companies to block out their competitors, it won't prevent it.
And most importantly companies don't have the right to dictate how we spend our free time, which the removal of net neutrality will allow them to do!
You are being intentionally ignorant, and there's nothing I can do about that. I'm done with you.
@I Are Lebo, haha. "How we spend our free time?" What are you on about.
Every article I read about net neutrality is soaked in pathos that it's nauseating. When I hear a rational argument that doesn't make the appeal to stop the greedy ISPs from making more money then I'll respect the argument. As if spitting on costumers translates to a scrooge McDuck vault of coins. ISPs want to make money, happy customers means more customers means more money. Let me simplify this:
Appeasing customers = Scrooge McDuck
Abusing customers = :(
@NotCaveJohnson, what part of "without net neutrality ISPs can and will block the sites of competitors" isn't getting through to you! This isn't a highpothetical, companies are already trying to do that!
You're with Rogers and you want to watch Netflix? Well guess what, Rogers customers have every streaming service except Crave blocked! You want access anyway? Well too bad switch providers. You don't have another covering your home area? Oh well, too bad so sad.
The other possibility is the ISP raising price to add back stuff they are only legally allowed to remove because of the end of net neutrality. Oh, you want to use Gmail on your iPhone instead of apple mail? Well, that requires a subscription service to apple to allow that.
This is the troll on the bridge demanding a toll every time you pass. We can either pay the troll, or we can keep that fücker under the bridge where he belongs. You are choosing to pay the troll and hope he lets you through.
@I Are Lebo,First and most importantly you don't have a right to dictate how a business runs. Using the government to use force against a business as leverage is unethical. Secondly, for your Rogers example, you are myopic to think that Rogers would continue to be the only ISP in the area. No wait your right, they'll be snorting coke off of strippers asses and making it rain till the sun burns out before a competitor enters the market. Who will bring relief to those poor people? Maybe Sally Struthers will get out there to collect bootleg Netflix shows for just a few quarters a day. Give me a break.
Keep using the government as a bully for hire and I'll keep telling you you're unethical. These businesses have a right to raise prices to whatever they want, they can price themselves to the point that no literally one can afford them and they'd still be within their rights. In the same way I can't dictate who you let in your house, how much you charge tenants, etc...
@NotCaveJohnson, when the company is trying to limit my freedoms you're goddamn right I have a right to interfere. This is my last response, this is ridiculous.
I have already, personally, and many of the people I know have experienced this, been shafted by Rogers because they were the only service provider. This is a common trend in the USA and Canada, enough so that are MANY memes and television references to cable companies being enormous douches because their customers don't have an alternative. For you to be blind to this requires conscious effort. Do you recall the South Park episode where the Comcast representatives would openly finger their nipples as the customers complained?
Most companies don't give a shït what people say or think, they only care about profits. The idea of "let them run their business how they see fit" has led to a planet massively polluted, harmful chemicals in the food we give to our children, and a populace unhealthier than ever.
My point all comes to:
If you trust corporate leaders to act in the best interest of all of us without laws forcing them to do so, then you are a fücking moron.
@NotCaveJohnson, my guy here believes in straight laissez-faire capitalism, screw everything Theodore Roosevelt believed in right?
@I Are Lebo, I do remember that episode. Sometimes markets don't have many options. If you trust the government to do the same for you it doesn't make you fair much better. I trust companies and politicians to act for their own interests. Not mine.
You'd have to define what you mean by limiting freedom. Like your home impedes my freedom to walk where your house is. It doesn't give me the right to knock it down. The existence of something that is, intentionally or not, impeding you from something else does not give you the right to interfere by itself. You'd have to establish it as something you're entitled to. Apple impedes my ability to use headphones without a dongle, the jack should be required on all cellphones.
@EVILdrPORKCHOP3, do you mean FDR?
@NotCaveJohnson, no... I'm talking about the trust buster who broke us away from the world of monopolies that stifled and decimated all sectors of the market.
@EVILdrPORKCHOP3, by all means, please take the baton from me. I can't get through to him.
@I Are Lebo, @NotCaveJohnson your debate has been very informative. I appreciate being able to see both sides of the argument laid out like this with only minimal insults. Thanks, both of you for arguing on the internet like adults.
@Mistosa, I genuinely am working on that. It's fairly difficult for me to keep my temper, but it's important. In addition to the fact that allowing myself to feel that angry is just a thoroughly unpleasant experience, I find that there is a direct, inverse relationship between the amount of times you swear or insult your counter, and how likely you are to be taken seriously. The ideal is of course to not insult or swear at all.
I'm not there yet, but I'm closer than I used to be.
@Doctor Krieger, don't mind me; just stopping by to downvote Cüntain Swordcünts comments.
Net neutrality can suck a big one
Buckle up folks, next stop ads in your dreams.