There's three days left to make your thoughts on Net Neutrality heard.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Big brother = bad.

Therefore, let's rely on big brother to protect the internet.

That's essentially the pro-NN thought process.

That's not it at all. The pro NN idea is that people should be able to get the services they pay for, and that businesses should be free from additional costs. By removing NN we are allowing the ISP's to provide not just connection service, but then to double dip and charge you again for each specific connection.

This could be prevented through competition, but at the ISP level there is no competition in the internet, and it's virtually impossible to create competition due to the billions and possibly trillions in up front spending required. Even megacorps like Google are struggling to add a competing internet service into a handful of selected cities.

There really isn't any good reason to remove existing NN protections.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Big brother = bad.

Therefore, let's rely on big brother to protect the internet.

That's essentially the pro-NN thought process.

That's not it at all. The pro NN idea is that people should be able to get the services they pay for, and that businesses should be free from additional costs. By removing NN we are allowing the ISP's to provide not just connection service, but then to double dip and charge you again for each specific connection.

This could be prevented through competition, but at the ISP level there is no competition in the internet, and it's virtually impossible to create competition due to the billions and possibly trillions in up front spending required. Even megacorps like Google are struggling to add a competing internet service into a handful of selected cities.

There really isn't any good reason to remove existing NN protections.

My point is about who we would have enforce NN, and how easy it would be to abuse by one side or the other.
As for your point, do we really need more legislation when we could simply enforce anti-trust laws?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Big brother = bad.

Therefore, let's rely on big brother to protect the internet.

That's essentially the pro-NN thought process.

That's not it at all. The pro NN idea is that people should be able to get the services they pay for, and that businesses should be free from additional costs. By removing NN we are allowing the ISP's to provide not just connection service, but then to double dip and charge you again for each specific connection.

This could be prevented through competition, but at the ISP level there is no competition in the internet, and it's virtually impossible to create competition due to the billions and possibly trillions in up front spending required. Even megacorps like Google are struggling to add a competing internet service into a handful of selected cities.

There really isn't any good reason to remove existing NN protections.

My point is about who we would have enforce NN, and how easy it would be to abuse by one side or the other.
As for your point, do we really need more legislation when we could simply enforce anti-trust laws?

Anti trust laws can't fix it. The free market isn't capable of fixing the monopoly on internet access, any more than it can fix the monopoly on telephone lines or water pipes. In the best case scenario it requires duplicating our already existing infrastructure. In the worst case scenario it hinders progress, and is impossible because it would require billions in outside funding.

Do remember that our current internet backbone was built with federal money, and then freely given to the ISP's as long as they agreed to maintain and upgrade it (which they haven't done, but that's besides the point).

Net Neutrality is easy to enforce because we're already doing it. Leaving it in place is the status quo. There's no additional legislation being passed. It's the literal "government should just back off and do nothing more" approach. In this case, being anti Net Neutrality is the position of repealing something and creating hundreds and thousands of smaller laws in it's place. It's like turning Glass-Steagall into Dodd-Frank.

Also:

There's 1 day and 2 hours left. If you care about Net Neutrality, and you should... then go fill things out. I realize putting your actual information onto a government website is a hard sell. But consider this, if you don't fill the comment form out, you're empowering your ISP to fill the comment form out in your name, and make it say whatever they want rather than what you want.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Who benefits most from a non-neutral internet? Companies who already offer sub par and over expensive internet connections, poor customer service, and who sell ones data to anyone who wants it, whenever they can get away with it. If you back that, if you want the internet to be just another extension of the corporatist agenda, then you are welcome to have that... FOR YOU ALONE!

You do not have the right to make that choice on behalf of others. I do not want a two tier internet, where traffic from one site is prioritised over traffic from another, purely because one sender has more money and lawyers than another sender. The internet is an equaliser in its current form. Understand, net neutrality is what we have now, and it works. At present traffic from me to you on this site of only a few hundred thousand members, is given the same priority as traffic through Facebook, through Twitter, through any of the big corporations sites. This is how it must remain.

In a non-neutral internet model however, traffic from large corporate sites will be given priority over traffic to smaller concerns, like this one, and concerns smaller than this will be next to unable to operate in the slightest. Google (a corporation) is already controlling what winds up at the top of search results, either burying or omitting results which do not please it for whatever reason. This habitual suppression of lesser sites by policy on the part of major corporations, is already happening. It will not improve matters to give companies control of what data gets priority in terms of sending and receiving at the level of the individual data packet, and I cannot believe that we are even having to discuss this, such is the obviousness of the truth.

The government, no matter where in the world you are, is not to be trusted implicitly. This is not new information to me. But the answer to that is not to place control over packet speed in the hands of those who want to make the free and equal internet, anything less or different than it is today, purely to drive up their already over inflated profits.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Who benefits most from a non-neutral internet? Companies who already offer sub par and over expensive internet connections, poor customer service, and who sell ones data to anyone who wants it, whenever they can get away with it. If you back that, if you want the internet to be just another extension of the corporatist agenda, then you are welcome to have that... FOR YOU ALONE!

This is still happening.

Has Comcast become better in any way?
AT&T?

You do not have the right to make that choice on behalf of others. I do not want a two tier internet, where traffic from one site is prioritised over traffic from another, purely because one sender has more money and lawyers than another sender. The internet is an equaliser in its current form. Understand, net neutrality is what we have now, and it works. At present traffic from me to you on this site of only a few hundred thousand members, is given the same priority as traffic through Facebook, through Twitter, through any of the big corporations sites. This is how it must remain.

And neither do you.

Lets break down my original post.

Big brother = Bad
Therefore, let's rely on big brother to protect the internet.

Monopolies are bad, so we would trust the government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn't work, that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down, and that spends far more than what private industry spends to go to space.

How can we trust NN hasn't made it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If we look to Obamacare, we see that the insurance companies had a hand in writing it, to the benefit of themselves. Why would it be any different with NN?

You want privacy, so your going to trust that the government won't spy on you, even though its been proven many times over now that it does. Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. If the government says it needs to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign manner?

The government, no matter where in the world you are, is not to be trusted implicitly. This is not new information to me. But the answer to that is not to place control over packet speed in the hands of those who want to make the free and equal internet, anything less or different than it is today, purely to drive up their already over inflated profits.

There is a reason that Google backs net neutrality. Someone in a garage could put them out of business. Of course, Google became an opponent of net neutrality when it came to GoogleFiber, which the government conveniently neglected to make subject to net neutrality.

You are basically asking for the creation of monopolies, through subsidized prices, which is the very thing you hope NN destroys.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The issue you're most going to run into with Net Neutrality is that from the customers perspective right now, a non neutral internet is a good thing. You have to actually understand the issues to know why this is bad.

Remember, all the isp's currently offer data free usage of their private streaming services. Customers love this, and it goes against the idea of net neutrality. The next step is to slow down the streaming providers that aren't on their network, but the ordinary person can't think that far ahead.

It's not actually about two tier, it's about dividing up websites like they do tv stations.

PS: There's 7 hours left to leave a comment. Currently, 98.5% of unique, verified comments are in favor of net neutrality. Add some more, because Ajit Pai cannot remove net neutrality unless they can prove in court that the people support that measure. Every voice matters.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Removing net neutrality gives the ISP's which are already monopolies, even more power. Specifically, it gives them the power to choose what websites you can visit, and give you packages with your internet. Rather than speed tiers you'll pay for Brietbart+Fox+Drudge+Gab+Myspace vs CNN+MSNBC+Huffington Post+Facebook+Twitter.

And then after you pay for it, you'll still pay for the speed at which you get it.

It will in effect, turn every website in the US to a subscription model.

You will pay three times to visit every single website.

You will pay a subscription fee, which goes to the website, and then to the ISP to make the website accessible to connect to on the providers end.
You will pay a package fee to allow you to connect to the website on the consumer end.
You will pay a speed tier fee that determines how fast that connection you've already paid for on each end, can run at.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Removing net neutrality gives the ISP's which are already monopolies, even more power. Specifically, it gives them the power to choose what websites you can visit, and give you packages with your internet. Rather than speed tiers you'll pay for Brietbart+Fox+Drudge+Gab+Myspace vs CNN+MSNBC+Huffington Post+Facebook+Twitter.

And then after you pay for it, you'll still pay for the speed at which you get it.

It will in effect, turn every website in the US to a subscription model.

You will pay three times to visit every single website.

You will pay a subscription fee, which goes to the website, and then to the ISP to make the website accessible to connect to on the providers end.
You will pay a package fee to allow you to connect to the website on the consumer end.
You will pay a speed tier fee that determines how fast that connection you've already paid for on each end, can run at.

There's no sense in arguing, as you guys are too focused on now to worry about the future ramifications. My original post still stands, because congress can be lobbied for loopholes in any NN legislation.

We've had it already. Has Comcast or any others become better for it?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

We've had it already. Has Comcast or any others become better for it?

They have actually, because Netflix was able to take them to court over throttling their speeds, something Comcast, Verizon, and the rest would have gotten away with without net neutrality.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

We've had it already. Has Comcast or any others become better for it?

They have actually, because Netflix was able to take them to court over throttling their speeds, something Comcast, Verizon, and the rest would have gotten away with without net neutrality.

Yes, and so they turned to data caps.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Yes, and so they turned to data caps.

More. They turned to data caps, but they also turned to offering their own competing streaming services... and then on mobile networks, not counting streaming from their own service against your data cap.

This is where the real argument exists in my opinion, because customers love having a service that doesn't count against their cap, while being totally oblivious that they're paying more for it, and that it's a very anti competitive behavior.

a reply to: Aazadan

“Broadband providers should not block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services. Far from new, this has been a foundational principle of the FCC’s approach to net neutrality for over a decade. Providers of online goods and services need assurance that they will be able to reliably reach their customers without interference from the underlying broadband provider,

Paid fast lanes could replace today’s content-neutral transmission of internet traffic with differential treatment of content based on an online providers’ ability or willingness to pay. The result would be an internet with distorted competition where online providers are driven to reach deals with broadband providers or risk being stuck in the slow lane and losing customers due to lower quality service,

Apple defends the open internet in a letter to the FCC.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Makes sense, removing Net Neutrality harms all content providers unless said provider also runs a major ISP.