Bill to repeal Net Neutrality

[Myles]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

 

You have few options because government regulation has stifled competition. 

It was the same before.  There isn't enough people to warrAnt more choices.

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Myles said:

It was the same before.  There isn't enough people to warrAnt more choices.

Since much of it is wireless now you should have more choice right now.

[PersonFromPorlock]

You can escape one ISP for another; escaping the government is a little harder.

[Tatetopa]

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

I'm thinking that eliminating regulations will enable more competition between providers, does anyone believe that having less competition in the marketplace leads to lower prices and better service?

Regulations are often there to keep giants from stomping on the rest of us. Just as easily, the colossal companies could shoulder out the big companies, the medium providers and the little ones, and make the barrier to entry even  larger.  Innovations and improvements do not always come from the larger established companies, more often from smaller hungrier newcomers.  Service does not necessarily become cheaper.   Here is a nightmare for you:  what if the mainstream media conspiracy liberal types become your isp provider?  Right now they just sell you a service.  In the future, they could cut off all the sites that are counter to their beliefs or charge you $200 dollars a month to access them.  Of course conservative types could do the same, just depends on where you live I guess and who gets to control your internet.  Maybe I am just paranoid, but it gives me the creeps a little bit.  A step closer to big brother and Chinese type controlled internet.  

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Exactly, that's what people fail to see.  ISP's that do the stupid things that we are told would happen would be crushed by companies that offered consumers what they want.  The current net neutrality rules prevent innovative competition, which is to the advantage of the big rich powerful companies.  For some reason people think it's the opposite of what it is.

Why does the current system prevent innovative competition?  

OK I am ignorant of this point.  If comcast owns the lines coming into your house, can they not control who you can choose as an isp?

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

What your worrying about doesn't make any sense to anyone but a conspiracy theorist who worries that the world is coming to an end and big corporations are working with the government  to put us all in George Orwells 1984/

I hate to say it, but nailed me!  I don't think the world is coming to an end,  I just don't trust mega government or mega corporations whether they conspire or not.

[GlitterRose]

They just keep going after that over and over again.

Geez.

[Gromdor]

It is annoying to have your service provider slow down your internet because of traffic volume and then turn around and deny it, while charging you full rate.  Getting rid of the Net Neutrality law will let them do it again.  Being a college town, we had this issue quite a bit a decade or so ago when before they first made the law.  Fixing the infrastructure and putting in fiber optics solved some of the congestion issues, but if you are going to charge someone for a service, you really should provide it.  The lying about it part, just because it is an "invisible" service is the worst part.  Did they really think that engineering students at a college town wouldn't be able to track the speed and catch them on it?

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Regulations are often there to keep giants from stomping on the rest of us.

We have regulations in place to (supposedly) prevent that already.  What so called net neutrality does is ensure the big providers don't have to worry about their profits fluctuating much due to market place competition.

 

I would like to recommend everyone to look into free market economics so they can better understand how government interference in the market is actually making things worse for small businesses and consumers and better for giant corporations.  a good place to hear some pretty basic knowledge would be to watch youtube videos featuring people like Milton Freidman and Thomas Sowell.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It is annoying to have your service provider slow down your internet because of traffic volume and then turn around and deny it, while charging you full rate.  Getting rid of the Net Neutrality law will let them do it again.  Being a college town, we had this issue quite a bit a decade or so ago when before they first made the law.  Fixing the infrastructure and putting in fiber optics solved some of the congestion issues, but if you are going to charge someone for a service, you really should provide it.  The lying about it part, just because it is an "invisible" service is the worst part.  Did they really think that engineering students at a college town wouldn't be able to track the speed and catch them on it?

Lying about service is not legal regardless of net neutrality.  Fixing rates kills innovation and competition.

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Lying about service is not legal regardless of net neutrality.  Fixing rates kills innovation and competition.

Apparently it will be again.  One of the big side effects of getting rid of the net neutrality law will be legally allowing them to manipulate internet speeds.  When people call the customer assistance rep, I am certain they will say the same scripted response as they did in the past. (Lie)

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Apparently it will be again.  One of the big side effects of getting rid of the net neutrality law will be legally allowing them to manipulate internet speeds.  When people call the customer assistance rep, I am certain they will say the same scripted response as they did in the past. (Lie)

Misrepresenting a product is illegal.  Look it up.  We don't need more laws to protect us from that which is already illegal.

Edited November 22, 2017 by OverSword

[Gromdor]

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Misrepresenting a product is illegal.  Look it up.  We don't need more laws to protect us from that which is already illegal.

There were no criminal charges in the past, why would there be criminal charges in the future?  Especially if we change to law to give them an arguable loophole.

I would be all with you, if what you said was true.  But in light of all the unpunished crookedness in the past, why should I make it easier for their lawyers to help them rip me off?  After witnessing things like the Wells Fargo stuff, I am extremely skeptical that justice will ever prevail over profit.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

There were no criminal charges in the past, why would there be criminal charges in the future?  Especially if we change to law to give them an arguable loophole.

I would be all with you, if what you said was true.  But in light of all the unpunished crookedness in the past, why should I make it easier for their lawyers to help them rip me off?  After witnessing things like the Wells Fargo stuff, I am extremely skeptical that justice will ever prevail over profit.

No there have not been criminal charges but they have been required to refund money when charging people too much.  If you think having to take money out of their pockets and refund it isn't punishment to peoples who's careers revolve around a quarterly profit cycle then think again.  It's devastating and costs people jobs.

[Gromdor]

I guess another way of looking at this is like this:  Suppose the Internet Service Providers were CNN, MSN, NBC, and Fox News.  Do you think they would throttle stuff for market share or to further media control?

[Gromdor]

Just now, OverSword said:

No there have not been criminal charges but they have been required to refund money when charging people too much.  If you think having to take money out of their pockets and refund it isn't punishment to peoples who's careers revolve around a quarterly profit cycle then think again.  It's devastating and costs people jobs.

Only to those who had the money and means to prove in a court of law that they were being deceived.  Most of the college kids didn't have the time or money to pursue a court case for the 10$ or so they were being ripped off each month.  Multiply that by the hundred of thousands and you can see how the practice would be profitable for a company to do with little risk.

[+OverSword]

16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Only to those who had the money and means to prove in a court of law that they were being deceived.  Most of the college kids didn't have the time or money to pursue a court case for the 10$ or so they were being ripped off each month.  Multiply that by the hundred of thousands and you can see how the practice would be profitable for a company to do with little risk.

Okay, so lets just keep using the same system in which there is little competition and keep the big rich companies in charge rather than create an environment in which they may have to offer better deals to consumers

[Gromdor]

45 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Okay, so lets just keep using the same system in which there is little competition and keep the big rich companies in charge rather than create an environment in which they may have to offer better deals to consumers

If big companies want this change (which they do), you can be certain it isn't going to help competition and better deals to consumers.  I can look back on past experience to see that this current system is better for the consumers.

Regardless of what I think though, the law will be removed and we will be able to see for ourselves.  In this confusion filled administration, one thing is certain-  profit will always be chosen over people or the environment.  

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

If big companies want this change (which they do), you can be certain it isn't going to help competition and better deals to consumers.  I can look back on past experience to see that this current system is better for the consumers.

Regardless of what I think though, the law will be removed and we will be able to see for ourselves.  In this confusion filled administration, one thing is certain-  profit will always be chosen over people or the environment.  

So this current so called net neutrality has been in effect since 2015.  Are you recalling what hell we were experiencing prior to that?  All of the slow connections, being denied viewing of websites that weren't owned by your provider, faster connections for services owned by your provider?  I must have a bad memory because I have totally blocked all of those shenanigans that my ISP was pulling.  The only companies I recall pulling crap like that are cable companies, because they basically had monopolies on your television, a monopoly created by government regulation as it so happens.

Edited November 22, 2017 by OverSword

[AnchorSteam]

19 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Google uses new algorithms to censor or silence alternative voices. YouTube prevents them from monetizing their clips if they don't outright ban them like they did with the Doctor Of Common Sense. They pulled these stunts back in the '90s after Rush Limbaugh changed the game. They still want that information monopoly that they once had.

Yes, that's about it in a nutshell.

The beauty of the Internet is the free exchange of ideas.

You cannot make something more free by regulating it. As is usually the case, the name of this order means the opposite of what it does, and everyone knows it.  However, there will always be people who are suspicious and envious of hateful towards other people, and turn to the vast impersonal god-figure of Government to protect them and deal with all those horrible scary people out there.

... by trusting the most corrupt people in the world; Government types. 

Relax people, the internet isn't gonna bite you unless you spend too much time staring at this damn screen. 

Get a life, get some perspective, and lets your eyes rest on something real once in a while. 

This stuff, its' all just fluff.

[Tiggs]

29 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So this current so called net neutrality has been in effect since 2015.  Are you recalling what hell we were experiencing prior to that?  All of the slow connections, being denied viewing of websites that weren't owned by your provider, faster connections for services owned by your provider?  I must have a bad memory because I have totally blocked all of those shenanigans that my ISP was pulling. 

Guess you weren't trying to watch Netflix on Comcast, then.
 

[+OverSword]

24 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Guess you weren't trying to watch Netflix on Comcast, then.
 

The cable company given free reign to act as a monopoly by government regulation?  No, I wasn't.

[Paranormal Panther]

3 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Yes, that's about it in a nutshell.

The beauty of the Internet is the free exchange of ideas.

You cannot make something more free by regulating it. As is usually the case, the name of this order means the opposite of what it does, and everyone knows it.  However, there will always be people who are suspicious and envious of hateful towards other people, and turn to the vast impersonal god-figure of Government to protect them and deal with all those horrible scary people out there.

... by trusting the most corrupt people in the world; Government types. 

Relax people, the internet isn't gonna bite you unless you spend too much time staring at this damn screen. 

Get a life, get some perspective, and lets your eyes rest on something real once in a while. 

This stuff, its' all just fluff.

Those laws' names would make George Orwell blush. Just look at the Liberty Act and the Patriot Act for two examples of misnomers. "They keep us safe in these times when we must exchange some freedom for some security, and you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." They'll find any excuse to gain more control.

[AnchorSteam]

9 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

... They'll find any excuse to gain more control.

Creatures like that have always been around, everywhere. The problem today is, people used to be better educated and able to blow those swine and their dogma away with simple truths dating back to ancient Greece.

How the hell did the people accept such a shoddy education system, where in spite of spending more money per student ever year, the results have continuously become worse for over half a century? 

Perhaps because the media has been controlled by the same sort of shysters. 

Thank goodness people are seeing through that evil crap, at last.

[ExpandMyMind]

Right for all to access the internet is ‘non-negotiable’, says Ravi Shankar Prasad at global cyberspace meet

Quote

“Internet is supposed to be democratic. It is a big global platform, but must be linked the local ideas and concepts. That is the very clear focus of India, and therefore the right of access is non-negotiable,” Prasad said, while addressing the inaugural session of the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS). The two-day international conference, which is being attended by delegates from over 120 countries, was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in presence of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Secretary General of the International Telecommunications Union Houlin Zhao.

Backing net neutrality, Wickremesinghe said it lowered entry barriers for entrepreneurs, while providing open internet facilities to the marginalised and oppressed segments of the society. “It is the guiding principle for the internet and the way the internet has always worked. Net neutrality lowers the barriers of entry by preserving the internet as a fair and level-playing field and helps businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive online. Similarly, open internet facilitates the marginalised and oppressed segments that are not adequately represented in the mainstream media, to tell their stories and to mobilise justice, as we have seen in recent times,” he said.

This coming just after Trudeau said this yesterday:

Quote

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says President Donald Trump’s plan to roll back net neutrality protections for the internet “does not make sense” and that he’ll be looking into what he can do to defend net neutrality for the whole internet.

“I am very concerned about the attacks on net neutrality,” Trudeau said in Toronto on Wednesday, in response to a question from Motherboard about Trump’s plans. “Net neutrality is something that is essential for small businesses, for consumers, and it is essential to keep the freedom associated with the internet alive.”

Here is a good BBC article about the basics of net neutrality, but if anyone wants to know what the IT experts think of it, check out this thread on Sack Exchange and the associated links. Net neutrality is definitely not a good thing, for a multitude of reasons.

This is how the internet looks, after Portugal and Spain got rid of net neutrality:

Your access to the internet cut-up like bite-sized cable TV packages.