People who don't support Net Neutrality: Why?
Besides:
-
I'm trolling
-
I own stock in Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/other ISPs
-
I don't use the internet
-
I don't live in America so I don't care
128 Comments
please stop responding to Colonel J he is a troll
4*.* I live in EU so don't have to care about muricans getting screwed by their ISPs
NN. You're not talking about the unspoken philosophical data-is-created-equal shit on wikipedia right? You're talking about the actual 400 pages of patriot-act tier misleading legislation that essentially just transferred all the internet regulations to the FCC as opposed to the FTC?
-
The internet should not be classified as a public utility, as if its a billable waterline, under title 2. You're literally subsidizing these government-enforced monopolies that you hate so much.
-
Classifying the internet under title 2 was originally supposed to provide these monoplies with the tools to vastly improve infrastructure because it allowed them to skip over a bunch of red tape on the municipal level through the FCC, yet all they did was claim that they still didn't have enough to efficently lay fiber, then raised the cost on the consumer anyway.
-
The DMCA-is-allowed-to-remove-your-search-results-because-the-internet-is-a-public-utility-and-government-property clause.
-
People for it are just screaming that the internet will be shutdown because some legislation from 2014 is being reverted, and posting the same 3 ancient doomsday NN what-if memes that circulate around facebook and think they're clever.
-
The only instance of "fast lanes" or paid priotization that has existed, was created under NN in 2014, after Google bought Youtube and contracted with isp's for bypass servers, now they don't need to go through the gateway providers everyone else does, this is completely illegal under NN. While innovative, it's hilariously unfair to competitiors like dailymotion, but no one actually gives a shit about that part of the bill. and no one is going to fight Google over an act they spent so much money lobbying for. They only care about the part that lets the FCC set regulations & process legal complaints. But hey now we have seemless 1040p HD video.
-
Google had it's hands all over the 400 pages of this act. Everything that's not an ISP here is Google. Google is every justification. Nothing that google opposes is in this act. you can just skip to the 4th section because everything else is just leads to licensing for Google Fiber.
-
Fun fact, your heros at Netflix contracted to exclude itself from data caps in Australia. This is illegal under NN.
-
Companies should be able to charge other companies to build infrastructure if they are 80% of internet traffic at 5 pm. Netflix was never in the right when they were fighting this claim.
-
Nothing was stopping them from charging you an arm and a leg to begin with, they're a government-enforced regional monopoly. It's a matter of what they think they can get away with before you leave and switch to some no-name local option. It's why they still spend money on commercials. NN is a feel-good peice of legislation that's wrongly interpreted as a consumer-protection law.
-
The 2015 provisions never, at any point, protected you from tiered internet or website packages. All companies had to do is openly advertise their policy and system and they can do any tiered internet package they want.
"According to the concurrence, which was written by Judges Sri Srinivasan and David S. Tatel (the same judges who wrote the underlying decisionbtw), “the net neutrality rule applies only to ‘those broadband providers who hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits’ to any content of a subscriber’s own choosing,” (quoting the underlying decision). The concurrence goes on to say, “the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway – i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of editorial discretion.”
-
The only reason anyone even discovered "net neutrality" existed was because Netflix cherrypicked a legally meaningless intro portion of title 2, demanding a "fair and equal internet" where they don't have to pay for damages as a hail mary, and then lost a court battle with a government-enforced monopoly.
-
Ear shitposting
Instead of providing me with the same doomsday scenario I just debunked, it's your turn to prove to me that the internet was worse under the FTC as opposed to the incompetent radio host managers and hollywood lobbyists at the FCC. FTC atleast has a fucking Bureau of Consumer Protection. It's been two years and the FCC has fuck all except for a place to report telemarketers. Now you're stuck phoning your local politicians about something you have no understanding of. deserved.
I responded in another thread but will quote my response here:
The problem is that people are looking at one small non-issue, blowing it way out of proportion, forming 100s of hypotheticals that are wrong/won't happen for other reasons, and then using it to justify net neutrality without looking at the other 100 issues it will cause.
This whole debate would be moot if certain FCC and SEC cronies had not approved mergers blindly to cause these conglomerates to form. There is absolutely no reason ATT, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and the other couple large internet companies should control internet, TV, phones, TV channels, etc. But the government didn't care, said it was fine, and didn't enforce their own rules and regulations because they thought "well hey, once this is all together it'll be more socialized which is better!" - it's not better, and now they're trying to fix it with more regulation.
The internet is not a "public service" like landline phones or electricity is. There is not unlimited bandwidth, and in fact there is far from it. The difference with phones/electricity is that both of those infrastructures are built to withstand many times the current throughput they carry. The internet, on the other hand, is close to its breaking point for a vast majority of Americans - it simply can't carry the traffic when 100 people want to all watch high def netflix in the background on 200 different devices.
Without control over their business practices, companies will have no incentive to invest in infrastructure. Oh, your ping is 100 ms? Why should we open up a direct line to Riot? They can't pay us for it and we can't charge you more for it, so why should we care what your ping is? Oh, your bandwidth is shitty? Welp, we can't charge you more for more speed now because that's not "neutral", we have to charge you per use, so have fun with your slow internet but please use a lot of it so we get more money!
The real solution to this problem (that isn't even a problem) is not "net neutrality" (plot twist, as OP said, nothing actually changed for the better when it went into place), the solution is reversing the mergers that were approved by poorly managed and poorly thought out past government officials. This has precedent before with telephone companies - they got too big, they're forced to "demerge" or split and that both increases competition and eliminates the need for more regulation. With competition, nobody will be selectively blocking websites because it will not be financially sound for them to do so.
This isn't a problem to begin with, but the solution is not more regulation here.
TLDR: Some people are worried their Netflix will be throttled so they're going to ruin the internet for everyone.
Number 5 - Because I'm tired of everyone shoving it down my throat and interrupting whatever I'm trying to enjoy because "worst case scenario is a guarantee!"
I'm all for consumer protections, but stop shoving this down my throat because it's not how you're gonna get my support.
Because the intent is to provide peopel with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different websites.
Somehow our internet economy became the envy of the world without net neutrality and survived until 2015 until the ceo's of those very tech companies which grew on the old non-net neutrality internet suddenly decided the world would end unless you handed over enormous amounts of control to the ever expanding federal government.
But because they post that same picture with websites broken down into packages you won't even bother to think about that. You'll just blindly support them like sheep, Even though those same companies still throttle your internet, and censor websites in the face of the freedom of speech they seem to eager to chestthump.
Even when you did nothing when the US handed the keys to the internet over to an conclave of foreign powers, opening the door far wider for internet censorship then net neutrality ending ever could.
But hey, at least you'll feel safer right?
I don't support anyone
I queued for adc and mid, not support
[{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=A3QsWM5T,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-11-29T08:01:55.805+0000)
NN is bad for many reasons that you can look up yourself, but will not because you'd rather stay deluded.
[{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=A3QsWM5T,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-29T08:06:34.088+0000)
The internet is provided by private businesses.
[{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=A3QsWM5T,comment-id=000100020001,timestamp=2017-11-29T12:29:34.795+0000)
Using this worst-case-scenario your lot likes to whine about, all that happens is you get shittier internet.
This will be great for millions of americans who browse the internet all day. They have a bigger incentive to actually get out of the house and interact with real people face-to-face. Lord knows most of you GDers NEED more of this.
I'd be concerned that my uni would then get a package that blocks everything else except research databases and I can't youtube/facebook/LoL in the library anymore. But then again I live in Australia, probably won't affect me except when I play LoL on NA. Maybe it's time to switch servers... but the queue times in OCE tho...
because
-
I honestly don't care
-
you cant say anything to disprove colonel J other than he is a troll so this post is an upvote grab (because who WOULDNT support it, that's like saying "To people who don't support safety for others, Why?")
You really think I trust government more than big companies?
You must be on something.