Net Neutrality pt.2

[Taem]

Finally some potential good news on the subject:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/168639...y-cra-bill

What does this mean to you? To me, it's a glimmer of hope that rational order can be restored above corporate greed in this country, for something so fundamental to every single American in one way or another. Of all things, this issue is important to me, and I will be following this change of events closely.

TL;DR article: "Senate will force vote on overturning net neutrality repeal"

[Lissa]

Someone needs to launch a lawsuit against Ajit Pai on the grounds of conflict of interest. One of the companies that stands to benefit from the repeal of Net Neutrality is Verizon. Pai used to work for Verizon and was there long enough to become vested. What does this mean, he has the Verizon 401k and one of the things that Verizon requires all members of their 401k (as I am a formed Verizon employee and still have my Verizon 401k) have to own the publicly traded Verizon stock as well as the Verizon preferred stock (only available certain people). The vote for Net Neutrality caused the price of the Verizon publicly traded stock and preferred stock to go up in price, thus enriching him (in fact, over the two months prior to the vote, Verizon's public stock increased in value by $1.50 a share and was initially trading for the mid $13 range and after the vote was just over $15 a share). His voting for Net Neutrally definitely is a conflict of interest as his repeal vote enriched himself.

[GhastMaster]

I think net neutrality is a terrible idea. Certainly the federal government of the US was not intended to be used in this manner. This is a state/local issue. The link below shows one of the many reasons why net neutrality is bad for internet users. Aside from the point made in this article, the notion that placing something into law without conforming to legal standards shows how easily this society could fall into facism.

Net neutrality was not legally put into place. The FCC does not(should not) have the authority to declare "the internet" a public utility much like telephone system is. Even if you believe net neutrality to be a good thing, bypassing the rule of law to get it should be abhorrent to everyone. Continually we the people accept unconstitutional means to an end. We are sliding into a lawless position everyday.

150 years ago people would have found it abhorrent to allow the federal government to meddle with telecommunications as they do now. 50 years ago people would have found it abhorrent for the un-elected official to create a law such as this. Now, today, many people wish this un-elected position had the power to change something that has significant economic ramifications.

You see the internet eroding. I see a country eroding away. Net neutrality will be a moot point when this country breaks down into chaos.

Ajit Pai did the right thing whether you like net neutrality or not, if you care about law and order.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/eve...hachatrian
(TL\DR = "Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as "the fast lane"), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best."

[Lissa]

I think net neutrality is a terrible idea. Certainly the federal government of the US was not intended to be used in this manner. This is a state/local issue. The link below shows one of the many reasons why net neutrality is bad for internet users. Aside from the point made in this article, the notion that placing something into law without conforming to legal standards shows how easily this society could fall into facism.

Net neutrality was not legally put into place. The FCC does not(should not) have the authority to declare "the internet" a public utility much like telephone system is. Even if you believe net neutrality to be a good thing, bypassing the rule of law to get it should be abhorrent to everyone. Continually we the people accept unconstitutional means to an end. We are sliding into a lawless position everyday.

150 years ago people would have found it abhorrent to allow the federal government to meddle with telecommunications as they do now. 50 years ago people would have found it abhorrent for the un-elected official to create a law such as this. Now, today, many people wish this un-elected position had the power to change something that has significant economic ramifications.

You see the internet eroding. I see a country eroding away. Net neutrality will be a moot point when this country breaks down into chaos.

Ajit Pai did the right thing whether you like net neutrality or not, if you care about law and order.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/eve...hachatrian
(TL\DR = "Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as "the fast lane"), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best."

So, you'd prefer a situation like what Portugal is in now? Where you have to pay for all kinds of tiers to access certain things? Do you even know what Net Neutrality actually is (cause it sure doesn't sound like it)?

TLDR: You don't know what Net Neutrality is.

[GhastMaster]

So, you'd prefer a situation like what Portugal is in now? Where you have to pay for all kinds of tiers to access certain things? Do you even know what Net Neutrality actually is (cause it sure doesn't sound like it)?

TLDR: You don't know what Net Neutrality is.

I would rather have no internet at all, than live in a country that rules not by law or order, but by the whim of bureaucrats.

I would rather the free market find solutions. When the gov't was in cahoots with the railroads in the 1800s you could have asked the same question. "Would you rather have goods ran by horse across country at MUCH higher prices?!" I would answer the same. The free market and inventive nature of humans grew beyond the limits of railroad. We invented the internal combustion engine and placed them on wheels. This is not a static world. We will find a better route to free and cheap internet via liberty. I don't need to pay hounds of the gov't to threaten lives with swat raids on non-complaint ISPs.

[FireIceTalon]

I've been in "political discussion retirement" here this season so far, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the above post. Lolbertarians (lack of) understanding of economics (especially the capitalist system that they propose to be the be all end all system that is superior to any conceivable alternative without even the slightest critical thought) never ceases to amaze me.

Firstly, the term "free market" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing a "free market", and it should be pretty obvious as to why. But I digress. What is more fundamental and relevant to the point here, is that the "free market" does not and CANNOT find solutions to problems - because firstly, it is inanimate; it cannot consciously observe a problem and find a solution - anymore than a gun can load itself and go on a killing spree w/o a human operating it. Secondly, the "free market" is in fact a set of social relationships and interactions - it therefore has an internal logic that it must follow, and that internal logic is NOT to find solutions to problems, but to accumulate profit. The "free market" in fact, is far better at creating problems than it is solving them.

I would rather have no internet at all

Because for you, sticking to your hardline ideology trumps all else, even if real world material conditions in fact show your analysis to be short sighted if not entirely incorrect/infeasible. Not to mention, this line of thinking is displaying the typical selfishness and political narcissism of libertarians and right-wing thought in general. Me? I want a free and open internet, I don't really care how constitutional or not the grounds on which net neutrality was put into place was/n't, anymore than how constitutional having electricity and clean water is. These things are all human rights, which trump constitutionality all day; or at least they should.

than live in a country that rules not by law or order, but by the whim of bureaucrats.

This is a tautology. Rule of law and order is just a nicer, fancier way of saying "by the whim of bureaucrats". See quote in my sig.

150 years ago people would have found it abhorrent to allow the federal government to meddle with telecommunications as they do now.

Reactionary romanticism that has no meaning in any serious political discussion, the old "things were so much better back then". Slavery of another human being was also perfectly legal in this country about 150 years ago. As much as things suck now, I don't think any semi-rational human being would think things were better 150 yrs ago.

[Lissa]

So, you'd prefer a situation like what Portugal is in now? Where you have to pay for all kinds of tiers to access certain things? Do you even know what Net Neutrality actually is (cause it sure doesn't sound like it)?

TLDR: You don't know what Net Neutrality is.

I would rather have no internet at all, than live in a country that rules not by law or order, but by the whim of bureaucrats.

I would rather the free market find solutions. When the gov't was in cahoots with the railroads in the 1800s you could have asked the same question. "Would you rather have goods ran by horse across country at MUCH higher prices?!" I would answer the same. The free market and inventive nature of humans grew beyond the limits of railroad. We invented the internal combustion engine and placed them on wheels. This is not a static world. We will find a better route to free and cheap internet via liberty. I don't need to pay hounds of the gov't to threaten lives with swat raids on non-complaint ISPs.

I'm going to be blunt with you. ISP *ARE* monopolies. They purposefully collude with each other to not compete. If you go into a large number of areas there's only one choice for an ISP. There is no free market for ISPs in the US. About the only places where you will see ISPs competing are in large Tech hub cities (like San Fran, Seattle, Washington DC) and in other locations, it's basically one or two (New York City is owned by Time Warner Cable or whatever it's called now).

Likewise, ISPs *ARE* a utility much like electric, water, gas for homes, and the like. ISPs need to be regulated as such (which is what Title 2 is all about). Likewise, Net Neutrality has been in effect in some form since 2005. Can you tell me how bad internet service has been from 2005 up to 2015 when the FCC voted on Title 2 in the US? Was pretty good over that decade as far as I saw.

And before you go saying that the ISPs will do the right thing, no they won't. They have been given money by Congress since the late 90s to improve their networks from copper to fiber, do you know what they did with all that money? They pocketed it. They didn't improve their networks.

You simply don't know what you are talking about on this.

[Bolty]

Anyone who follows what I write (...why would you, wtf?) knows that I'm a bit passionate about this topic. I haven't chimed in on recent events at all through because I'm too demoralized. While I realize that evil just needs good people to do nothing, I wind up doing nothing while evil people continue to do things that are just...bad for humanity, all to make a bit more money.

Lissa, FiT, I realize you may be passionate about this too, but your responses to GhastMaster are unlikely to sway his opinion when you come off attacking him out the gate as you did. Chill a bit?

In short, GhastMaster, I believe the free market doesn't apply here when the ISPs in question do not operate under free market conditions. The government has granted ISPs broad powers and stifled free market mechanics in order to establish them as monopolies. Thus, consumers such as myself have exactly one option for high-speed Internet access, putting me at that company's mercy regarding pricing and access policy. This makes their behavior to shape my Internet access a violation of my freedoms similar to having access to water or power controlled by them would be. Some could call this hyperbole, as "you don't need Internet access to survive," but it's also true that I cannot function in modern society without Internet access - financially, socially, and economically.

I agree that Congress should have settled this issue long ago, but in our current political climate that has proven impossible. It thus falls on lesser organizations (in this case, the FCC) to overstep their authority, thus allowing members of Congress to publicly complain / make loud statements without having to take any action. And that's been the status quo for years.

Free market would be fantastic. If I could freely choose between five Internet providers and select the one that won't screw with my fundamental right to open Internet access, I wouldn't care what Verizon or Comcast would do. I would ignore them.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, I wasn't attacking Ghast personally IMO, so much as I was critiquing and deconstructing his wild and infeasible political assumptions and position. Outside of his politics, I'm sure Ghast is an ok dude.

Either way, it is utterly mind blowing to me that any person (regardless of political orientation) who isn't a politician, CEO, or some corporate tool (I don't think Ghast falls under any of these, to my knowledge) could possibly think net neutrality is a bad thing. It's like the same crackpots who think free healthcare and education are bad things, for whatever outrageous reasoning and logic they employ to arrive at their twisted conclusions, and would rather not have them for the sake of having a perfectly "free market" (which again, is nothing more than libertopia fantasy straight out of an Ayn Rand novel anyways).

[Lissa]

Here's the big thing that everyone should realize about the repeal of Net Neutrality, it allows ISPs to censor what you can and cannot get access to on the internet.

Ashock loves his Brietbart, but his ISP doesn't like Brietbart. They can stop any traffic that would come from Brietbart from entering there system thus censoring what Ashock wants to see. Another ISP may think that The Huffington Report should not be allowed on their network.

There is many, many facets to why Net Neutrality is good and why it being repealed is the worst thing ever that the FCC has done.

[GhastMaster]

Lissa, FiT, I realize you may be passionate about this too, but your responses...

I was looking for informative discussion. I wasn't able to prod in time before this comment. I think it would have come around. I have to admit, the notion that I don't know what net neutrality is, ruffled my feathers. Frankly though, Lissa is right. That is why I'm here. I roughly understand the history, much less the specifics.

In short, GhastMaster, I believe the free market doesn't apply here when the ISPs in question do not operate under free market conditions. The government has granted ISPs broad powers and stifled free market mechanics in order to establish them as monopolies. Thus, consumers such as myself have exactly one option for high-speed Internet access, putting me at that company's mercy regarding pricing and access policy. This makes their behavior to shape my Internet access a violation of my freedoms similar to having access to water or power controlled by them would be. Some could call this hyperbole, as "you don't need Internet access to survive," but it's also true that I cannot function in modern society without Internet access - financially, socially, and economically.

I'm going to be blunt with you. ISP *ARE* monopolies. They purposefully collude with each other to not compete. If you go into a large number of areas there's only one choice for an ISP. There is no free market for ISPs in the US. About the only places where you will see ISPs competing are in large Tech hub cities (like San Fran, Seattle, Washington DC) and in other locations, it's basically one or two (New York City is owned by Time Warner Cable or whatever it's called now).

You are correct. The various municipalities have worked hand in hand with ISPs to create vast monopolies. Yet, we have some alternatives with regard to individual access(eg. satellite, cell, cable line, phone line). I understand you are not able to host a website very well via cell data. A point of contention within myself arises when I consider that the landline ISPs are defacto utilities because of local regulations. However, it appears we are regulating something because we regulated it. We need the gov't to get involved, because the gov't got involved? Perhaps if we let net neutrality disappear, will more people will get involved in the local process? These local contracts are not permanent. If enough people complain about ISP blocking, they can change the available ISPs in their community.

I agree that Congress should have settled this issue long ago, but in our current political climate that has proven impossible. It thus falls on lesser organizations (in this case, the FCC) to overstep their authority, thus allowing members of Congress to publicly complain / make loud statements without having to take any action. And that's been the status quo for years.

It is interesting how congress allows its authority to be usurped when it is politically convenient. Unfortunately this sets precedent. It's nice when it works in your favor, but not so much when it doesn't.

Free market would be fantastic. If I could freely choose between five Internet providers and select the one that won't screw with my fundamental right to open Internet access, I wouldn't care what Verizon or Comcast would do. I would ignore them.

Out of curiosity, what is the derivation of your "fundamental right to open Internet access"? I'm genuinely curious. As I see it we have have a fundamental right to free association(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness sort of thing). Thus, we are free(setting aside protected classes) to choose whom we do and do not do business with. Do you mean, you should be free of the local constraints on ISPs in your area? Which would be in line with my idea of free association.

And before you go saying that the ISPs will do the right thing, no they won't. They have been given money by Congress since the late 90s to improve their networks from copper to fiber, do you know what they did with all that money? They pocketed it. They didn't improve their networks.

Agreed. It would be foolish to suggest ISPs will do the "right thing". There is no such thing when it comes to the marketplace. They offer services that we pay for or do not. Rural telephone modems were my first access to the internet. I have seen vast improvements since then. Due to telephony limitations other companies and technologies were developed to satisfy customer needs. Arguably they were holding onto profits in lieu of building infrastructure. Did the telephone company do the "right thing"?

I say yes and no. Yes they offered a service that some customers were fine with, but no they did not satisfy my demands as a consumer. I no longer use a modem. As to money going to the networks for infrastructure via gov't since the 90s; I am connected via fiber to the node. It is true that the companies did not fulfill their end of the bargain for many other locations. That said, it seems illogical to me to use a failure of gov't regulation(infrastructure spending) to promote further gov't regulation.

I'm sure Ghast is an ok dude.

I'm glad you are sure!

Either way, it is utterly mind blowing to me that any person (regardless of political orientation) who isn't a politician, CEO, or some corporate tool (I don't think Ghast falls under any of these, to my knowledge) could possibly think net neutrality is a bad thing. It's like the same crackpots who think free healthcare and education are bad things, for whatever outrageous reasoning and logic they employ to arrive at their twisted conclusions, and would rather not have them for the sake of having a perfectly "free market" (which again, is nothing more than libertopia fantasy straight out of an Ayn Rand novel anyways).

I do not think free healthcare and education are a bad thing. I wish everything was free. I wish the gov't would not try to make it free. It ends up costing way too much.

Here's the big thing that everyone should realize about the repeal of Net Neutrality, it allows ISPs to censor what you can and cannot get access to on the internet.

Some areas only have one car lot that only sells Ford vehicles. Has local zoning only provided enough room for one car lot? Is this akin to censorship? Are those people entitled to the same treatment that net neutrality ensures? The free market has not provided them with other options yet.

Ashock loves his Brietbart, but his ISP doesn't like Brietbart. They can stop any traffic that would come from Brietbart from entering there system thus censoring what Ashock wants to see. Another ISP may think that The Huffington Report should not be allowed on their network.

Are you suggesting I should pay taxes supporting regulation to ensure other people have equal access to news reports?

[FireIceTalon]

You pay taxes supporting regulation to ensure that we, including yourself, have equal access and right to use public roads, do you not? Why should the internet be any different? Yes, I realize there was a time when the internet didn't exist (seems like eons ago) and we did just fine without it, but in todays technological, networking, and ever fast changing world, its practically a necessity.

[GhastMaster]

You pay taxes supporting regulation to ensure that we, including yourself, have equal access and right to use public roads, do you not? Why should the internet be any different? Yes, I realize there was a time when the internet didn't exist (seems like eons ago) and we did just fine without it, but in todays technological, networking, and ever fast changing world, its practically a necessity.

I would use the railroads and invention of cars as an example of technology overcoming the shortcomings of lack of progress in an industry.

Private roads is the obvious solution to your question. There are of course potential cons. Suppose the route between points A and B have been monopolized. I imagine point A or B may become less profitable to a point C. In this case a path to point C would compete with a path between A and B.

Suppose both paths become controlled by the same monopolistic entity. Travel by airplane or train or tunnel may become competitive. It may not be what any individual desires, but it would technically compete. To continue this scenario to the extreme, prices for commute or delivery of goods or services have become so high that exploration via R&D for alternatives becomes lucrative. I would think if teleportation is possible we would find it. Maybe there is a far better way to travel via air that we have not devised yet, but because the government has forced private property to be used for public roads, we have not spent as much time or money researching and developing a better alternative to ground transportation.

Many years ago people survived with limited exposure or trade outside their own villages. Even a monopolistic entity still has to compete with that. If people decide it is worth the price, they will travel outside the village on the monopoly road. If the price is too high alternatives will be found. In a scenerio such as this road travel would not be considered a "practical necessity" yet, due to the fact that society does not revolve around the flow of traffic. As such, the argument to govern it as a public utility/necessity would have less standing at this stage.

We do not know the limits of the human imagination, but we know how to limit it.

PS: There was a transcontinental railroad that acquired land privately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Nort...way_(U.S.)

[Lissa]

Ashock loves his Brietbart, but his ISP doesn't like Brietbart. They can stop any traffic that would come from Brietbart from entering there system thus censoring what Ashock wants to see. Another ISP may think that The Huffington Report should not be allowed on their network.

Are you suggesting I should pay taxes supporting regulation to ensure other people have equal access to news reports?

Let me throw that back at you, are you saying that an American corporation has a right to deny my rights as stated by the Bill of Rights?

[GhastMaster]

Let me throw that back at you, are you saying that an American corporation has a right to deny my rights as stated by the Bill of Rights?

Simply put: Yes.

Not simply put:

It is hard to answer this question as I think we might be approaching the point of fundamental disagreement. I do not believe the constitution or the bill of rights was intended to nor should have forced one non governmental entity to provide you with services. I think the bill of rights explicitly states that the gov't does not have that power, certainly not the federal(see 9th & 10th amendment).

If you believe you have a fundamental or natural right(same thing?) to the goods or services offered by another person(net neutrality), I implore you to seek change to the constitution via the amendment process rather than a congressional bill or executive fiat.

Using the constitution as an argument for rights at the same time as you suggest bypassing the constitution to secure the right is unsettling and strange to me.

If you wanted to enforce net neutrality via amendment I would still disagree, however, I would much rather have it happen that way than how it is happening these days. That begs the questions, does it matter how it happens?(Yes) Is the end result the same?(No) If we bypass legal means to an end in something we favor, we set a precedent for something to happen the same way that we do not favor. It does not matter whether we are talking about slavery, marriage, war, healthcare.

[Lissa]

Let me throw that back at you, are you saying that an American corporation has a right to deny my rights as stated by the Bill of Rights?

Simply put: Yes.

Not simply put:

It is hard to answer this question as I think we might be approaching the point of fundamental disagreement. I do not believe the constitution or the bill of rights was intended to nor should have forced one non governmental entity to provide you with services. I think the bill of rights explicitly states that the gov't does not have that power, certainly not the federal(see 9th & 10th amendment).

If you believe you have a fundamental or natural right(same thing?) to the goods or services offered by another person(net neutrality), I implore you to seek change to the constitution via the amendment process rather than a congressional bill or executive fiat.

Using the constitution as an argument for rights at the same time as you suggest bypassing the constitution to secure the right is unsettling and strange to me.

If you wanted to enforce net neutrality via amendment I would still disagree, however, I would much rather have it happen that way than how it is happening these days. That begs the questions, does it matter how it happens?(Yes) Is the end result the same?(No) If we bypass legal means to an end in something we favor, we set a precedent for something to happen the same way that we do not favor. It does not matter whether we are talking about slavery, marriage, war, healthcare.

Then my first post stands. You really don't understand what Net Neutrallity is all about. There is nothing that can be said to change you mind. You are too set in your ways even given the information that has been shown to you here (repeal of Net Neutraliy allows a monopoly Corporation to tread on your rights to get access you need to be able to make an informed decision on the governmental process of the Federal Government by simply not allowing access to information, this is the crux of Net Neutrality).

[Bolty]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."

— Comissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

I miss that game.

[Tal]

Finally some potential good news on the subject:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/168639...y-cra-bill

What does this mean to you? To me, it's a glimmer of hope that rational order can be restored above corporate greed in this country, for something so fundamental to every single American in one way or another. Of all things, this issue is important to me, and I will be following this change of events closely.

TL;DR article: "Senate will force vote on overturning net neutrality repeal"

This is all about getting Republicans on record as voting to take away Net Neutrality rights from citizens to fuel a blue midterm.

[Lissa]

Finally some potential good news on the subject:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/168639...y-cra-bill

What does this mean to you? To me, it's a glimmer of hope that rational order can be restored above corporate greed in this country, for something so fundamental to every single American in one way or another. Of all things, this issue is important to me, and I will be following this change of events closely.

TL;DR article: "Senate will force vote on overturning net neutrality repeal"

This is all about getting Republicans on record as voting to take away Net Neutrality rights from citizens to fuel a blue midterm.

True, but I've also seen statistics (I know, I know) that say roughly 50% to 60% of registered Republican voters think that Net Neutrality should not have been repealed. So, this may not be to force replacment of Republican with Democrats, but to remove Republican incumbents with new Republican office holders.

[FireIceTalon]

A "blue midterm" is practically inevitable regardless of net neutrality repeal (though this certainly ain't helping Republican causes), just because an overwhelming majority of the country loathes the current Administration. And with Repubs now closing ranks with the asshole-in-chief, its only going to make matters worse for them, IMO. I think it more a matter of how much Republicans lose this mid-term, rather than a question of it being if they lose, which is almost unavoidable at this point. Will their losses be minimal and simply make their slim majorities just a bit tighter than they currently are, or will they lose control of at least one chamber if not both? If the elections took place right now, we would most likely have a Dem controlled House AND Senate. Not that I like the Dems any better, but yea....Who knows. Maybe the Russians can help out again (though I doubt it)