A sad, sad day for the Internet and our freedoms

[kandrathe]

Costs are not always implementation costs. Also, lost opportunity costs and competitive favoritism....

I always pegged you as a libertarian, advocating the rights of the individual, not spouting jargon supporting the privileged ultra rich and their constituents. Net neutrality has been talked to death on these forums so I know you're intimately aware of the potential negative repercussions this vote could have on the way we surf the net as consumers, from what we're allowed to see, to mom-and-pop websites not showing up on your computer because they didn't pay Time/Warner or Comcast $X dollars to have their site show up on your ISP. This vote doesn't change that, but if you read the article at all, it's perfectly clear that's where we're headed under the Trump administration! Your coyness is nothing short of disgusting, but I suppose everyone changes.

So.... Don't jump to assumptions. I often gather data on the opposite side just to present both sides objectively. I already said earlier I support better privacy protection, but I'm always suspicious and careful when gulping the "government can fix it" cool aid. Getting free highest speed internet, with complete anonymity would be glorious. But, who pays for it? To be objective, one must not just assume the opponents position is "spouting jargon supporting the privileged ultra rich and their constituents." Maybe some of those 51 Republicans have some other motive? I'd like to understand both sides of the argument. If you see my careful, pragmatic, reasoned approach as coy or disgusting, then so be it. I find too many people in this world are guilty of a rush to judgement, and overly politicize every issue and aspect of our lives.

I already pay my cable company too much per month, so the prospect of the option of them data mining me in exchange for a much cheaper price may be a fair trade. I would expect to have the option to opt out. I also understand why the ISPs would want a level playing field in competing with other companies doing data mining for profit. If you have a communication(FCC) business unit one set of rules apply, if you just have a non communication service other (FTC) rules apply. Ultimately, what we are debating are government restrictions on contracts between people and their corporate service providers. The libertarian position is to maximize freedom, and minimize government interference. But, unfortunately in these contracts, people are duped, or ignorant (sometimes intentionally exploited) by corporations requiring regulations to stop the hucksterism.

Unfortunately we have imho, incomplete definitions which have evolved (through courts) on the exact Rights that apply to groups of people in common contracts (i.e. Corporations, organizations, unions, etc.). Which is why we end up with some questionably bad decisions, like Citizens United.

But, me? I'd like there to be some common sense rules in this wild Wild West of the Internet, so I don't need to be a lawyer before I read and digest the 50 page EULAs (contracts) I agree to for the sites I subscribe. This is the pragmatic moderation to a pure anarchist position. For those things we share in common, like roads, air space, wires, earth, air, water... We need some rules to protect our common interests. But, often, I think the rule making goes too far and usually in favor of some special interest, or the hubris of law makers, or simply anecdotal knee-jerk reactions. I could offer a plethora or examples... Do you think it is possible we may be over regulated in some areas, and maybe lack regulations in other areas?