Why the 2015 Net Neutrality Laws Were Wrong

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Termer, Dec 18, 2017.

  1. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Member
    3,027
    6,138
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    The thread topic is "why net neutrality is wrong", not "ramble about your friend and never get to the point"

    Yes, net neutrality put isp's under government control. But they only enforced one rule. As a utility, they cant discriminate. So... so what?

    Oh the big bad government will want more control, the same one that doesn't interfere with our access to wikileaks, 4chan, torrenting, etc where legitimate lawsuits aren't concerned.

    It's not government that wants control, it's rich assholes that own corporations like oil, pharmaceutical, and dare I say, isp's. The only overreaching that comes from government is when some politician is in the pocket of one of these assholes. The government actually does something right and people are actually dumb enough to say it should be undone.

    And yes, anyone that supports the repeal is dumb. Not one of you can give a straight answer as to why it should be repealed but make a point to namedrop obama. Wear your personal politics on your sleeve much? If you can't see the difference in the behavior of these companies prior/post NN, then youre either naive or mentally deficient. How do you think comcast, att, verizon, timeWarner became monopolies in the first place.

    And I swear to god, say Obama one more fucking time.
     
    dAVID_, Quantumcat, KingVamp and 7 others like this.
  2. Ritsuki

    Ritsuki ORAORAORAORA

    Member
    1,407
    204
    Mar 15, 2008
    Switzerland
    Unfortunately, most people think that as long as the government controls it, it's going to be bad. Most part of our lives are controlled by governments, and yet we are still there, living relatively free lives. I live in Switzerland where the people can basically create or change laws by a simple votation, and trust me, it not that different from the USA, except we have some kind of safety net when the government tries to pass some shady laws. But on the other hand, they still have the last word, and even if it comes from the people, some laws that were voted in Switzerland were completely racist and stupid. So things are a bit more complicated than it seems sometimes, it's not all white and black.
     
  3. SG854

    SG854 GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    902
    939
    Feb 17, 2017
    Jamaica
    WeedZ likes this.
  4. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    This does shed some light on the issue. From what you said, there are some regulations, but not as many as under Title II. Under Title I, however, ISPs are not under the direct control of the FCC. This means, there will still be antitrust regulations, but less FCC control, which I believe is a good thing, as ISPs still have to somewhat transparent, while also being free of direct government control. And again, I am not against the concept of net neutrality, but am wary of all the risks of the laws that caused net neutrality.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    I was using this on mobile, and it posted the thread twice. The duplicate was deleted.
     
    the_randomizer likes this.
  5. deinonychus71

    deinonychus71 GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    357
    251
    Sep 12, 2008
    United States
    Chicago
    Is your mobile preventing you from seeing the question everyone is asking? How is it beneficial for the end user to repeal || why should it be repealed?

    Partisanship is a plague in the US.
     
  6. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    No, mobile has nothing to do with the argument. I was just stating that I had accidentally double-posted, and mods deleted it. This had nothing to do with the argument itself. And no, I'm not ignoring the issue.
     
  7. blackwrensniper

    blackwrensniper Member

    Newcomer
    32
    32
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    The problem you seem to be missing is who can actually enforce anything now.

    On April 6, 2010, the FCC's 2008 cease-and-desist order against Comcast to slow and stop BitTorrent transfers was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider's network, or the management of its practices: "[the FCC] 'has failed to tie its assertion' of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress", and in June 2010, it overturned (in the same case) the FCC's Order against Comcast, ruling similarly that the FCC lacked the authority under Title One of the Communications Act of 1934, to force ISPs to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable network management practices, to all forms of legal content. In May 2010, the FCC announced it would continue its fight for net neutrality

    So, who are we left with? The FTC unfortunately lacks the ability to create new rules and really very few or no rules exist to stop unfair practices. Like others said all any ISP needs to do is tell you upfront that they may throttle, charge premiums or anything else they wish and bam they can. Then they add in a waver of rights to arbitration and you have given up your right to sue them. A simple EULA; the things NOBODY EVER READS. Don't sign it? No net.

    The entire reason title 2 was needed in 2015 was due to the court rulings above. Those rulings still stand and are what changed the net from being free and open to being very close to being controlled by ISP's. Almost immediately after the reclassification Verizon and Comcast started lobbying to reverse it and they have made no promises to not throttle a damn thing. The closest they got was saying they support an open and free net for lawful practices but without an oversite organization like the FCC they get to determine what is and isn't lawful.

    Hypothetically what if they declare Youtube unlawful and block it? Nothing stopping them mind you, it hosts a lot of unlawful content. So too does GBATemp.
     
    Hozu and TotalInsanity4 like this.
  8. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    This has nothing to do with the hate or preference of anybody. As I stated before, I do not like the people making these laws. I do not care about them in any way. This is my view toward all politicians and lawmakers. I only said Obama because it was a convenient way to name the era. I could have said 2015-2017, but I chose to name the presidency that enacted the law. It wasn't out of malice for the president at the time, but because the law was made in his administration. Also, ISPs and the government alike want power. ISPs are the most aggressive on this, as they don't have to administrate an entire country. They have more undivided attention to pay to growing their business and taking more power. But when the government tries to grab more power, their control is the law. Both sides have negative speculations, as well as results. I just prefer the negative results of no NN rather than NN laws being in place. Please refrain from calling someone dumb and shouting buzzwords like Obama as proof of such.
     
    McWhiters9511 likes this.
  9. Nightwish

    Nightwish GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    385
    208
    Oct 16, 2013
    Portugal
    So, gobernment is evil and the wild west is great. Yawn. Americans will get the point with healthcare soon enough.
     
  10. blackwrensniper

    blackwrensniper Member

    Newcomer
    32
    32
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    Most of us are too dumb, quite frankly.
     
  11. McWhiters9511

    McWhiters9511 That's Rad Bro

    Member
    1,161
    586
    Mar 28, 2016
    United States
    Space
    dont lump random people into your group thx
     
    dAVID_, Riyaz, Termer and 1 other person like this.
  12. Fishaman P

    Fishaman P Speedrunner

    Member
    3,247
    511
    Jan 2, 2010
    United States
    Wisconsin
    I don't think you've ever stated the downsides of NN being in place though.
     
  13. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    ISPs could deem YT, or any other website unlawful, but the government could have also done this under Title II. Misusing terms such as "unlawful" has been thing for a very long time. Since the DMCA, people have been using DMCA requests to censor various content. The difference between censorship in Title I vs Title II is that in Title I, the government has no part in the transmission of the Internet, and ISPs do. This is the main difference. There are still antitrust laws in effect, so that ISPs have to be transparent. The government doesn't have to be transparent, though. If the government is the one regulating the transmission of the Internet, then there is less known about what is being censored. As we are not yet amid censorship from ISPs at the moment, this is speculation. For all we know, the government could have been censoring websites under our noses since 2015. We just don't know, though this probably wasn't the case. With NN, we remove ISP censorship, and risk government censorship. With no NN, we remove government control and censorship, and risk ISP censorship. I prefer the latter. Governments can be a lot more sneaky than ISPs, as they don't have the obligation to be transparent.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    You make a point in that a lot of people associate the government with bad laws, and frankly, that's sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. However, this has two sides, as many people blindly call all corporations evil, which is also true sometimes, but not always. Comcast's motivation to remove NN was not good, but that doesn't automatically mean the whole repeal is bad and is a clear cut power grab. Thanks for your comment! It's interesting to hear the opinion of an outsider.
     
  14. yusuo

    yusuo GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,623
    975
    Oct 19, 2006
    You got your got your title wrong. I'm pretty sure it was supposed to say "why I decided to troll today"
     
    Hozu and Quantumcat like this.
  15. grossaffe

    grossaffe GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,850
    2,277
    May 5, 2013
    United States
    If the government tried to block Youtube or whatever website due to "unlawfulness", they'd immediately be sued over 1st amendment violations and the Supreme Court would rule in youtube's favor. 1st Amendment does not apply to ISPs.
     
    Hozu likes this.
  16. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    Correct, but that doesn't stop all lawsuits. There are numerous people who will sue for various other things, including Google.

    This isn't a troll, I'm trying to explain my point in this debate. Did you read the post and all the replies?

    As I said, I don't blindly believe the government is evil. A lot of government regulation is necessary, but not this. Also, the Internet is pretty much the wild west as it is. Come on now, even on the surface web there's piracy, and everything else imaginable. The Internet is too large to effectively regulate.
     
  17. blackwrensniper

    blackwrensniper Member

    Newcomer
    32
    32
    Nov 24, 2017
    United States
    Exactly, the government has so many enshrined protections that literally go back hundreds of years. Your ISP though is a service provider which depending on that classification determines how much control they have. Net Neutrality assured they would not block, throttle or ban content. Now they can, for any or no reason.

    If you can't see how or why that is bad... well I'm still waiting to hear why Termer thinks it's a good thing; less government control is not a reason mind you, just an excuse.
     
    Last edited by blackwrensniper, Dec 18, 2017
    Quantumcat likes this.
  18. SG854

    SG854 GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    902
    939
    Feb 17, 2017
    Jamaica
    There weren't many regulations under Title 2 either. The document was specially wrote too not interfere too much with ISP's and to not put too much regulations.

    You don't see Anti Trust laws as a good thing?
    Being transparent is part of an Anti Trust law. Its part of the Sherman Act. So if your against anti trust laws then that must mean your also against transparency. And making it know to consumers exactly what they are doing.

    Anti Trust prevents them from conspiring and not making it clear to consumers what they are doing, in other words not to lie and be deceitful.
    And the FCC does not have direct control. They are not the ones pushing buttons. They only keep a watchful eye and say hey you can't do that. The FCC can't censor. The point of Title 2 was to prevent ISP's from blocking sites/censoring. Its the ISP's that are censoring and not the FCC. And the FCC is preventing that.
     
    Last edited by SG854, Dec 18, 2017
    Hozu likes this.
  19. Termer
    OP

    Termer Offensive Memelord Programmer

    Member
    219
    130
    Apr 26, 2017
    United States
    Kekistan
    Well, this is going nowhere. I've already stated all my points, and I am becoming tired of answering to replies. I'd honestly say you've won. Thank you all those who have made good points, and argued with me in good faith. You all probably won't change your minds, but next time somebody brings up this issue, remember what I've said, and you can takeaway what you like from the argument. Thanks!
     
  20. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Member
    3,027
    6,138
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    The reason I called out the Obama namedrop is because I've been argueing this with several people the past week or so, the obama, liberal agenda, fake news, stuff always comes up. I'm not political myself, but when people resort to this it just shows that their mind is made up to align with their political party regardless of topic. Which makes their opinion invalid as far as I'm concerned. It's also a peeve of mine.

    Now to respond to your post. You said the isp's are more power hungry than the government. So why do you prefer the negatives of isp control over the Internet over the government's control? It's a logical paradox..

    And still, no one has named a positive to the repeal