# Why the 2015 Net Neutrality Laws Were Wrong



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

Net Neutrality
Why it's a bad thing
​Now, before you start to scream in rage, let me explain myself. To start off, I think the principle of net neutrality is great -- I love it. However, the 2015 net neutrality laws that were enacted in the Obama administration were somewhat of a trojan horse of government control. I know it sounds contrary, but I'll try to explain myself. Recently, I was talking to my friend, who happens to be a lawyer with his own firm. During conversation, net neutrality came up. (It's worth noting that this was before the repeal.) Right off the bat, be went the offensive side, claiming that net neutrality is a terrible thing. I was somewhat angry at that, and attemped to refute his claim. I said all the normal stuff about throttling and censorship. The  he told me something that struck me: under the net neutrality laws, ISPs are covered by Title II, meaning they are a public utilities, therefore under direct government control. Now of course, in my research, I had realized that net neutrality laws classified ISPs in Title II, but I hadn't understood the connotations thereof. After a few more proofs, he swiftly won the debate, but he also changed my opinion. This is not easy.

With this revealment, I saw it in a whole new way. This was not just about the principle of net neutrality, but the law causing it. Net neutrality is merely a nice by-product of changing ISP classification. When the president said that the net neutrality policy was a "power grab" I thought he was deluded. Now, however, I see he has somewhat of a point. For this reason, I am rather happy about the repeal. There are still cons to this issue, as it is now fair game for ISPs to block and throttle content to their hearts content. If this happens, people will move away from them, and they'll lost business. This is how the free market works. ISPs shouldn't need the government to motivate them to use good practices.

And then there's Ajit Pai, the most hated man on the Internet. I don't fully understand him. He is a very obnoxious character, and I will freely admit it. He is mostly out of touch with Internet culture. He makes YouTube videos, which isn't part of his job. However, he is not getting personal game from tnis repeal, contrary to popular propaganda. However, I do not care about people who make laws, only the laws they make, so the way he acts is none of my concern.

In closing I'd like everyone to keep an open mind, and be ready for what comes next. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to nearing your opinion on the matter!


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

Sorry about the double-post, Xenforo doesn't like me on mobile.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

I would like to hear your thoughts on why you think repeal is a good thing in more detail.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2017)

You spent more time asking us to not to tune you out than explaining what was wrong with it.  Okay, so Title II puts more government control on ISPs.  Now explain what makes that bad when dealing with natural monopolies that have proven they will exploit the fact that they have monopolies.

Also, you are wrong about the free market.  We do not have a free market when it comes to broadband.  A free market is one that is ruled by the laws of supply and demand which requires competition.  Instead we have a market of regional monopolies for a service that is absolutely necessary in the modern world.  It is far from a free market.


----------



## CrimsonMaple (Dec 18, 2017)

There are two takes to Net Neutrality we have tried so far. A reactionary method. Where ISPs are put on a leash, but they can do whatever they want. They can be anti-competitive, and can do this as long as the government, and the people do not care. This is a weak way to manage this, as its well reactionary. Meaning these already greedy companies can do as they please until someone says the can't. And if you say that this is fine because you can just move ISPs. You're largely wrong. There are few people who actually can do that. I only have one choice of ISP where I live. If I don't like them throttling something, I'm shit out of luck. This is also the case for quite a number of other Americans, who for one reason or another cannot switch. This leads to no competition in some areas, leading to no innovation or improvement. There is no totally free market here to combat this. The other option is to lock them down, and force them to play fair. Title 2 made internet more accessible for people with one choice in ISP. Knowing that they were guaranteed an open internet. But yes, title 2 is not perfect. But it is the best solution to an open internet we have had. What needs to happen is a combination of the two. Requiring ISPs to both, create competition, and keep an open internet without borders. To keep all information accessible, not hidden behind another paywall on either side, (company or user).


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 18, 2017)

While your argument is better presented than Pai, one major issue is you're ignoring that these ISPs are evil. Their intentions come off as greedy and Pai basically fellated them. Someone pointed out Comcast's swift changes of their net neutrality page and how lots of things they said they wouldn't do, are gone from the page.

https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544

If I'm not mistaken, Verizon got into some hate for throttling Netflix. I used to have Verizon and backed off due to mounting debt, their charges were ludicrous. That doesn't hurt them, even if there's a mass exodus, this won't put those ISPs out of business, they could surely lure people back in (especially with lack of options, my city for example only has RCN, Verizon, and shitty satellite internet, maybe Comcast but I haven't known anyone in these parts to use that), only to pull the rug out from under them. It just looks like you're oblivious to these massive ISPs, they're one of the biggest reasons why the net neutrality repeal is frightening. In the 2 years since that net neutrality law passed, I haven't encountered, noticed any negative effect of government regulation, if there was any direct intervening from the government at all. When that thing passed 2 years ago, I didn't see it as this all being in the government's court, I saw it as basically them having a child and giving them a huge amount of independence, as the child has proven to thrive (despite the seedy and negative aspects, its underbelly), and it worked. Net neutrality being repealed now means that child, who has experienced independence for a significant amount of time, will be forced into a more closed off, controlling environment. What will happen? The kid will break. The internet will fucking break.


----------



## Quantumcat (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> If this happens, people will move away from them, and they'll lost business.


Wrong. In many areas people only have one provider to choose from. They have no choice but to take what they are given. If there was only one power company and they decided to start charging you ten times as much for your power, would you really start using oil lamps and only eating canned food? No, you have no choice, and they can charge what they like. Government regulation is important.

Not to mention, with net neutrality repealed internet companies do better when they are bigger (so they can make deals with content providers and bully smaller networks into taking their terms or else they'll shut the smaller networks' customers out of content), making monopolies worse and giving people fewer and fewer choices.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Dec 18, 2017)

Since ISPs have regional monopolies/oligopolies they need to be regulated to prevent some of the most egregious abuses. The real solution is for the last mile infrastructure to be a true public utility, with a free market competing to provide internet service.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2017)

When writing a debate article, people usually stick to three main arguments. One somewhat strong, one weaker, and at the end the strongest one. Sadly, I only see one single argument which can be easily argued against (and has already been in posts above).

I'd love to hear more arguments against net neutrality to get a bigger picture of the whole situation, but so far I haven't been able to find that many great arguments. If you could provide more, that would be great!


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

Title 2 was applied in a way that doesn't give government total power.
So over 700 Title 2 rules does not apply to ISP's.

Things the FCC can't do,

No unbundling of last-mile facilities
No tariffs
No rate regulation
No cost accounting rules
No new federal taxes or fees...
It was a light approach to the application of Title 2 limiting government power.
*Source*

It was applied in a way so that it does not hurt business infrastructure or hurt money making possibilites.
So there is not a lot of regulation applied and theres no extra red tape involved.

The internet does not go through the FCC. So the FCC doesn't have direct control over content. Only ISP's have direct control. They only made rules where ISP's can't block or throttle. And they only oversee the Internet to see if ISP's follow these rules.

They already have competitive offerings. Like 5 mbps or 50 mbps. So a cheaper option or a faster one. And how much you pay will give you slower or faster speeds. You compete not by blocking or throttling content unfairly. You compete by research and development. By creating better internet technologies that offer faster speeds and more reliable internet. This is how capitalism should be done.

With this new plan we are going back to Title 1.
We were under Title 1 for a lot longer than Title 2 yet not many ISP's sprung up during this time.
Most Americans have only 1 ISP in their area. So without regulation ISP's will have total internet control of that area.
ISP's merged and went to areas were there is less competition so they can have monopoly in that area and not compete with each other.
Title 2 gives protection for people that have no options. And at the same time capitalism can still exist under Title 2.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Wrong. In many areas people only have one provider to choose from. They have no choice but to take what they are given. If there was only one power company and they decided to start charging you ten times as much for your power, would you really start using oil lamps and only eating canned food? No, you have no choice, and they can charge what they like. Government regulation is important.
> 
> Not to mention, with net neutrality repealed internet companies do better when they are bigger (so they can make deals with content providers and bully smaller networks into taking their terms or else they'll shut the smaller networks' customers out of content), making monopolies worse and giving people fewer and fewer choices.



Where I live, there is only one choice of ISP: AT&T. You make a good point in talking about monopolies. I have experiences with such things. But that does not mean that the government needs to get involved to make sure they're doing things we want. If the government needs to hold ISPs' hands, then it's only a matter of time until the government begins more regulations. We've seen this with multiple communication mediums, including radio and Television.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Title 2 was applied in a way that doesn't give government total power.
> So over 700 Title 2 rules does not apply to ISP's.
> 
> Things the FCC can't do,
> ...



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



rotebrotobias said:


> When writing a debate article, people usually stick to three main arguments. One somewhat strong, one weaker, and at the end the strongest one. Sadly, I only see one single argument which can be easily argued against (and has already been in posts above).
> 
> I'd love to hear more arguments against net neutrality to get a bigger picture of the whole situation, but so far I haven't been able to find that many great arguments. If you could provide more, that would be great!


Thanks for the feedback! I'd like to continue this tomorrow. I'm tired, and using a touch keyboard is a pain. When I get to a keyboard, I'll type some more


----------



## tech3475 (Dec 18, 2017)

What Im about to say will likely be controversial, but one option in areas where there is a monopoly may be to force the isp to lease the line to other companies.

Here in the Uk, our former state monopoly was forced to do the same as in many areas their line is the only option (such as where I live), But this does mean we have competition where there would otherwise be none.

Its not perfect, but the idea of only having BT as an ISP seems worse.


----------



## Quantumcat (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> Where I live, there is only one choice of ISP: AT&T. You make a good point in talking about monopolies. I have experiences with such things. But that does not mean that the government needs to get involved to make sure they're doing things we want. If the government needs to hold ISPs' hands, then it's only a matter of time until the government begins more regulations. We've seen this with multiple communication mediums, including radio and Television.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


But regulation is so important. Without it, there's nothing stopping AT&T from charging whatever they like. The only thing capping then would be what you can access by mobile. So for instance if you can get 3GB for $30 a month, maybe they'll offer you 5GB for $30/month, 30GB for $100/month, and unlimited for $300/month. And maybe only give you 1Mbps speeds, and you have to pay $50/month extra for 10Mbps speed. Would you be happy paying those sorts of prices, with no other choice available to you? If you're a normal middle class person, you'd probably have to give up online gaming and torrent downloading, and other things. That's what would happen with no regulation. Regulation protects normal consumers, since businesses are moneymaking machines, they will set their policies and prices where it makes them the best profit, not caring if it means people miss out on basic services. I don't know why you would have an opinion that only benefits big business, and not yourself or anyone you know.


----------



## ov3rkill (Dec 18, 2017)

You could've just debated with him and improved your argument with basis. You can refer him to a lot of youtube videos for easy reference.



The government regulating, this is actually a good thing since it's for the people and by the people.
When the time comes and the government would be owned by Disney, that would be a good time to rethink about all that.
Hopefully, the people and its representatives would do something about the repeal.

More video sample which will improve your argument with factual basis.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> But regulation is so important. Without it, there's nothing stopping AT&T from charging whatever they like. The only thing capping then would be what you can access by mobile. So for instance if you can get 3GB for $30 a month, maybe they'll offer you 5GB for $30/month, 30GB for $100/month, and unlimited for $300/month. And maybe only give you 1Mbps speeds, and you have to pay $50/month extra for 10Mbps speed. Would you be happy paying those sorts of prices, with no other choice available to you? If you're a normal middle class person, you'd probably have to give up online gaming and torrent downloading, and other things. That's what would happen with no regulation. Regulation protects normal consumers, since businesses are moneymaking machines, they will set their policies and prices where it makes them the best profit, not caring if it means people miss out on basic services. I don't know why you would have an opinion that only benefits big business, and not yourself or anyone you know.


The thing is, the *new plan* Pai has, they are not actually getting rid of Net Neutrality
If you read here. (This was uploaded by MaverickWellington.) Its explains NN regulation under this new plan.

We are going back to Title 1 classification under this new plan. 
We had Net Neutrality prior to 2015 under Title 1.

Net Neutrality regulations were,

No Blocking 
No Throttling 
No Paid Prioritization
No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage to consumers or edge providers. 
Enhanced transparency - They have to tell the public what they are doing and can't keep secrets.
There were successful NN lawsuits under Title 1, and they were enforcing NN prior to 2015, until ISP's found a flaw under Tile 1's Information Service classification. 
Which means it was now harder for FCC to regulate. They could only regulate better under Title 2's Common Carrier classification. Which forced them to classify ISP's as Title 2 before they can do anything.

So Pai's plan has regulation, its expecting ISP's to commit and self regulate, and commitments are punishable by law if they deceive customers. 
But there is no law that forces ISP's to commit. And at the same time NN will be harder to enforce under Title 1, which is what we're going back to. 
It seems Comcast already went back on their pledges the day Pai's plan was announced.

If you wanna know what not having Net Neutrality looks like. Skip to 24:44 on *this video*. Its show the history of ISP's breaking NN rules.
Like blocking tethering apps, blocking Skype, blocking voice apps, blocking streaming video sites, throttling p2p, zero rating, disabling gps apps, disabling fm radio chips, and so on... These will happen more than actually having the payed packages people talk about.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Dec 18, 2017)

The Net Neutrality rules might not have been perfect, but I would take them over what we have now...


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 18, 2017)

They're repealing something without explaining what are the benefits for the consumers.

Also, not trying to offend the american people, but please, PLEASE, open your eyes to the rest of the world, and look at the price of Internet access in Europe.
You may realize that net neutrality or not, you are being royally screwed by ISPs.
You also kind of have "packaged internet" already. The ISP I use in Chicago at least does. You should NOT be paying an extra to use vo-ip. It's using your internet connection! But they charge you more if you want it.


Before moving to the US, I was in a country where every single region had ISP competition (something even republicans should be ok with), and the internet was on average 30 euros (with taxes), unlimited, including fiber optic if available.
That also included vo-ip phone and basic tv channels.

You are being screwed, and you're asking for more of it.


----------



## smile72 (Dec 18, 2017)

When I lived in America. I lived in an area with a few choices for internet providers then eventually my only choice for internet became Comcast....just google videos to see how evil these bastards are, They are utterly horrible. Do I trust them to give me fair prices....haha...absolutely NOT! So I would rather it be in government hands then Comcast's.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 18, 2017)

Wasn't this thread deleted a few hours ago?


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 18, 2017)

So, given that OP didn't actually say any actual reasons for why his opinion was changed I strongly come away from this believing simply having credentials and an opinion are persuasive arguments. Still totally for net neutrality, as it was mostly enacted to stop the SOPA/PIPA bullshit that is far more likely to kill off the pre-2015 rules now that they have been rolled back into effect.

Remember, Title II did a lot more than just protect us from ISP's overcharging and such, it had numerous enshrined laws to stop the need for something like SOPA/PIPA as the FTC has no real power to stop ISP shenanigans but under Title II the FCC actually did have the power. Now the FCC & FTC are useless the republican controlled House, Senate and President will make the real power grab, your ISP charging you to access Reddit and blocking sites like GBATemp will be small beans.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 18, 2017)

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.


----------



## Ritsuki (Dec 18, 2017)

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.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Wasn't this thread deleted a few hours ago?


I thought it was deleted too. But apparently temp is having problems.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/every-s...ernet-has-been-acting-up.492035/#post-7742134


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

SG854 said:


> The thing is, the *new plan* Pai has, they are not actually getting rid of Net Neutrality
> If you read here. (This was uploaded by MaverickWellington.) Its explains NN regulation under this new plan.
> 
> We are going back to Title 1 classification under this new plan.
> ...


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.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> I thought it was deleted too. But apparently temp is having problems.
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/every-s...ernet-has-been-acting-up.492035/#post-7742134


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


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> 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 plaguing the US.


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.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 18, 2017)

So, gobernment is evil and the wild west is great. Yawn. Americans will get the point with healthcare soon enough.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 18, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> So, gobernment is evil and the wild west is great. Yawn. Americans will get the point with healthcare soon enough.


Most of us are too dumb, quite frankly.


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Dec 18, 2017)

blackwrensniper said:


> Most of us are too dumb, quite frankly.


dont lump random people into your group thx


----------



## Fishaman P (Dec 18, 2017)

I don't think you've ever stated the downsides of NN being in place though.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

blackwrensniper said:


> 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
> _
> ...


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.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ritsuki said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## yusuo (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> Net Neutrality
> Why it's a bad thing
> ​Now, before you start to scream in rage, let me explain myself. To start off, I think the principle of net neutrality is great -- I love it. However, the 2015 net neutrality laws that were enacted in the Obama administration were somewhat of a trojan horse of government control. I know it sounds contrary, but I'll try to explain myself. Recently, I was talking to my friend, who happens to be a lawyer with his own firm. During conversation, net neutrality came up. (It's worth noting that this was before the repeal.) Right off the bat, be went the offensive side, claiming that net neutrality is a terrible thing. I was somewhat angry at that, and attemped to refute his claim. I said all the normal stuff about throttling and censorship. The  he told me something that struck me: under the net neutrality laws, ISPs are covered by Title II, meaning they are a public utilities, therefore under direct government control. Now of course, in my research, I had realized that net neutrality laws classified ISPs in Title II, but I hadn't understood the connotations thereof. After a few more proofs, he swiftly won the debate, but he also changed my opinion. This is not easy.
> 
> ...


You got your got your title wrong. I'm pretty sure it was supposed to say "why I decided to troll today"


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> 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.


Correct, but that doesn't stop all lawsuits. There are numerous people who will sue for various other things, including Google.



yusuo said:


> You got your got your title wrong. I'm pretty sure it was supposed to say "why I decided to troll today"


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



Nightwish said:


> So, gobernment is evil and the wild west is great. Yawn. Americans will get the point with healthcare soon enough.


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.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 18, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

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!


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.


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


----------



## Termer (Dec 18, 2017)

WeedZ said:


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


It's all hypothetical as of now. Only time will tell. I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but if I see bad stuff happening, I will call for net neutrality again. This has been a good and enlightening debate.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 18, 2017)

McWhiters9511 said:


> dont lump random people into your group thx


We have an unqualified man for president and a credibly accused child molester lost a Senate seat by 1% of the vote


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 18, 2017)

WeedZ said:


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


I got you fam, 2018 and 2020 Blue Wave. Lotsa damage done before then but hopefully it'll be reversed quickly.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> It's all hypothetical as of now. Only time will tell. I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but if I see bad stuff happening, I will call for net neutrality again. This has been a good and enlightening debate.


But bad stuff was happening, and many law suits were happening, which is why we even went to Title 2 in the first place. So its not all hypothetical.
Many IPS's have broken NN rules multiple times thoughout the years prior to 2015.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> It's all hypothetical as of now. Only time will tell. I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but if I see bad stuff happening, I will call for net neutrality again. This has been a good and enlightening debate.


I hope so. There's no reason to wait and see. We're reverting back to the old policy. We've seen what they do. Ever hear the old proverb "those that don't learn from the past.." or "trying the same thing expecting different results.."? I feel like it's common sense that we don't go back to when startup companies were being crushed by isp's, what's the payoff? Where's the why? I want my why


----------



## SG854 (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


The problem is you are not clear with examples. You keep saying the government will have control and censor. But no clear examples. And you cutting this off so quick would be hard to get what you mean.

But as I said in my second post, government can't censor. Since the Internet does not go through them. Everything does not go through the FCC. They only say you can't block or throttle. Its discussed in the 2015 Title 2 document. The whole reason why people are for the repeal is because of an assumption that government has power to control and censor, but they don't. If a website is blocked then would be against the NN rules. ISP's are the ones doing blocking and censoring, that was happening under title 1. So you would rather let IPS's have power to block then have the government block (which government have no power to block under title 2 anyway.)

Not only that but your also saying that its hypotheticals of what ISP's will do. But what your saying of what the government will do is also a hypothetical. The difference is ISP's breaking NN actually happened. And government are prevented from doing those hypotheticals as outlined in the 2015 document.


----------



## Fishaman P (Dec 18, 2017)

In your fantasy world, the government can't censor anything secretly under Title I? That's... a mindset.


----------



## Ritsuki (Dec 18, 2017)

I just remembered that in Switzerland, we had a situation 17 years ago where a telecom company (Swisscom), which had a deal with the government (basically they participated in the development of telecommunication network in the whole country), was in a complete monopoly situation. There was like 2 other mobile operators, but since the first operator pretty much owned part of the network, they made sure that they had the best coverage and speed,eand they also made sure that they were the only ISP, even if it wasn't allowed by the government. And without the government's regulations we would be in the same situation. But on another hand, all the other ISP still have crappy speeds, because they can't afford the infrastructure. So we have a choice, but only if you don't care about speed or after sales service... My advice : let's see what happens, because both situations can be crappy.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Dec 18, 2017)

u are wrong
and i'm nut
done


----------



## Quantumcat (Dec 18, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> They're repealing something without explaining what are the benefits for the consumers.
> 
> Also, not trying to offend the american people, but please, PLEASE, open your eyes to the rest of the world, and look at the price of Internet access in Europe.
> You may realize that net neutrality or not, you are being royally screwed by ISPs.
> ...


Yeah I pay $59AUD (45.33USD) for unlimited on ADSL2+. What do people pay there?


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 18, 2017)

Termer said:


> 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.



Great!
And so, answer to the question?


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 19, 2017)

Termer said:


> Come on now, even on the surface web there's piracy, and everything else imaginable. The Internet is too large to effectively regulate.



And yet, the undesirable content is going away at the hands of corporations who merge content with distribution. Youtube is a fucking mess this days, for one, with shit disappearing every day (even old shit) because some algorithm said so and was completely wrong.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 20, 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-replace-some-but-not-all-of-the-fccs-rules/

Oh look, SOPA/PIPA style legislation has appeared.

tl;dr This allows for paid prioritization, prevents further classification under title 2 and tries to kill off individual states rights to enforce their own net neutrality.

_“prohibit blocking of lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices, [and] prohibit impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic.”
_
This is also worded in such a way it can kill Youtube or Twitch in a heartbeat, even Google really.


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Dec 20, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We have an unqualified man for president and a credibly accused child molester lost a Senate seat by 1% of the vote


doesnt mean that we all like it


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

McWhiters9511 said:


> doesnt mean that we all like it


I know, I'm just saying that clearly roughly half of our population are either idiots or sympathize with idiots


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Dec 20, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know, I'm just saying that clearly roughly half of our population are either idiots or sympathize with idiots


and its freaking hilarious imo
ok and what percent of america doesnt vote i bet changing that could make for some really interesting future elections


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

McWhiters9511 said:


> and its freaking hilarious imo


Yeeeeeaaaaaah...

Right up until it directly affects your life


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Dec 20, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeeeeeaaaaaah...
> 
> Right up until it directly affects your life


mhm. its a pain for a president to do much of anything especially when most of his cabinet hates him lol so im not very worried


----------



## Tigran (Dec 20, 2017)

McWhiters9511 said:


> and its freaking hilarious imo
> ok and what percent of america doesnt vote i bet changing that could make for some really interesting future elections




What about the ones who are unable to vote because of voter suppression? Took me 3 and half hours to get my "Voter" ID last time because no one... and I mean no one.. knew how to get me one, and even told me I had to pay for a normal ID didn't get a free ID. When I pointed out the regulation on my phone, they then whined that if I had a phone... I should be able to pay for an ID. Told them it didn't matter... I was un-employed and could not pay for state ID and I am required by law to be given a free ID. I shudder to think how many people walked out when they were told they had to pay for regular ID.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



McWhiters9511 said:


> mhm. its a pain for a president to do much of anything especially when most of his cabinet hates him lol so im not very worried



They are in the middle of passing a bill that gives him a huge tax cut and increases the taxes of the middle/low class...


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 20, 2017)

They seem to be having a field day on kicking us while we are down. There are so many people that needs to be voted out or leave their position.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

Tigran said:


> They are in the middle of passing a bill that gives him a huge tax cut and increases the taxes of the middle/low class...


Not to mention this


----------



## Tigran (Dec 20, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> They seem to be having a field day on kicking us while we are down. There are so many people that needs to be voted out or leave their position.



Until conservatives in general realize that they are racist or bigoted, the people who are "conservative" will continue to vote for them.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

Tigran said:


> Until conservatives in general realize that they are racist or bigoted, the people who are "conservative" will continue to vote for them.


The whole Roy Moore debacle kind of woke some people up, I think. It's just a shame it took something that drastic to turn even centrists' heads


----------



## Tigran (Dec 20, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The whole Roy Moore debacle kind of woke some people up, I think. It's just a shame it took something that drastic to turn even centrists' heads



Considering a whole bunch of his voters were saying "We would have been honored if our 14 year old wanted to day a 40 year old Judge.".... No.. No it didn't.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

Tigran said:


> Considering a whole bunch of his voters were saying "We would have been honored if our 14 year old wanted to day a 40 year old Judge.".... No.. No it didn't.


Outside of Alabama I mean. And yeah, most of the people who were turned were already questioning their conservative ideals

It's a start, though


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 20, 2017)

Not even going to bother with how stupid the premise of this thread is, just wanted to say it's pretty adorable to think Ajit wouldn't get anything for killing net neutrality.
I'm sure ISPs _argued_ quite persuasively about the benefits (to his wallet) of doing such a thing. That's how the world works.


----------



## blackwrensniper (Dec 20, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The whole Roy Moore debacle kind of woke some people up, I think. It's just a shame it took something that drastic to turn even centrists' heads



Given the election was decided by about 21,000 votes and 1.3 million votes were cast... No, I'd beg to differ. Remember this was an election that for a lot of people the choice was either an *accused* pedophile or an actual murderer of babies(Doug Jones is pro choice, this in no way actually makes him a murderer imo). I'd say it's more accurate to say the election didn't so much as woke people up, it just got them off their asses to vote.

Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. Democrats always need a hero to follow or a villain to defeat, Republicans just need to be told to vote. Unless 2018 and 2020 give us somebody to fall in love to, expect nothing to happen anywhere even in light of all the rage online.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 20, 2017)

Termer said:


> There are still cons to this issue, as it is now fair game for ISPs to block and throttle content to their hearts content. If this happens, people will move away from them, and they'll lost business. This is how the free market works. ISPs shouldn't need the government to motivate them to use good practices..




The lack of a broadband free market is exactly why we need a net neutrality law in the first place.

Simply put, there isn't one. Try pulling up the list of broadband providers for most areas, and youll see what I mean- most have either 0 or 1. Im part of the lucky "1" group, since Comcast is the only broadband provider in my area. If Comcast starts blocking stuff, I'm not switching, cuz I don't have anyone to switch to.

If a free broadband market was a thing, I can guarantee you no one would care about the repeal. But it's not.

Also, at least speaking from my point of view, I'd prefer net neutrality enforcement under Title I, which was what we had before Verizon sued. But Verizon ruined a good thing, so that's not possible anymore. Until Congress passes a net neutrality law, we need Title II.

And if you think Ajit Pai cares about the consumer, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm gonna link you to this article about the current FCC's claim that having one provider means a market is sufficiently competitive.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 21, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know, I'm just saying that clearly roughly half of our population are either idiots or sympathize with idiots


People don't (have time to) pay attention to how mental Trump and the GOP would be. Fuck, I expected there to still be some spines somewhere in the party to stop the insanity.
And the alternative was a Goldman whore, so there was no hope for the change that was betrayed, and thus no one cared.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 21, 2017)

Nightwish said:


> People don't (have time to) pay attention to how mental Trump and the GOP would be. Fuck, I expected there to still be some spines somewhere in the party to stop the insanity.
> And the alternative was a Goldman whore, so there was no hope for the change that was betrayed, and thus no one cared.



You forgot Trump put the same Goldman guy on his cabinet.


----------

