Net Neutrality once again needs our help!

[the_randomizer]

Your argument has no basis in reality. What you have failed to understand that as an ISP the companies have a right to give service as the see fit. There is literally no reason as to why Comcast should treat Youtube, Netflix, NBC, and whoever else the same. Even if there are no cost differences in terms of the networking side there are still other considerations to make when it comes to net neutrality. Thus the idea of treating such data equally is laughable at best and sad at worst. The true genius of the net neutrality movement is that it is being led by in large by massive corporations (Google, NBC, Disney, and whoever else) that have a large impact on terms of how it will affect them while targeting some everyday joes into supporting such legislation on the grounds of buzz words that are ultimately attractive to the same crowd who have no clue what it is about.

And you're not worried that they will somehow screw the pooch for end-users/consumers?

 

[Piluvr]

Your argument has no basis in reality. What you have failed to understand that as an ISP the companies have a right to give service as the see fit. There is literally no reason as to why Comcast should treat Youtube, Netflix, NBC, and whoever else the same. Even if there are no cost differences in terms of the networking side there are still other considerations to make when it comes to net neutrality. Thus the idea of treating such data equally is laughable at best and sad at worst. The true genius of the net neutrality movement is that it is being led by in large by massive corporations (Google, NBC, Disney, and whoever else) that have a large impact on terms of how it will affect them while targeting some everyday joes into supporting such legislation on the grounds of buzz words that are ultimately attractive to the same crowd who have no clue what it is about.

"Hey, lets not treat people equally because we have a right over them! It's our service, so we get to control what goes to the people!" OR "Hey, we have a moral right over this race, so we deserve to control what happens to them."

 

[Kioku]

But do you honestly think someone as heartless as those Comcast bastards is going to give in to protests? I honestly want to know? We sign protests, we join these EFF fights, we write to congressmen, reps, etc, but does it truly make our voices heard? Sometimes, it doesn't feel like it, like it falls on deaf ears.


How I so want to tell those responsible for this to eff themselves to their face.

Actions speak louder than words. Signing a peace of paper does next to nothing in situations like this. Like I said before. You quit giving them your money, you'll hit them where it hurts. Protesting is just pointless bickering. Take your business elsewhere. The hardest part is trying to convince every other customer they're being rammed hard, there's so much complacency.

 

[jimbo13]

When you say corporations cut the shit, were talking about Comcast.

We already have regulations to deal with Comcast that need to be and aren't being enforced in way of monopoly laws.

And I say this as an Ayn Rand-roid dyed in the wool libertarian. Free Market arguments don't apply to a company like Comcast or most ISP's if they are being granted public easements on private property.

ISPs do not operate or exist through success in the free market, they exist through imminent domain and being granted easements.

Stringent regulation is what they agreed to when they were granted the privilege of running their fiber optics across YOUR backyard. Now if they want to negotiate with every land owner whose property they trespass on, we can leave them fairly unregulated.

 

[RevPokemon]

"Hey, lets not treat people equally because we have a right over them! It's our service, so we get to control what goes to the people!" OR "Hey, we have a moral right over this race, so we deserve to control what happens to them."

Your argument is flawed. The reason is that when they are in some sense allowing access to the content they have the right to limit what they wish to offer and how they seek to offer it. Your argument has no basis in the fact that there are real financial reasons to limit access. And yes unless you prove otherwise they have this right since it is thier business.

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

And you're not worried that they will somehow screw the pooch for end-users/consumers?

Companies do this all the time in terms of hurting quality of service for a bottom line so that is irrelevant

 

[Piluvr]

Your argument is flawed. The reason is that when they are in some sense allowing access to the content they have the right to limit what they wish to offer and how they seek to offer it. Your argument has no basis in the fact that there are real financial reasons to limit access. And yes unless you prove otherwise they have this right since it is thier business.

If it is my buisness to own slaves, which has a financial profit, it is my right. That does not make IT right though.

 

[Kioku]

If it is my buisness to own slaves, which has a financial profit, it is my right. That does not make IT right though.

How do we go from ISPs to slavery?

 

[Piluvr]

How do we go from ISPs to slavery?

If it is not valid at extremes, it should not be valid at minimums.

 

[RevPokemon]

If it is my buisness to own slaves, which has a financial profit, it is my right. That does not make IT right though.

Of course just like McDonald's serving cold fries instead of a new batch everytime is

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

If it is not valid at extremes, it should not be valid at minimums.

There is no similarities

 

[Kioku]

If it is not valid at extremes, it should not be valid at minimums.

ISPs choosing where to limit their services and you owning slaves aren't comparable. Your argument is flawed.

 

[jimbo13]

Your argument is flawed. The reason is that when they are in some sense allowing access to the content they have the right to limit what they wish to offer and how they seek to offer it. Your argument has no basis in the fact that there are real financial reasons to limit access. And yes unless you prove otherwise they have this right since it is their business.

They don't have this right, they have an obligation and agreed to stringent regulation and to serve the public interest when they were granted an easement to trespass on private property to run fiber optics.

The public interest is neutral treatment of content, if they want to run as an entirely private entity they can get their fucking lines off my property.

 

[RustInPeace]

You would think the people that can decide on this have noticed how many big internet names are against this. Some of those services they use, everyone uses, and they want to basically hinder them? I mean, some of those decision makers probably watch porn, and probably use the same ISPs, so they could end up on the wrong side of their decision making. Or they end up on the right side, and only alienate the general public even further. Honestly this was foreshadowed with the changing of FCC heads, the current one that came under Trump has a history of opposing net neutrality, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm curious if all ISPs will turn to this side, it seems like the most obvious will be Verizon and Comcast, devils, they are detestable in every sense of the word, even without their stance on net neutrality, they're still evil. It's to a point where it's "hope for the best, expect the worst." The worst may be coming.

 

[dropbear32]

Your argument is flawed. The reason is that when they are in some sense allowing access to the content they have the right to limit what they wish to offer and how they seek to offer it. Your argument has no basis in the fact that there are real financial reasons to limit access. And yes unless you prove otherwise they have this right since it is thier business.

Just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean it is right to do. It is their business, but screwing over their customers just to fatten their bottom line is one of the most morally egregious things a company can do. Especially if the company (take Comcast for example) uses this to promote companies it owns, at the cost of other companies, and at the cost of consumers who want to watch CNN or CBS instead of NBC.

Companies do this all the time in terms of hurting quality of service for a bottom line so that is irrelevant

And this is exactly the problem. Lowering the quality of service just to make more money? And that's OK? Irrelevant for paying customers?

EDIT: I'm generally reluctant to post on political threads, but this I feel quite strongly about.

 

[Piluvr]

EDIT: I'm generally reluctant to post on political threads, but this I feel quite strongly about.

Same. We as users of the internet want the right to the fastest internet across all spectrums (get it!) and normally i wouldnt be politically vocal about it, but this is important.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Issues like these are why we need federal-level referendums I'm the US. . .

Just as a heads up for those who say it is unfair to place the cost on ISPs, you normally wouldn't be wrong but there are issues:

1) There's a lack of free-market competition among big-name ISPs. Comcast and Time Warner both have enough money to expand into each other's playing field, they just agreed not to cartel-style. The FCC even released a report in 2015 saying 76% of Americans have at most one broadband provider available to them. Its also become prohibitively expensive for new entries into the ISP market, just look at Google.
2) We really can't trust these companies to not abuse their power. The modern net neutrality debate started in 2014 Verizon sued the FCC for the right to interfere with P2P traffic (resulting in stricter regulations since former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler was forced to saddle ISPs with Title II regulations), and Verizon has also recently sent a cease and desist letter to a pro-neutrality site, saying that if they pass the net neutrality repeal they will censor said site without even needing lawyers. That's just not OK. Just as a reminder, FCC Chairman Pai is a former Verizon lawyer. Shouldn't even have the job, if you ask me.
3) These corporations can definitely handle the cost. If I have to wear down the profits of some anti-free market corporations to guarantee an end to censorship, sign me up.

If we had proof we can trust these corporations (ha!) or if the market was competitve enough for me to dump whoever's being a dickhead, I'd be fine with no legal enforcement. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

[The Catboy]

Your argument has no basis in reality. What you have failed to understand that as an ISP the companies have a right to give service as the see fit. There is literally no reason as to why Comcast should treat Youtube, Netflix, NBC, and whoever else the same. Even if there are no cost differences in terms of the networking side there are still other considerations to make when it comes to net neutrality. Thus the idea of treating such data equally is laughable at best and sad at worst. The true genius of the net neutrality movement is that it is being led by in large by massive corporations (Google, NBC, Disney, and whoever else) that have a large impact on terms of how it will affect them while targeting some everyday joes into supporting such legislation on the grounds of buzz words that are ultimately attractive to the same crowd who have no clue what it is about.

I am just going to say that I respect you, but you are kind wrong on this one
First, you argued that ISPs are hurt by services like Netflix and Youtube, expect they aren't. ISPs put a data cap on your service, thus meaning they've already determined how much data you can use before it starts effecting them. This means you've already gotten a set amount of data to do anything you want with, so long as it doesn't go above that cap. Thus every service you use, they've already calculated into your bill.
Second, your idea that they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do is simply wrong. That would be like me walking into Subway, ordering a tuna sub, and them telling me that I am getting ham because it's their store. ISPs are a service provider, they are a customer service company like every other company. They should not have the power to determine what you can and can't do, so long as it's within the law.
Finally, you keep ignoring the issues with censorship. Without NN, ISPs will have the power to determine who gets the best speeds and who doesn't. This isn't just limited to sites like Youtube, this includes the entire internet. If Comcast (for example) decides they don't like the content on GBATemp, they can legally slow it down. From there they have the power to decide what happens, they can demand the site completely strip itself of hacking related content, they demand the staff/users to pay a higher fee to access that site at full speed, or they can simply lag the site death. Without NN, the ISP has all the power over what you can see.
And if you don't think they will try to starve out a service, realize they've already tried to do it before
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/...ternet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/

 

[bendevnull]

Probably a terrible idea and a bit off-topic but, what if we were to form our own ISP just for the GBATemper's and this shit and those fucking politicians wouldn't be a problem to us? Sorry if that's just a shitpost. It's 2:30 AM here and I'm tired as fuck...

 

[The Catboy]

Probably a terrible idea and a bit off-topic but, what if we were to form our own ISP just for the GBATemper's and this shit and those fucking politicians wouldn't be a problem to us? Sorry if that's just a shitpost. It's 2:30 AM here and I'm tired as fuck...

I died

 

[RustInPeace]

Probably a terrible idea and a bit off-topic but, what if we were to form our own ISP just for the GBATemper's and this shit and those fucking politicians wouldn't be a problem to us? Sorry if that's just a shitpost. It's 2:30 AM here and I'm tired as fuck...

That's the funniest thing I've read today.

 

[bendevnull]

That's the funniest thing I've read today.

Thanks! I'm saving that post btw. Sad thing though was I was kinda being serious when I said that.