Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Net Neutrality 2017


Springfield

Recommended Posts

Odd thought about the long-term effects of Net Neutrality- what if we the people force the ISPs into an bizarre endgame where they have to defend the websites they choose to "let through". For instance, a bunch of liberals could go after Comcast for allowing access to FoxNews.com as it's "hate speech," encouraging a boycott.  The second the ISPs blink and mollify liberals, conservatives would go after them with the same vigor and insist they're unamerican and need to block access to cnn.com because it's unamerican.

 

It'd actually be way easier for them to sidestep this whole argument by saying, "hey we're constrained by net neutrality," but in the post-net neutrality world, its actually possible to fire up an audience by claiming that the ISPs have the power to stop these websites from mis-informing the people, but they choose not to.

 

I know it sounds ridiculous, but Cable companies and ISPs are basically local monopolies, and their shareholders expect certain revenue/income growth year to year. The old model for getting this growth has been just to raise prices ~3% every year.  That's getting challenged by cordcutting, which was unheard of ~10 years ago. The one weakness about a monopoly is that they have no opportunity to "grow" their market- so a boycott can only be offset by raising prices even more, which would only encourage more cordcutting.

 

Just an additional note on the cordcutting: I realize its a complicated topic- cordcutters don't forego watching TV like they did 10 years ago- they use services like netflix, youtubeTV, hulu, etc and those would definitely be affected by net neutrality. I realize its more complicated than the scenario I drew out.  I also realize that giving them power puts us in a position to make them accountable for things they traditionally wouldn't be accountable for, and we should wield that power.

Edited by balki1867
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big issue with cord cutting going forward as well is going to be data caps. A lot of the big ISPs will offer unlimited data if you package TV with Internet, but if you just want internet, you will have a data cap and in today's world where even with TV you still get a ton of content over the internet, trying to go pure internet for all content is going to have you going over your limit, unless you just don't watch that much content to begin with.

 

In my house of 4, my kids are only 6 and 2 & 1/2, and we end up bumping against what would be the monthly cap (250gb) just about every month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, balki1867 said:

Odd thought about the long-term effects of Net Neutrality- what if we the people force the ISPs into an bizarre endgame where they have to defend the websites they choose to "let through". For instance, a bunch of liberals could go after Comcast for allowing access to FoxNews.com as it's "hate speech," encouraging a boycott.  The second the ISPs blink and mollify liberals, conservatives would go after them with the same vigor and insist they're unamerican and need to block access to cnn.com because it's unamerican.

 

It'd actually be way easier for them to sidestep this whole argument by saying, "hey we're constrained by net neutrality," but in the post-net neutrality world, its actually possible to fire up an audience by claiming that the ISPs have the power to stop these websites from mis-informing the people, but they choose not to.

 

 

I've had similar thoughts. Force the ISPs to choose between two regulatory models. 

 

In one, they're common carriers. If it turns out that the latest mass shooter has been visiting ISIS (or white supremacist, or Dallas Cowboy) web sites, then the ISP's position is "hey, we're the post office. We deliver envelopes from A to B. We aren't allowed to look at what's inside them". 

 

BUT, in that world, they aren't allowed to look at your packets. No compiling data on which sites individual users visit, or the contents of their email, or their search history. 

 

Or they can spy on their users, and they can degrade or block what they don't approve of. BUT, they're liable for what their users do, online. 

 

They can't have both surveillance and selective performance, and claim "it's not our fault". 

 

(Me, I would much rather see regulatory environment one). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

 

In my house of 4, my kids are only 6 and 2 & 1/2, and we end up bumping against what would be the monthly cap (250gb) just about every month.

 

Me and the wife do 4x that

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

Me and the wife do 4x that

 

We probably would if we didn't still have Direct TV.  All things considered we still watch a lot of traditional TV.  If we cut the cord, but still ended up watching everything we watch now? Yeah....data caps be damned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.inverse.com/article/39671-in-the-wake-of-net-neutrality-prepare-for-internet-fast-lanes

 

With Net Neutrality Dead, Proposed Bill Promises Internet "Fast Lanes"

 

On December 19, representative Marsha Blackburn proposed the “Open Internet Preservation Act” in a video on Twitter. In the announcement, the Tennessee Republican touts that this bill will prevent blocking and throttling of legal web content, but she elides that this would bar the FCC from creating any rules that go beyond those requirements. Blackburn’s proposition would also keep any states from enacting any of their own net neutrality legislation.

 

While Blackburn’s statement on Twitter made it seem like the goal of the Open Internet Preservation Act is to restore the net neutrality regulations previously in place through the FCC’s rules, the bill would actually take away key protections. Most importantly, it would still allow for the creation of Internet “fast lanes,” which means everyone gets a baseline browsing speed but ISPs can charge users or websites more for access to faster internet.

Net neutrality advocates caught on to this pretty quickly.

 

“This bill’s true goal is to let a few unregulated monopolies and duopolies stifle competition and control the future of communications,” said Craig Aaron, the CEO of the consumer advocaycy group Free Press, in a statement. “This cynical attempt to offer something the tiniest bit better than what the FCC did and pretend it’s a compromise is an insult to the millions who are calling on Congress to restore real net neutrality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really admiring the use of language to try to frame this issue, here.  You read about it, and you're constantly running up against two claims:  

 

"We're going to create a faster Internet, and sell it to people who pay extra."

 

"They're going to intentionally make the Internet slower, unless people pay extra."

 

The problem is that the two statements are identical.  It is impossible to just one or just the other.  

 

 


 

You're a router, somewhere on the Internet.  You've just received a packet.  Packet is addressed to Netflix.  

 

Under net neutrality, your actions are:  

 

Check your routing tables.

Find the fastest route to Netflix.

Send it that way.  

 

Under Brave New Internet, your actions are:

 

Check to see if Netflix is paying you a kickback.

Check to see that the packet if from Larry.

Check to see if Larry is paying extra.  

Check the routing tables, to see what's the fastest route to Netflix.  

Depending on how much extra you're getting paid, either send it the fastest way, or check to see if there's a slower way, and send it the slower way.  

 

In the Brave New Internet, the only way to implement the "upgraded" version, is to intentionally send packets using a less-than-optimal route, depending on the customer(s).  

 

The "faster lane" cannot be implemented through any other means than by intentionally sending the data of lower-tier costumers by slower routes.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2017 at 8:39 PM, Springfield said:

https://www.inverse.com/article/39671-in-the-wake-of-net-neutrality-prepare-for-internet-fast-lanes

 

With Net Neutrality Dead, Proposed Bill Promises Internet "Fast Lanes"

 

Blackburn’s proposition would also keep any states from enacting any of their own net neutrality legislation.

 

This is already the case. The order repealing net neutrality protections made it almost impossible for states and cities to create their own net neutrality protections.

 

Quote

The preemption clause is sure to play a big role in these challenges. The final language isn’t clear yet—the order won’t be public until it’s published in the Federal Register, which could take weeks. But the latest available draft has broad language to block states and cities from enforcing rules that the FCC repealed or decided against imposing. That’s vague enough that it could be interpreted to challenge any attempted legislation that affects broadband providers. Cities also wouldn’t be able to impose “more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.” That means states can’t make broadband providers disclose any more information than required by the FCC about how they might prioritize or block content, and also likely can’t impose additional privacy protections for consumers.

 

https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/12/what-can-cities-and-states-do-about-net-neutrality/548546/

 

Ultimately, we need cities to start creating their own broadband networks. It's going to cost money, but I think the public will back any effort that gets Comcast and Verizon out of our lives as much as possible.

Edited by No Excuses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*SCOTT santen tweet about democrazy* There is a reason we aren't actually a democracy. If 80 percent, or 51 percent, of people wanted slavery to not have been abolished and we followed this reasoning it wouldn't have happened. Majority rules is dangerous. Even if we don't like it when the majority we agree with doesn't get its way.

Edited by MisterPinstripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

*SCOTT santen tweet about democrazy* There is a reason we aren't actually a democracy. If 80 percent, or 51 percent, of people wanted slavery to not have been abolished and we followed this reasoning it wouldn't have happened. Majority rules is dangerous. Even if we don't like it when the majority we agree with doesn't get its way.

 

Except NN was abolished by a group of 5 unelected officials.

 

 

Thats rich, comparing net neautrality to slavery.  I think I’ll compare Trump to Hitler now.  Go me!

Edited by Springfield
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

Except NN was abolished by a group of 5 unelected officials.

 

 

Thats rich, comparing net neautrality to slavery.  I think I’ll compare Trump to Hitler now.  Go me!

I couldn't roll my eyes more.

 

Sure, im speaking about that guys tweet saying the government should be doing whft the majority want and by not doing so isnt fulfilling its duty as a democracy. It's an example. We aren't a democracy and it's for a good reason. I am all for net neutrality and am against the changes. But I still think that tweet is ignorant of our what our government is and why it would be really bad if it was a strsight up democracy regardless of how I feel about the decision. Or how stupid I think it is. 

 

Do you think it would be a good idea if our government just followed whatever the majority dictated? Be it 80 percent or 51 to 49?

Edited by MisterPinstripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I couldn't roll my eyes more.

 

Sure, im speaking about that guys tweet saying the government should be doing whft the majority want and by not doing so isnt fulfilling its duty as a democracy. It's an example. We aren't a democracy and it's for a good reason. I am all for net neutrality and am against the changes. But I still think that tweet is ignorant of our what our government is and why it would be really bad if it was a strsight up democracy regardless of how I feel about the decision. Or how stupid I think it is. 

 

Do you think it would be a good idea if our government just followed whatever the majority dictated? Be it 80 percent or 51 to 49?

 

Two points: 1) Not all issues are created equal. 2) The government has swung way away from caring about anything people actually want in favor of working for corporations and big money special interests. 

 

Pointing out the percentage of people in favor of something is reasonable to do on issues that don't impact select groups of people in a negative way the way, for example, civil rights issues do.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

Except NN was abolished by a group of 5 unelected officials.

 

 

Thats rich, comparing net neautrality to slavery.  I think I’ll compare Trump to Hitler now.  Go me!

Wait, are you insinuating that because I think that tweet is dumb and ignorant of what are government actually is that I support Trump? I really don't get that connection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Two points: 1) Not all issues are created equal. 2) The government has swung way away from caring about anything people actually want in favor of working for corporations and big money special interests. 

 

Pointing out the percentage of people in favor of something is reasonable to do on issues that don't impact select groups of people in a negative way the way, for example, civil rights issues do.  

Sure, but who decides what's reasonable? The government is screwed up, can't imagine many thinking otherwise. But if we start saying the government should do what the majority says because we think it's reasonable or right what happens when someone else is in power and says the same thing about their issue.

 

I have no issue with calling out this NN stuff, it should be called out. But I can also call out a tweet like that which is misinformed and spreads false information. It would be bad if we were a straight up democracy and just did what the majority said, whether I agree with the majority or not.

 

Obviously what the pepole want should be taken into consideration, but what the majority wants as the driving factor for a government is too simple and chaos.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I couldn't roll my eyes more.

 

Sure, im speaking about that guys tweet saying the government should be doing whft the majority want and by not doing so isnt fulfilling its duty as a democracy. It's an example. We aren't a democracy and it's for a good reason. I am all for net neutrality and am against the changes. But I still think that tweet is ignorant of our what our government is and why it would be really bad if it was a strsight up democracy regardless of how I feel about the decision. Or how stupid I think it is. 

 

Do you think it would be a good idea if our government just followed whatever the majority dictated? Be it 80 percent or 51 to 49?

 

This isn’t a democracy, however our elected officials have a duty to uphold the will of their constituents.  There was no rallying cry to remove NN, nor was there even an inkling that NN was a bad thing.  There was no moral reason for removing NN.  It’s NOTHING like slavery was in any respect.

 

Repealing NN was done by a group of appointed officials that lean a certain way simply because the party in power forces the body to lean that way.  There was no real reckoning of the will of the people with the repeal of NN at all.  That’s not a democracy and it isn’t a democratic republic either.

14 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Wait, are you insinuating that because I think that tweet is dumb and ignorant of what are government actually is that I support Trump? I really don't get that connection. 

 

Nah, I’m not insinuating that you support Trump.  It’s just that using the slavery angle is as lame as comparing Trump to Hitler or Obama to Pol Pot (did people do that?).

7 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Sure, but who decides what's reasonable? The government is screwed up, can't imagine many thinking otherwise. But if we start saying the government should do what the majority says because we think it's reasonable or right what happens when someone else is in power and says the same thing about their issue.

 

I have no issue with calling out this NN stuff, it should be called out. But I can also call out a tweet like that which is misinformed and spreads false information. It would be bad if we were a straight up democracy and just did what the majority said, whether I agree with the majority or not.

 

Obviously what the pepole want should be taken into consideration, but what the majority wants as the driving factor for a government is too simple and chaos.

 

 

 

But there were no people who wanted to end NN, only corporations.  Which for some retarded reason are also considered people. It was a decision to put the will of large duopolies over the will of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...