Civil Rights Groups - Backed by Telecoms - Backing Trump on eliminating Net Neutrality

[Pressure]

No internet isn't a right of the people. this is absurd, its a paid for service. Like cable, cell phones, and etc.
government regulation =/= free and open internet it means government controlled internet.

Sometimes you have to let go of the pie in the sky, free lunch mindset with regard to the government and realize who you are dealing with.

Declaring it a public utility doesn't make it free. We are behind other countries who approach the internet this way.

However, net neutrality laws stop short of this and have already been in effect. Can you give some examples of how it has effected you or Americans in general negatively?

 

[#StarkSet]

No internet isn't a right of the people. this is absurd, its a paid for service. Like cable, cell phones, and etc.
government regulation =/= free and open internet it means government controlled internet.

Sometimes you have to let go of the pie in the sky, free lunch mindset with regard to the government and realize who you are dealing with.

Argument could be made for equal access to schooling

 

[Pressure]

Argument could be made for equal access to schooling

I'd think the school choice/online education crowd would be very supportive of this. Online education issues aside, the access to supplemental or other primary source information not available could be a game changer for many fringe or exceptional students in low income/low internet areas.

 

[David_TheMan]

Declaring it a public utility doesn't make it free. We are behind other countries who approach the internet this way.

However, net neutrality laws stop short of this and have already been in effect. Can you give some examples of how it has effected you or Americans in general negatively?

I didn't say it made it free, I'm wrote specifically what another person wrote only inserting a not equal sign. If you think saying no free lunch was with regard to pricing it wasn't, it was with regard to there being very real consequences involved with government regulation, they don't enter regulatory systems for the benefit of "the people" in my view.
We are behind other countries in high speed access because the various states and the fed allow government cable monopolies which is the real problem.

Net neutrality stop short of what?
Can I give you examples, yes, the federal government ruled ISPs as common carriers, which is basically trying to claim that internet access and traffic is a public good and open to the public, when ISPs are private networks that allow access. I find that an example of a negative act by the government.

Argument could be made for equal access to schooling

I don't believe in public schooling, especially compulsory schooling.

 

[David_TheMan]

Meaning once you pay for internet access, you can access the entire internet, in the same way that you dont have to pay the phone company one charge to call your family and a separate one to call your friends. That's essentially what they want to do by eliminating net neutrality.

The internet is currently "government controlled", meaning laws and regulations are the only thing keeping internet companies from dictating what you can see and how much you have to pay for each part.

Lol at the childish canned response. Doesnt apply because we've already seen how this works and weve been living it so your "scary government control" lines are obviously nonsense. No pie in the sky, just reality. Wake up, dummy.

I know what you meant and you already have that. The ideal way to combat companies providing poor contracted service is to remove monopolies and government regulation that allows for ISP monopolies so there would be greater competition. funny you use a family and friends analogy when cell phone companies used to do just that with your minutes back in the day and there was nothing wrong with that. You could get 5 friends and get unlimited minutes talking to them and only use your minutes on non-family numbers.

No the internet isn't currently government controlled actually. You are wrong as well in claiming the only thing keeping internet companies from dictating what you can see is the government. that is false. Pay for each part, that doesn't even make sense, that said if they contracted it, no problem.

If you think my last sentence was childish and canned I would think it was only that because of what I was replying too. We haven't been living under government control, net neutrality is literally trying to introduce the government to the position, so again might want to do some research on what you are actually talking about.

 

[DEAD7]

Hillary wouldn't have done this

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

I know what you meant and you already have that. The ideal way to combat companies providing poor contracted service is to remove monopolies and government regulation that allows for ISP monopolies so there would be greater competition. funny you use a family and friends analogy when cell phone companies used to do just that with your minutes back in the day and there was nothing wrong with that. You could get 5 friends and get unlimited minutes talking to them and only use your minutes on non-family numbers.

No the internet isn't currently government controlled actually. You are wrong as well in claiming the only thing keeping internet companies from dictating what you can see is the government. that is false. Pay for each part, that doesn't even make sense, that said if they contracted it, no problem.

If you think my last sentence was childish and canned I would think it was only that because of what I was replying too. We haven't been living under government control, net neutrality is literally trying to introduce the government to the position, so again might want to do some research on what you are actually talking about.

:jagfan: Uh, thats what this entire thing is about. Obama signed the regulations that prevent ISPs from trying to split internet access into "tiers" like they do with cable channels. Trump and these companies now want to get rid of these regulations so they can do just that, along with the option of shutting of access entirely to any sections they choose, for business reasons, personal morality reasons, etc.

There is no sensible argument against net neutrality. If you find yourself attempting to form one, you a) have a vested interest in personally profiting from the tier gauging layout, b) believe those in power should be able to control and restrict open and free access to online communication (fascism) or c) don't actually know what you're talking about and are simply trying to somehow stick to your "government = bad" conservative talking points while making little sense.

Now which is it?

 

[David_TheMan]

:jagfan: Uh, thats what this entire thing is about. Obama signed the regulations that prevent ISPs from trying to split internet access into "tiers" like they do with cable channels. Trump and these companies now want to get rid of these regulations so they can do just that, along with the option of shutting of access entirely to any sections they choose, for business reasons, personal morality reasons, etc.

There is no sensible argument against net neutrality. If you find yourself attempting to form one, you a) have a vested interest in personally profiting from the tier gauging layout, b) believe those in power should be able to control and restrict open and free access to online communication (fascism) or c) don't actually know what you're talking about and are simply trying to somehow stick to your "government = bad" conservative talking points while making little sense.

Now which is it?

Obama ordered FCC to make a ruling on ISPs to be ruled as common carrier. So you are only talking about barely 2 years of being active with no customer side difference. So when you try to claim all that we have now is only possible because of a regulation that became active in 2015 its absurd on its face.

If Trump seeks to remove regulations that have only been in effect for 2 years the notion that everything will fall apart, when things were pretty much the same pre regulation makes no sense.

There are plenty of sensible arguments against net neutrality, you seem to think that you disagreeing means a argument isn't sensible, your preference isn't what determines if an argument is sensible or not.

I've already told you why I'm against net neutrality, try reading and you would see I already posted it.

 

[Tate]

Government regulation of internet over private regulation isn't preferable to me, since I view government regulation as stiffling to innovation, in the bed of business, and i generally find the government has no right to dictate to ISPs how to filter traffic that they contract over their networks

Public money invented the internet. Why the hell should we give up our right to ensure it's fair regulation

 

[David_TheMan]

Public money invented the internet. Why the hell should we give up our right to ensure it's fair regulation

public money invested the concept.
access to internet commercially has always been business. You've always had to pay for access when it was prodigy, aol, and compuserve.
That said poor argument when trying to claim access to the networks created by businesses with their private dollars.

Again you've had fair regulation privately and if you don't like the terms go to another ISP, if the ISP violates contract take them to court.

 

[Pressure]

public money invested the concept.
access to internet commercially has always been business. You've always had to pay for access when it was prodigy, aol, and compuserve.
That said poor argument when trying to claim access to the networks created by businesses with their private dollars.

Again you've had fair regulation privately and if you don't like the terms go to another ISP, if the ISP violates contract take them to court.

Except AOL, prodigy, and CompuServe were largely information services used on top of an existing infrastructure (phone lines) where today's internet itself is it's own infrastructure and the information is not maintained by those service based hubs (AOL channels).

Secondly, like cable, power lines, natural gas etc a large portion of the infrastructure has been funded by our tax dollars.

 

[David_TheMan]

Except AOL, prodigy, and CompuServe were largely information services used on top of an existing infrastructure (phone lines) where today's internet itself is it's own infrastructure and the information is not maintained by those service based hubs (AOL channels).

Secondly, like cable, power lines, natural gas etc a large portion of the infrastructure has been funded by our tax dollars.

AOL, prodigy, and CompuServe were ISPs, they exist on existing infrastructure like DSL over phone lines or cable over cable infrastructure. They provided you a point of entry to the internet, no different than any ISP today. You literally are trying to make distinctions where they don't exist. Outside of fiber which isn't widespread, everything is pretty much piggy backing off legacy infrastructure and ISPs provide the same service. AOL channels nothing but a page like yahoo now, you could still go to websites not on aol channel if you had the address, DNS operates the same way then as it does now.

Again you want to stop cable monopolies locally I'm all for it, but without routers and switches you aren't doing a damn thing, so you still are paying for a service, a luxury service at that.

 

[hashmander]

In his first days as chairman, Pai rolled back an attempt to regulate overly expensive prison phone rates, got rid of the proposal to allow more competition for the cable box market, and blocked nine companies from providing low-income families with discounted high-speed internet services. Observers believe net neutrality is next.

MAGA

 

[Ghost Utmost]

I don't believe in public schooling, especially compulsory schooling.

Mmmmmkay then...

Well good luck homeschooling everyone with corporate controlled internet.

I'm sure we can trust companies to allow all information, even that which would threaten profits.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

I must admit that I trust the government more than the corporations in this case.

At least with the government there is a possibility of operating based on something beside pure profit.

Leave it to the corporations and there's zero consideration of anything but that company's bottom line.

I miss the Wild West Web days.