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

[newworldafro]

That sounds great until you see Microsoft form a partnership with provider A to allow preferential treatment to its cloud services while Amazon teams up with Provider B and google in the interest of building onto it's cloud business slows or places other restrictions on cloud services outside of its umbrella despite highly, or Verizon FiOS customers, despite using a heavily government subsidized product Don't have the freedom to stream HD content from HULU because they have a partnership with Amazon.

Nothing bad came out of net neutrality unless you view zero-rating as a product that works in a vacuum or want to restrict access to information.

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.

Bingo...the companies will provide preferential treatment to websites that don't put them on that summer jam screen....this ain't wavy.

 

[ORDER_66]

Jesus Christ..... why lord why...
Leave the fukking internet alone!!!!

 

[Maschine_Man]

This is one of those issues that I can't fully agree with libertarian talking points.
Sometimes the government needs to step in

 

[Mook]

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

They literally did what they were doing for the last 30 years with the internet, nothing. Stop spewing your bullshyt propaganda you fakkit.

 

[el_oh_el]

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

This argument holds NO water for the simple fact that there is BARELY ANY COMPETITION. In most areas there is one telecom provider and one cable provider for wired internet. By your statement you would be OK with some areas having access to a different part of the internet and than others..which is fukking dumb.
The internet remaining OPEN and the carriers keeping their damned hands off the packets is what is required for internet innovation..no some new paid access scheme rife with corruption.

 

[Starman]

This argument holds NO water for the simple fact that there is BARELY ANY COMPETITION. In most areas there is one telecom provider and one cable provider for wired internet. By your statement you would be OK with some areas having access to a different part of the internet and than others..which is fukking dumb.
The internet remaining OPEN and the carriers keeping their damned hands off the packets is what is required for internet innovation..no some new paid access scheme rife with corruption.

Would you prefer increased competition or more government regulation?

 

[ORDER_66]

Would you prefer increased competition or more government regulation?

How about neither.... too much control and regulation is a bad thing!!! What are you regulating in the internet?!? It's a tool a resource, once these corporations have their way we the consumers are fukked...

 

[Starman]

How about neither.... too much control and regulation is a bad thing!!! What are you regulating in the internet?!? It's a tool a resource, once these corporations have their way we the consumers are fukked...

Who doesn't want increased competition?

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

Anyone that isn't on a telecom payroll and in favor of ending net neutrality is a complete fukking idiot...

There is no sane argument that can be made for ending net neutrality from a consumer standpoint...

NONE WHATSOEVER...

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

at this point it's pretty obvious that these issues never really have anything to do with "increasing competition." the first thing that happens when the government takes a back seat is consolidation. please tell me how

this is why it is absolutely a waste of time trying to actually reason with many on the other side.

 

[el_oh_el]

Would you prefer increased competition or more government regulation?

This is a good question. I'd prefer increased competition. The problem is, you cannot have one without the other. The govt is playing both sides...the states are in bed with the incumbents..and the federal level is in between lying in bed with the incumbents and putting forth good policy for consumers. The reason that the competition is so damned small is twofold: 1) deploying a network is fukkin expensive and 2)The incumbents stifle any possibility of competition by lobbying the government (See Virginia's so called "broadband deployment" act Virginia “Broadband Deployment Act” would kill municipal broadband deployment)

Its a case of damned if you do, and damned if you dont due to the widespread corruption in all levels of government..

 

[boskey]

The ideal way to combat companies providing poor contracted service is to remove monopolies and government regulation

hahaha libertarianism in a nutshell. You can't remove monopolies without government regulations...thats the whole point


But naw trust the magic of competition. Some guy in his garage is gonna cook up a BETTER Xfinity, if the government would just get out of his way.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Let me stop my donations for one of those groups.

Wtf..

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

at this point it's pretty obvious that these issues never really have anything to do with "increasing competition." the first thing that happens when the government takes a back seat is consolidation. please tell me how

this is why it is absolutely a waste of time trying to actually reason with many on the other side.

Being against net neutrality from a consumer standpoint is a severe form of stupidity...

If you understand how capitalism and business work there is no logical debate to be had here...It is beyond asinine for a consumer to want net neutrality eliminated...A consumer in favor of eliminating net neutrality clealry carriers a mental defect that is harmful to society and humanity as a whole...They are voting against themselves because they are too fukking stupid to understand the concept of net neutrality...

These individuals imo are not only just a waste of time to argue with, they are also a waste of oxygen and should not be allowed to reproduce...

 

[David_TheMan]

hahaha libertarianism in a nutshell. You can't remove monopolies without government regulations...thats the whole point


But naw trust the magic of competition. Some guy in his garage is gonna cook up a BETTER Xfinity, if the government would just get out of his way.

There are no monoplies without government power to create monopolies, that is the whole point.
Competition isn't magic, its reality, you let businesses compete for customers instead of being granted a locked down customer base and you will get better service, because the company has to work to keep customers from leaving.

This argument holds NO water for the simple fact that there is BARELY ANY COMPETITION. In most areas there is one telecom provider and one cable provider for wired internet. By your statement you would be OK with some areas having access to a different part of the internet and than others..which is fukking dumb.
The internet remaining OPEN and the carriers keeping their damned hands off the packets is what is required for internet innovation..no some new paid access scheme rife with corruption.

Why is there barely any competition?
Could it be the city allowed monopolies that the government allows to function?
Again if you remove the ability for municipalities to allow telecom monopolies you would see a rise in what? Competition.
So instead of saying something is dumb because you haven't thought about it and why things are the way they are, do a little research.
The internet is open and will remain open, if contracted as such, there is nothing wrong with tiered service level plans though, if that is what is contracted.
There is no corruption in paying for a contracted service, there is most definitely corruption in regulatory capture, which you all seem to think will suddenly not happen if the government takes over the internet.
SMH

They literally did what they were doing for the last 30 years with the internet, nothing. Stop spewing your bullshyt propaganda you fakkit.

My argument is they shouldn't be there on principle because we've seen this story play out with different industries. You move to a US government regulated internet you have the feds moving into a industry it has no right to be in, and you will see a decline in innovation to comply with government regulatory standards, which the internet has never needed in its history of being a commercial service.

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.

You write this like you actually made a coherent point instead of simply fear mongering.
You also seem like you really don't understand how the internet works.