So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Can someone explain this to me? The internet has been around for 25 years or so for the normal person. And we never had Net Neutrality until within the last two or three years(whatever its been). Why is it needed now? Why is the internet going to be destroyed as we know it without Net Neutrality?

We have ALWAYS had net neutrality, the Obama administration just made sure it stayed that way. It did so by not allowing ISP to differentiate traffic based on content.

 

But with net neutrality out the window, US ISP's are now free to limit bandwidth, charge extra or even block access to whatever they feel like. An ISP can charge extra or block Netflix access, to advocate their own streaming service. They can charge you extra for using email services. Block sites they for whatever reason do not like.

 

So yeah, a great day for the consumers.

Can someone explain this to me? The internet has been around for 25 years or so for the normal person. And we never had Net Neutrality until within the last two or three years(whatever its been). Why is it needed now? Why is the internet going to be destroyed as we know it without Net Neutrality?

 

The internet up until now and under Obama-era rule (passed by the FCC in 2015) was to establish that "broadband access is a public utility" and cannot be controlled/manipulated by individual Internet Service Providers. This has now been repealed - the biggest issue is that this gives the ISP's the opportunity offer internet packages based on services and throttle as they see fit. Think of cable, but now for the internet too.

 

 

On one hand, the ISP's built the internet highway hardware, popular internet based web-services (Netflix/Google/Reddit/Amazon etc.) have been essentially given a free pass to grow by using these roads <bandwith> without paying for it. That might all change now as internet consumers will have to pick and choose/pay for a package to enable them to continue to use these services seamlessly as they have in the past.

 

On the other hand, the internet really is a public utility and IMO should be treated as such.

 

 

Either way, ISP lobbying runs DEEEEEEEEEEEP. Imagine a company like Google, with all its might and tentacles, couldn't get Google Fiber to more consumers.

 

 

 

Chomps McGee is going to sleep well tonight.

 

That’s screwed up! Does it affect porn LOL

Personally, I'll believe all the hoopla about repealing Net Neutrality if/when the bad stuff actually starts to happen. It was a solution to an as-yet non-existent problem, i.e. that the ISPs would start controlling information and access. The problem is that historically, whenever the government tries to step in to ensure "fairness" with something, they oftentimes end up screwing it up completely and making it very unfair. And with something as complex as the Internet especially, I think we should wait and see first if the feared abuse by the ISPs will really happen.

 

And that it has been so pushed for by the political Left makes me suspicious as well, as they tend to favor such concepts of using government to enforce "fairness." We have seen multiple instances of where this is wrong, for example:

 

1) Large-scale welfare programs to try and make the economic outcome more equal, with the result being greater inequality as poverty increases as a result of people abusing and riding the system

 

2) The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for talk radio, which would mandate by law that political talk programs give equal air time to both the Left-wing and Right-wing views, the problem being that talk radio mostly is Right-wing, and thus giving equal time to Left and Right would destroy the medium and end Right-wing talk radio (which is the real reason many want such a law, as right-wing talk radio is a thorn to the Left)

 

3) So-called "campaign finance reform," which was blatantly anti-free speech. Supposedly meant to protect the public from special interest political spending, in practice, creates a monopoly on political speech during political campaigns for the politicians and the very rich. When the Supreme Court struck it down, the Left was apoplectic, with the New York Times claiming that, "The Supreme Court may have just permanently handed the presidency over to the Republican party." Of course then Obama got handily re-elected, and yes Trump won the next election, but he was against a terrible candidate in the form of Hillary and the Democrats had converted themselves a good deal into a party of Wall Street, globalism, and disdain for much of the white working class that historically voted Democrat.

 

Now they are claiming the sky is falling with regards to ending so-called Net Neutrality.

I personally don't see why they chose unproven allegations to smear him on (even though it certainly worked.) His comments alone are bad enough. Talking about how things were better in the time of slaves. and then his wife getting up there and saying they have "a jew lawyer". I mean, these people are living in the fcuking 1800's. I do agree, he would have been a major distraction.

 

Hadn't seen that quote. But in it, he also expressed some rather extreme religious views and racism (like shootings these days are punishment from God for past sins, 9/11 punishment from God, called Native Americans and Asians "reds and yellows," etc...). Provided that's all not taken out of context, no way should he have been Senator IMO. Also very anti-gay.

They want to control, they just want to make money out of everything by making it a utility. This net neutrality puts internet as a utility and nobody is liking it !

It was a solution to an as-yet non-existent problem, i.e. that the ISPs would start controlling information and access.

What are you talking about? Repealing net neutrality creates this problem. It's not a problem now, and never will be with net neutrality in place.

This is 100% an act for big companies to make more money. And the looser is the consumer. There are absolutely NO benefits for users. And with the US being so dominant in hosting services, this may affect the whole world.

 

Congress can still stop this I believe, let's hope they do.

What are you talking about? Repealing net neutrality creates this problem. It's not a problem now, and never will be with net neutrality in place.

This is 100% an act for big companies to make more money. And the looser is the consumer. There are absolutely NO benefits for users. And with the US being so dominant in hosting services, this may affect the whole world.

 

Congress can still stop this I believe, let's hope they do.

 

Multiple lawsuits have been filed too. Just another thing to add to the pile of shit and empty promises for the Trump administration. Next up 4th attempt at destroying health care and screwing the middle class, the poor and blue states with a tax cut designed to help the 1%. Republicans are so beholden to their donors, they are literally committing suicide in 2018 midterms by attempting to pass such a biased and unpopular tax cut for the wealthy. Calling it tax reform is farcical, where are all the deficit hawks now? Ryan's hypocrisy is next level. Even with dynamic scoring, the most positive (if you can call it that) state it will add $500 billion to the deficit, others have it as high as $1.5 trillion. Stick that in your pipe fiscal conservatives...

What are you talking about? Repealing net neutrality creates this problem. It's not a problem now, and never will be with net neutrality in place.

This is 100% an act for big companies to make more money. And the looser is the consumer. There are absolutely NO benefits for users. And with the US being so dominant in hosting services, this may affect the whole world.

 

Congress can still stop this I believe, let's hope they do.

 

How does repealing Net Neutrality create the problem when Net Neutrality wasn't even enforced until 2015 and the Internet was for the most part fine before then? And it is misleading IMO the impression many have that this is a battle between grassroots Net Neutrality supporters versus evil greedy Big Business. It is rather a case of Big Business versus Big Business, in this case, the likes of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc...versus Comcast, Spectrum, and so forth. One could try to claim that the Trump Administration is doing the bidding of the telecoms like Comcast and Spectrum, but one could also have claimed that the Obama Administration was doing the bidding of Amazon, Google, and so forth.

 

I think one thing also is that when people think of companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc...they generally have nice things to say. Those companies make people's lives easier. Whereas people generally do not have nice things to say about their ISP/cable provider. So the idea of siding on an issue with the likes of Comcast as opposed to say Google for a lot of people is like siding with Darth Vader over Luke Skywalker.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed too. Just another thing to add to the pile of shit and empty promises for the Trump administration. Next up 4th attempt at destroying health care and screwing the middle class, the poor and blue states with a tax cut designed to help the 1%. Republicans are so beholden to their donors, they are literally committing suicide in 2018 midterms by attempting to pass such a biased and unpopular tax cut for the wealthy. Calling it tax reform is farcical, where are all the deficit hawks now? Ryan's hypocrisy is next level. Even with dynamic scoring, the most positive (if you can call it that) state it will add $500 billion to the deficit, others have it as high as $1.5 trillion. Stick that in your pipe fiscal conservatives...

 

It is not a tax cut primarily for the 1%. The Left claimed the same things about the George W. Bush tax cuts and it was a blatant lie. Now they are saying the same thing about the Trump tax plan. This tax plan increases the Child Tax Credit, doubles the standard deduction, and reduces the lower tax rates. It very much helps the middle-class. And by reducing the corporate tax rate, it will help with job creation, and hence further help the middle-class and poor. The reason the tax cut is unpopular supposedly is due to much of the lying the media has been doing about it. And what do you mean about broken promises? Trump has done many of the things he promised. Some of the other things, such as healthcare reform and the border wall, are being held up by Congress, but the other things (strong economy, Muslim country ban, withdraw from Paris Accord, decertify Iran nuclear deal, declare Jerusalem capital of Israel and move embassy there), he has done. And healthcare already was severely damaged by Obamacare. It needs to be scrapped and replaced.

 

I think that once people see the benefits of the tax cuts by 2018, provided Congress actually passes them, that they will be fine with them. Some question though whether the GOP actually want to maintain a majority right now.

How does repealing Net Neutrality create the problem when Net Neutrality wasn't even enforced until 2015 and the Internet was for the most part fine before then?

It was enforced before 2015, that's why FCC lost their case then. They wouldn't draft new rules if they were already able to enforce them...

Comcast was ruled to be illegally blocking or throttling BitTorrent traffic in 2008.

 

Let me ask you this, how do you think repealing net neutrality will benefit the customers?

It is not a tax cut primarily for the 1%. The Left claimed the same things about the George W. Bush tax cuts and it was a blatant lie. Now they are saying the same thing about the Trump tax plan. This tax plan increases the Child Tax Credit, doubles the standard deduction, and reduces the lower tax rates. It very much helps the middle-class. And by reducing the corporate tax rate, it will help with job creation, and hence further help the middle-class and poor. The reason the tax cut is unpopular supposedly is due to much of the lying the media has been doing about it. And what do you mean about broken promises? Trump has done many of the things he promised. Some of the other things, such as healthcare reform and the border wall, are being held up by Congress, but the other things (strong economy, Muslim country ban, withdraw from Paris Accord, decertify Iran nuclear deal, declare Jerusalem capital of Israel and move embassy there), he has done. And healthcare already was severely damaged by Obamacare. It needs to be scrapped and replaced.

 

I think that once people see the benefits of the tax cuts by 2018, provided Congress actually passes them, that they will be fine with them. Some question though whether the GOP actually want to maintain a majority right now.

 

If Republicans told you the world was flat, you'd be that buying that bs too.

It was enforced before 2015, that's why FCC lost their case then. They wouldn't draft new rules if they were already able to enforce them...

Comcast was ruled to be illegally blocking or throttling BitTorrent traffic in 2008.

 

Let me ask you this, how do you think repealing net neutrality will benefit the customers?

 

I am not 100% for or against Net Neutrality, just highly skeptical. I find it rather oxymoronic the idea that we need heavy-handed government regulation to ensure creativity and innovation in this case, as historically the opposite is true, and also historically many (not all) times that the government has tried to regulate something to enforce fairness or equality, it created the very opposite. Repealing it, if history is any indication, will ensure that the Internet remains free and open. The claim that so-called Net Neutrality is what is needed to keep it free and open [may be true, but it also just might lead to various unintended consequences as the economics of forcing the ISPs to treat all traffic equally causes it to become more closed and controlled.

If Republicans told you the world was flat, you'd be that buying that bs too.

 

Nope. I do not agree with conservatives and Republicans on certain things as well. But Democrats are like parrots when it comes to their claims that Republican tax policies and policies overall are only "For the rich" and "Screw the middle class and poor," and so forth. That they are saying the same about Trump on his healthcare or tax plans thus I do not pay much attention to.

but it also just might lead to various unintended consequences as the economics of forcing the ISPs to treat all traffic equally causes it to become more closed and controlled.

How so? Sounds like you would love Chinese internet

How so? Sounds like you would love Chinese internet

 

Because the bandwidth costs money for the ISPs, and thus treating everyone equally may require treating everyone unequally in some other form. As for Chinese Internet, that is authoritarian government control over the Internet. The Internet to me is like as your personal statement says

Because the bandwidth costs money for the ISPs, and thus treating everyone equally may require treating everyone unequally in some other form. As for Chinese Internet, that is authoritarian government control over the Internet. The Internet to me is like as your personal statement says

Exactly, that's why a 60 mbit connection is more expensive than a 20 mbit connection.

 

And yes, the internet is working fine now and has been for decades. No need to change anything to give the ISP's the power to act like an authoritarian government.

Exactly, that's why a 60 mbit connection is more expensive than a 20 mbit connection.

 

And yes, the internet is working fine now and has been for decades. No need to change anything to give the ISP's the power to act like an authoritarian government.

 

It has worked fine for decades prior to the Net Neutrality implemented in 2015. So why implement it when it could cause who-knows-what kind of side effects?

First, they didn't really kill net neutrality

 

They just rolled back the "Open Internet Order", which didn't really have that much to do with net neutrality in the first place. Most of the fuss is based on misinformation and hysteria.

 

I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to give the FCC more control over the internet, since the FCC has spent pretty much its entire existence coddling big businesses at the expense of consumers and innovators. You have to be the truest of believers in the Church of the Holy State to think it's a bad idea to reduce government power at the same time you believe the government is headed by an evil troll.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-f...ng-net-neutrali

It has worked fine for decades prior to the Net Neutrality implemented in 2015.

 

:iamwithstupid:

 

First, they didn't really kill net neutrality

 

They just rolled back the "Open Internet Order", which didn't really have that much to do with net neutrality in the first place. Most of the fuss is based on misinformation and hysteria.

 

I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to give the FCC more control over the internet, since the FCC has spent pretty much its entire existence coddling big businesses at the expense of consumers and innovators.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-f...ng-net-neutrali

 

Yup...Ask people exactly what Net Neutrality is and they won't be able to tell you. Don't let the tittle fool you...Net Neutrality is FCC control on the web. Trying to save it is like the slaves fighting to keep their masters.

Well now here's a funny: Click this article and tell me the major factual error made here by the media: LINK

Pretty unbelievable how some here are actually posting in opposition of net neutrality. I get that people will support issues due to party lines but this one has me scratching my head.

 

If you are scratching your head, you don't understand the opposing views much, because it should be very easy to see why people would be suspicious of it, even if you believe they are ultimately wrong.

Pretty unbelievable how some here are actually posting in opposition of net neutrality. I get that people will support issues due to party lines but this one has me scratching my head.

 

 

It’s unbelievable bullshit. Kind of like a lot of gun control arguments. People use stupid standardized arguments instead of their brains.

Well now here's a funny: Click this article and tell me the major factual error made here by the media: LINK

Is it that they think 32% is greater than one third (33.3%)?

If you are scratching your head, you don't understand the opposing views much, because it should be very easy to see why people would be suspicious of it, even if you believe they are ultimately wrong.

 

 

How about this, stop DVRing Hannity and that crazy judge Pirro and spend an hour with Sheppard Smith. Wheels you are the canary in the coal mine, when you finally flip three years after Trump is impeached, I will feel comfortable we have some sense of normalcy.