Source: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html

Don't know what Net Neutrality is? 

Why isn't this in the Technology category? http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

 

Opinions? 

 

I put this debate into Politics & Society because it falls more into the guidelines of politics than it does technology. It doesn't require a deep understanding of the internet, or computers, but more of a position on where you stand politically and economically. 

 

The major arguments are: 

 

Conservative values would point towards the idea that the government should stay out of regulating private business, which keeps Capitalism, and more importantly, Democracy free and open. In the whole Netflix vs. Comcast debate, conservative values would align themselves with Comcast, saying it is their right to charge a customer who is using so much of their infrastructure more to deliver them the speeds they need for their customers. When the government interferes with private business practices, that is when real abuse come in. 

 

More progressive values would argue that ISPs would never pay fair, as proven in the Comcast vs. Netflix flame war that started all of this when Comcast throttled Netflix's speed to entice them to pay more money. Liberals would argue that ISPs would give certain priority to certain customers, especially to those who pay more. The internet and free speech is therefore threatened. The government should step in to regulate interstate commerce, and declare the Internet a Public Utility, and not a private business ordeal. 

 

-

My thoughts on the matter

 

I find it so sad how massive quantities of people on the internet, who never did the research, heavily supported Net Neutrality and ultimately got it passed the democratic way, messaging the FCC and their elected Representatives. Their message was clear, the people wanted the internet to remain free, equal, and open. With such irony, the people voted for something that in fact caused the exact opposite, government control and regulation on a free, unregulated capitalistic business practice.

 

It's a very sad day for the internet in my eyes. 

 

 

 

A french TV documentary was broadcasted a few weeks ago about this very thing. I found it horrifying back at the time, I still do today.

Wait, what exactly did the FCC do? ELI5 please.

I'm highly supportive of the concept of net neutrality. I don't think it's right for ISPs to choose what sites get faster or slower service. However, I have concerns about allowing the government to play a greater role in the functioning of the internet. I don't know the finer details of these rules, but I suspect there may be more to them than whatever the face value may be. 

Wait, what exactly did the FCC do? ELI5 please.

 

Here's another good article from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/

 

The FCC (USA GOV - Federal Communications Commission), a part of the federal government tasked with regulating interstate commerce (Commerce Clause) in "radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable" (FCC Wikipedia), voted to give itself powers to regulate the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) by classifying fixed and mobile broadband internet (Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Sprint, ect) as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the 1934 (Revised 1996) Telecommunications Act.

 

Well what does this mean? 

 

As of a few hours ago, ISP who provide the backbone of the internet to connect networks to each other, were private companies who did not have to listen to the government. Now, ISPs are considered under Title II of the Act, which means the government can legally regulate them, or tell them what to do in the form of a rules list, instead of the ISPs doing whatever they wish. 

 

The question comes in whether or not people think this is good, or bad for both the internet, free speech, capitalism, government control, and more highly debated and controversial topics. 

As long as the government doesn't go Google on us, I think we're in better hands with them than with an unrestricted Comcast or Time Warner slowing services down.

NO! This is bad! Just another way for the government to control and censor our freedoms here in the U.S. Might I mention that no one in the public is allowed to look through the 332 page regulation plan? Now ISPs are controlled and the government has total control over the internet. This is outrageously idiotic. Why do the liberals keep supporting things like this? Do they enjoy being oppressed? Who knows, this post might be gone soon because it's "Hate Speech".

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by 1ian20

NO! This is bad! Just another way for the government to control and censor our freedoms here in the U.S. Might I mention that no one in the public is allowed to look through the 332 page regulation plan? Now ISPs are controlled and the government has total control over the internet. This is outrageously idiotic. Why do the liberals keep supporting things like this? Do they enjoy being oppressed? Who knows, this post might be gone soon because it's "Hate Speech".

 

I agree with you, to some degree. But putting all liberals in the same "I support this thing" bag is wrong. If I was a US citizen I'd consider myself liberal, and I still wouldn't agree with this. That's not because a government is of one side that all people of this same party agree on what they do. I'm pretty sure some conservatives disagreed on some of Bush decisions, same would go there. Nobody wants freedom deprivation, being a liberal or conservative won't change that, no need to bring this in.

Edited February 27, 201511 yr by Hystery

I agree with you, to some degree. But putting all liberals in the same "I support this thing" bag is wrong. If I was a US citizen I'd consider myself liberal, and I still wouldn't agree with this. That's not because a government is of one side that all people of this same party agree on what they do. I'm pretty sure some conservatives disagreed on some of Bush decisions, same would go there. Nobody wants freedom deprivation, being a liberal or conservative won't change that, no need to bring this in.

I agree, but also disagree. Yes, not all liberals supports this, but I think that more liberals support this than conservatives.

NO! This is bad! Just another way for the government to control and censor our freedoms here in the U.S. Might I mention that no one in the public is allowed to look through the 332 page regulation plan? Now ISPs are controlled and the government has total control over the internet. This is outrageously idiotic. Why do the liberals keep supporting things like this? Do they enjoy being oppressed? Who knows, this post might be gone soon because it's "Hate Speech".

 

I think that might be exaggerating the truth a little bit with the entire government control, not out of the question though, but I'd honestly rather have the freedom of the private sector prevail over the government. 

 

Especially in the case of an industry that really hasn't had that much problems, mostly everyone has access to decent internet speeds (A lot of people's slow internet is their fault, not the ISP), and have the ability to get faster speeds for paying more, which is honestly only fair.

 

Sometimes people feel entitled to things they aren't entitled to. 

 

In the case of Comcast, they are running an around the clock nationwide infrastructure that is being strained by the sudden popularity increase of HD/4K streaming, as displayed by this visual below. 

 

 

It only makes sense, and is fair, that those using so much and stressing the network pay a little bit more, money they can easily afford to give customers the speeds they want while paying for the traffic they use. Do people think the cloud is actually a real cloud that is completely free? No, it's billions of dollars of servers, fiber, and copper. 

 

I honestly don't see how this is even debatable, but that's my opinion. 

I think that might be exaggerating the truth a little bit with the entire government control, not out of the question though, but I'd honestly rather have the freedom of the private sector prevail over the government. 

 

Especially in the case of an industry that really hasn't had that much problems, mostly everyone has access to decent internet speeds (A lot of people's slow internet is their fault, not the ISP), and have the ability to get faster speeds for paying more, which is honestly only fair.

 

Sometimes people feel entitled to things they aren't entitled to. 

 

In the case of Comcast, they are running an around the clock nationwide infrastructure that is being strained by the sudden popularity increase of HD/4K streaming, as displayed by this visual below. 

 

 

It only makes sense, and is fair, that those using so much and stressing the network pay a little bit more, money they can easily afford to give customers the speeds they want while paying for the traffic they use. Do people think the cloud is actually a real cloud that is completely free? No, it's billions of dollars of servers, fiber, and copper. 

 

I honestly don't see how this is even debatable, but that's my opinion. 

You may think it is a stretch, but to me, this is just the first step to gaining control. What I mean by that is, the government can now slowly start to regulate the internet more and more now that they have control. It's only going to get worse from here.

I agree, but also disagree. Yes, not all liberals supports this, but I think that more liberals support this than conservatives.

I'm a conservative and I sure as hell don't support this crap.

Let's not forget this includes "net neutrality" regulations.  Something the commies in Washington have been after for years.  This is the big picture and total control over what Big Brother considers "proper and acceptable" speech.

 

Let's also not also forget that the BATF are going to make 5.56 ammunition illegal next month.  

 

We have another 1.5 years of this guy Barry "Benito" Sotoro (aka Barrack Hussein Obama) folks...he ain't done by a long shot yet.  

 

The Imperial President!  Gotta love this guy.

Let's not forget this includes "net neutrality" regulations.  Something the commies in Washington have been after for years.  This is the big picture and total control over what Big Brother considers "proper and acceptable" speech.

 

Let's also not also forget that the BATF are going to make 5.56 ammunition illegal next month.  

 

We have another 1.5 years of this guy Barry "Benito" Sotoro (aka Barrack Hussein Obama) folks...he ain't done by a long shot yet.  

 

The Imperial President!  Gotta love this guy.

I can't wait to see what's brought to the table next by good ole'bama.

This may or not be a gateway to greater government control over the internet, but can we at least be honest about our criticisms? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government restricting individuals in their use of the internet. If anything, it does the opposite. This is just a restriction on ISP business practices.

 

Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims. 

Edited February 27, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

This may or not be a gateway to greater government control over the internet, but can we at least be honest about our criticisms? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government restricting individuals in their use of the internet. If anything, it does the opposite. This is just a restriction on ISP business practices.

Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims.

So do you believe that the US Government are honest, patriotic, brilliant, competent people that care for the well-being of the American people?

This may or not be a gateway to greater government control over the internet, but can we at least be honest about our criticisms? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government restricting individuals in their use of the internet. If anything, it does the opposite. This is just a restriction on ISP business practices.

 

Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims. 

Yes, because restricting someone from doing what they want with their business is totally democratic. Weather it's good or bad business practice, people can leave if they want. We don't need the government bossing them around. No mean to disrespect, I just believe this is BAD.

Let's not forget this includes "net neutrality" regulations.  Something the commies in Washington have been after for years.  This is the big picture and total control over what Big Brother considers "proper and acceptable" speech.

 

Let's also not also forget that the BATF are going to make 5.56 ammunition illegal next month.  

 

We have another 1.5 years of this guy Barry "Benito" Sotoro (aka Barrack Hussein Obama) folks...he ain't done by a long shot yet.  

 

The Imperial President!  Gotta love this guy.

There they go again, taking away our first and second amendments.

Also, just because I think willful ignorance should be called out when it exists, there are no Communists in Washington. Communists wouldn't be in bed with corporations the way our elected officials are. And as it has come up repeatedly on these forums, ad hominem attacks are childish and cowardly. It if you're going to criticize someone, actually present argument other than they're brown and one of them Mooz-lims. 

 

Amen. Can't believe people still bring this to the table, it's getting old and tiring.

Amen. Can't believe people still bring this to the table, it's getting old and tiring.

Don't mean to bust your bubble but its not eating old at all. I also noticed that you said if you were American you'd be a Liberal. I don't quite understand how you'd know what political philosophy you would be aligned with. Have you taken a self survey on basic American political issues? I can easily tell you right now whether you're a conservative or a liberal.

So do you believe that the US Government are honest, patriotic, brilliant, competent people that care for the well-being of the American people?

My first comment in this thread answers your question. I'm also not seeing where you derived this response from my comment. I'm just stating facts. This legislation does not restrict individuals in any way, only businesses. I've already stated that I'm aware the potential gateway exists, and I've stated that I was wary of this. 

 

 

Yes, because restricting someone from doing what they want with their business is totally democratic. Weather it's good or bad business practice, people can leave if they want. We don't need the government bossing them around. No mean to disrespect, I just believe this is BAD.

Are you arguing that there should be no regulation whatsoever on business? The federal government does have the Constitutional authority to regulate business. I'm not going to make a blanket statement on whether regulation is good or bad, because it depends entirely on the specific regulation. 

 

In terms of a good like the internet, "leaving if they want" isn't as easy as it sounds. All ISPs have an interest in throttling certain sites. So if I were to switch my service from Comcast to Verizon, my experience would largely be the same. While not a public utility (and I don't think it should be), the internet operates exactly like a public good, so I do think this requires some special consideration. 

Edited February 27, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant