Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[pathora44]

This is why Ne-Neutrality as currently presented is bull. It is just a propaganda war between service providers (ISPs) and content providers (ex. Netflix, Google).

Ya well that is wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. Do you own a T.V. and pay for cable or dish? If you did you would get the idea of what would happen without Net Neutrality. Your basic level of Internet would probably include websites for major stores like Target and Walmart, probably Amazon, and basic things like Wikipedia. Then you would get the packages like social media Facebook, Twitter, Instagram costing you an extra 5-10 dollars a month. Then you would get your sports packages like ESPN, Fox Sports, etc... Then you would get the big whopper with streaming packages like Netflix, Hulu, etc... paying bundle fees on top of the fees for those sites. All the while these companies pay ISP's for faster internet. So anyone looking to start a website has to pay higher premiums to get any internet speed. The usual conservative and Libertarian rhetoric here of "the Free Market will work it out" doesn't work here because ISP's hold monopolies over the internet. You can't make your own company to compete against AT&T, Comcast, etc... because they will force you out through money. The U.S. internet infrastructure is just as bad as our physical infrastructure, crumbling and some of the worst in the modern world. Yet you want to put control of the internet in the hands of the corporations who regularly lobby and force the U.S. government to kill any bills to upgrade our infrastructure so they can force us to pay high prices for some of the lowest qaulity internet on the planet.

[McTroll]

I love the inability of people to read.

I love the "U KENT REED" card... is what I'd say if it wasn't that played out.
It's the "Break glass in case of emergency" response of choice on MMOC.

"Ugh, damn him... what do I reply with... Oh I know! HE KENT REED! No way he's getting out of this!"

[Mihalik]

You raise some interesting points, particularly that maybe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are FAR too powerful and are effectively giant monopolies. When monopoly businesses start throwing their weight around, things that are not good can only be the result.

You mean like US based ISPs will now essentially decide in the US what you will consume whether you like it or not, in absence of net neutrality?

You can always opt to use Google's competitors unlike ISPs which run nation wide oligopolies with absolutely no alternatives.

Saying Net Neutrality is a left wing thing, and you oppose it because you oppose anything "left wing", is just fucking stupid.

This entire thread is stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

I love the inability of people to read. Net Neutrality is just a card to play, it is unrelated except for the fact that its something Google, Twitter, Facebook and other big Silicon Valley Kingmakers want.

And they need a broad based coalition to defend it. Net Neutrality is critical to them, and they need a broad coalition. They might not have that broad coalition.

I have never said Net Neutrality itself means censorship. Only that NN is a Sword of Damocles.

Huh? You just spewed out a massive word salad.

Net neutrality is the basic principle that all online platforms have the same access to broadband from the smallest businesses and individuals to the largest corporations, and that physical ISPs don't get to decide who is allowed access and who is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Ya well that is wrong on so many levels it is not even funny. Do you own a T.V. and pay for cable or dish? If you did you would get the idea of what would happen without Net Neutrality. Your basic level of Internet would probably include websites for major stores like Target and Walmart, probably Amazon, and basic things like Wikipedia. Then you would get the packages like social media Facebook, Twitter, Instagram costing you an extra 5-10 dollars a month. Then you would get your sports packages like ESPN, Fox Sports, etc... Then you would get the big whopper with streaming packages like Netflix, Hulu, etc... paying bundle fees on top of the fees for those sites. All the while these companies pay ISP's for faster internet. So anyone looking to start a website has to pay higher premiums to get any internet speed. The usual conservative and Libertarian rhetoric here of "the Free Market will work it out" doesn't work here because ISP's hold monopolies over the internet. You can't make your own company to compete against AT&T, Comcast, etc... because they will force you out through money. The U.S. internet infrastructure is just as bad as our physical infrastructure, crumbling and some of the worst in the modern world. Yet you want to put control of the internet in the hands of the corporations who regularly lobby and force the U.S. government to kill any bills to upgrade our infrastructure so they can force us to pay high prices for some of the lowest qaulity internet on the planet.

This./10 char

[Kapadons]

I'm not an SJW or a democrat and I want net neutrality. I don't want my ISP (AT&T) to bog down when I wanna watch Netflix or play wow. Or charge me an extra fee to use them. Or make it so slow on Netflix I effectively have to sign up and use AT&T movie service. How anyone can see the past record of cable/internet providers and not think they aren't gonna fuck you over if allowed to, is beyond me.

I think corporations should be allowed to have a say in their business. But if there business is a utilitiy( power,water etc) (and the internet is) you are going to have regulations to make sure the ass fucking contains at least some lube.

[Deleted]

Man it would be hilarious if the ISPs actually won and got the power; and then just did the exact same thing.

[Theodarzna]

You mean like US based ISPs will now essentially decide in the US what you will consume whether you like it or not, in absence of net neutrality?

You can always opt to use Google's competitors unlike ISPs which run nation wide oligopolies with absolutely no alternatives.

Saying Net Neutrality is a left wing thing, and you oppose it because you oppose anything "left wing", is just fucking stupid.

This entire thread is stupid.

Materially, what is the difference between Zuckerberg, Google, ect deciding what I see and Comcast or AT&T?

Googles competitors, operate in the same mindset. And it takes billions of dollars to make a competitor at this point.

Net Neutrality isn't a Left Wing issue, but at most only the Left stands to win from it. So I am curious why OTHERS should care.

Huh? You just spewed out a massive word salad.

Net neutrality is the basic principle that all online platforms have the same access to broadband from the smallest businesses and individuals to the largest corporations, and that physical ISPs don't get to decide who is allowed access and who is not.

Those platforms should start their own competitive ISP then. Or maybe work to keep their coalition together rather than making enemies.

[Alvito]

Anybody that uses the internet should oppose it. This isn't a left or right issue. Anyone letting themselves be fooled into thinking it is has been played for a sucker.

[Theodarzna]

Man it would be hilarious if the ISPs actually won and got the power; and then just did the exact same thing.

If its going to happen either way, might as well make sure Zuckerberg and Google don't get what they want either.

Actions have consequences? Aren't they found of saying that. Let's introduce that concept to them.

[Nurasu]

Materially, what is the difference between Zuckerberg, Google, ect deciding what I see and Comcast or AT&T?

Googles competitors, operate in the same mindset. And it takes billions of dollars to make a competitor at this point.

Net Neutrality isn't a Left Wing issue, but at most only the Left stands to win from it. So I am curious why OTHERS should care.



Those platforms should start their own competitive ISP then. Or maybe work to keep their coalition together rather than making enemies.

I don't understand how you don't understand that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have ISPs "regulating" what you see, *as well as* Google in your example. There is no transfer of power over Google's content to ISPs in the absence of net neutrality like you're suggesting.

[Torgent]

If its going to happen either way, might as well make sure Zuckerberg and Google don't get what they want either.

Actions have consequences? Aren't they found of saying that. Let's introduce that concept to them.

You don't know any of these words. Please stop talking about things you clearly do not understand.

[Theodarzna]

You don't know any of these words. Please stop talking about things you clearly do not understand.

Kay, thanks for the input. Its been noted and filed away in the complain box.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how you don't understand that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have ISPs "regulating" what you see, *as well as* Google in your example. There is no transfer of power over Google's content to ISPs in the absence of net neutrality like you're suggesting.

Well materially then what you describe is the difference between a fever of 110 and 120, both of which are fatal because you are dead at 105ish. Google however must pay through the nose for traffic as the ISP's turn the internet into a racket.

The point is Google and such want Net Neutrality and depend on a united front by the masses to help protect it. Maybe Google shouldn't be attacking half or more of its needed support.

[Theodarzna]

I don't think either are right. I know many Leftists are very pro-business rights now that so many tech websites have started shutting down hate speech and right wing speech, but I would fully support a constitutional amendment declaring that the first amendment applied to businesses if we are going to let them control so much of the domain that public discourse happens within. You shouldn't be able to silence all opposing views, even horrible ones. Everyone deserves a voice.

I think practically Free Speech is supposed to be a civic virtue as well as a legal term, obviously Lefties, particularly those in tech do not share that view.

Considering their position of power, the only real card you can play on power is threaten to give them more or less what they wanted, a censored, shitty internet. But it just won't be the one they intended.

- - - Updated - - -

And that sums up the thread. No need to listen to more whining.

Then don't post here?

[Caanrial]

So sad to see such a lack of knowledge on this subject, yet everyone just weighs in with their "opinions" (insert meme.) Read this and think about it (a short read, sorry about the space encodings ugh):
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/...y%20Primer.pdf

[Dug]

Then don't post here?

Wow Theo why are you trying to censor them

[Elegiac]

I think practically Free Speech is supposed to be a civic virtue as well as a legal term, obviously Lefties, particularly those in tech do not share that view.

Considering their position of power, the only real card you can play on power is threaten to give them more or less what they wanted, a censored, shitty internet. But it just won't be the one they intended.

We get it, you hate intelligent forward-thinking people.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

"I don't really understand what Net Neutrality is...but I know Google supports it and I don't like Google...therefore Net Neutrality must be bad" Is all im getting from this.

[Elegiac]

"I think free speech is good"

"We get it, you hate intelligent forward-thinking people"

:thinking:

Theo has demonstrated an extremely anti-intellectual bent, which is ultimately the source of this complaining.

[Karamaru]

Didnt take long for people to go all Saul Alinsky in here.

As for Net Neutrality eh I cant say I am educated on the subject but if I can pay for faster gaming services that would be cool but I could just get a bigger package with my ISP.

[Calfredd]

Didnt take long for people to go all Saul Alinsky in here.

As for Net Neutrality eh I cant say I am educated on the subject but if I can pay for faster gaming services that would be cool but I could just get a bigger package with my ISP.

The fear is that you pay more for the same speed and even more if you want to go faster rather than the idea that you can keep your current speed for the same price and pay more to go faster.

[Venant]

"Private corporations should do what ever they want, unless I don't like it, then it is a problem."

Doesn't that mean ISPs should be able to charge more for using more of their bandwidth?