FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Casterbridge]

How does the removal of the regulations that hamper hypothetical newcomer ISPs not fix the issue of having too many regulations that hamper hypothetical newcomer ISPs?

- - - Updated - - -
.

Because net neutrality isn't really doing anything that unfairly hampers small ISPs?

Removing Net Neutrality isn't going to change the fact that my only option for an ISP is ATT or Comcast, it's just giving ATT and Comcast more power to profit over me in new ways, with zero guarantee I will benefit in any way.

If anything these bigger ISPs will become even stronger and make it so it's easier for them to push out small competition, in the areas those smaller competition companies are actually available.

[Grapemask]

Only to those who have only listened to pro-NN side. I think you should look at the videos I've linked, particularly Rush's.

I don't think there's a side of the argument I haven't heard. I've been listening to this stuff for years. I could write essays about it. Anti-net neutrality arguments require a certain amount of mental gymnastics that stem from a few admittedly valid, but nearly trivial, points.

But anything to do with competition is nonsense. Net neutrality is not what's gutting competition. Net neutrality is allowing competition to infinitely thrive on the internet. We may as well throw anything to do with that type of competition out altogether, because no coherent argument can argue that any business on the internet will have more competition without net neutrality. The exact opposite is true and you can't bend into a pretzel far enough to claim otherwise. If you want a world with a vast array of news sites that tell different sides of the story, you need net neutrality. Period.

So then we have to focus on competition outside of the internet. We're talking about competition between ISPs and what's keeping ISPs in these monopolies. That is not net neutrality. That is the lack of regulation. We have not enforced anti-trust laws on ISPs to any reasonable degree. When we broke up Bell and the telephone monopolies, we realized that the only way to enable telephone competition was to force phone companies to share infrastructure. That makes sense, after all - how can you get a phone line to someone's house if AT&T owns the pole going to it? You can't. But we didn't make that same regulation for broadband infrastructure, and in the early 2000s, the Supreme Court ruled that the phone laws didn't apply to cable companies. That's why you have one cable company, but you might have 10 different DSL providers (of which AT&T is always one in every market). DSL can use those phone lines. DSL is not broadband internet, however, by any of today's standards.

So companies like Google try to get around that by using local ordinances and what not to tap into existing infrastructure where they can, but even Google - one of the biggest and most profitable companies on planet Earth - cannot break that competition barrier. It is impossible. And net neutrality has nothing to do with why, because the rules or lack of them that prevent it were/were not in place decades before broadband internet even existed.

So then we move onto the notions of "Net neutrality lets companies like Netflix use all the bandwidth but not pay for it! ISPs have to shoulder the burden! ISPs expand the network and then they have to pass the costs on to you!" Every line of that is complete horse shit. Netflix is paying for their access to that infrastructure, and you are paying for your access to that infrastructure. Your ISP built infrastructure that couldn't handle Netflix, but they sold Netflix a Netflix-sized package anyway. Netflix - and other big companies - have gotten around this with peering and such things, but that's a whole different ballgame we can skip here. In short, your ISP built a parking lot for 10 cars and sold it to 500 cars. And charged you like they're maintaining a garage for 500 cars.

But even the "passing costs on" is horseshit. When McDonald's is expanding to new locations, they don't increase the cost of hamburgers. The new location is itself profitable and pays for itself. While internet infrastructure is not the same profitability of a fast food expansion is, it certainly is extremely profitable for them to expand and improve the network. But they've created a mentality of acceptance that allows them to get away with creating a profitable expansion while also charging you on top of it. It's like taxing you for their gains.

Really, just stop pretending net neutrality is bad. It's painful to go through the motions.

If there is only one line that helps you understand net neutrality is good, consider that the only people paying hundreds of millions of dollars for its removal are the monopolistic ISPs. Do you really think a monopoly would pay for the opportunity to lose their monopoly? Do you really think a thriving business would pay an ungodly sum for something that would supposedly increase competition against them even the tiniest amount?

[Hammerfest]

What specific regulations are hampering newcomer ISP's from entering the market?

The regulations that establish onerous burdens on the smaller providers by forcing them to match the parameters set for the vastly larger ISPs. For example, let's say I'm starting an ISP company designed initially for seniors who just want to check their email and I come up with a 10.00/month plan. Net Neutrality makes that difficult since I'm required to match the kind of speeds that are provided by Spectrum, Comcast and other mega providers... even though my customers are not looking for something that fast and don't want to pay for speeds that they don't need. Even if my plan is to eventually offer faster speeds to those who want them as my company groes, I as a start-up, still have to provide that speed from the get-go.

- - - Updated - - -

The only ignoring here is your ignorance of the points raised that disprove your right wing hot-takes.

How can they disprove that which they won't even address?

[Edge-]

The regulations that establish onerous burdens on the smaller providers by forcing them to match the parameters set for the vastly larger ISPs. For example, let's say I'm starting an ISP company designed initially for seniors who just want to check their email and I come up with a 10.00/month plan. Net Neutrality makes that difficult since I'm required to match the kind of speeds that are provided by Spectrum, Comcast and other mega providers... even though my customers are not looking for something that fast and don't want to pay for speeds that they don't need. Even if my plan is to eventually offer faster speeds to those who want them as my company groes, I as a start-up, still have to provide that speed from the get-go.

You're not citing any specific regulations, and there are none that I'm aware of that require you to match competitors top speeds at all. What specific regulations are burdensome?

Mind you, there's no requirement on internet speeds for an ISP. There are if you want to offer broadband, but in your instance that company wouldn't need to offer a broadband connection. Not to mention, that specific requirement is unaffected by Net Neutrality.

[Hammerfest]

Here's more of what most of you seem to be ignoring about NN...

[Elegiac]

Here's more of what most of you seem to be ignoring about NN...

Why don't you actually try stating the points rather than asking people to watch a video.

Again, if the point isn't worth typing it's not worth it to us to watch it.

- - - Updated - - -

How can they disprove that which they won't even address?

What points specifically are they not addressing.

And type them out, no videos.

[Hammerfest]

Mind you, there's no requirement on internet speeds for an ISP. There are if you want to offer broadband, but in your instance that company wouldn't need to offer a broadband connection.

Well, I doubt anyone's going to want dial-up in this day and age.

[Edge-]

Well, I doubt anyone's going to want dial-up in this day and age.

That has literally nothing to do with Net Neutrality or regulations. I'm glad we're both on the same page, here.

So again, what are the specific regulations hampering startups that will be removed with the repeal of Net Neutrality.

I'm trying to listen to the video you just posted, but right now his asinine intro bit about the name is giving me some super serious eyeroll action. But I'm still listening, hoping he'll start making an actual point in the first 3 minutes.

Edit: Nevermind, he's somehow equating Net Neutrality to the government controlling speech...I'll give this a bit longer to see if he can actually back that up with a remotely salient point, but already that first argument is fucking pathetic.

And he didn't, and moved onto the "FREE MARKET WILL SELF REGULATE!" nonsense. Yeah, not interested in this chucklehead and his "rules". He's a waste of time to listen to and 3:30 into the video he's still yet to provide a single coherent argument against Net Neutrality.

[Hammerfest]

Again, if the point isn't worth typing it's not worth it to us to watch it.

Yep, there's your out... your get-out-of-jail-free card. And then Didactic said "I don't do multi-media, I want you to type for some reason."

[mvaliz]

Can somebody inform the Flat-Earther that if NN falls, than all his conspiracy websites like Breitbart, Alex Jones, ect will all be throttled as Comcast/Vorizon will give the great bandwith gateways to their "evil librul" fronts?

[Hammerfest]

I'm trying to listen to the video you just posted, but right now his asinine intro bit about the name is giving me some super serious eyeroll action.

Here's an idea: Try to separate your emotions from the subject matter for just a little while.

[Kujako]

Yep, there's your out... your get-out-of-jail-free card. And then Didactic said "I don't do multi-media, I want you to type for some reason."

It's almost as if, when asked a question, we want YOUR response, not a copied and pasted video clip. Or, put in the language of your people...

[Edge-]

Here's an idea: Try to separate your emotions from the subject matter for just a little while.

The one appealing to emotion is him, his arguments are based off of anti-government fearmongering. It's pretty adorable that he's presenting himself as an intellectual but in the first 3 and a half minutes doesn't make a single point that doesn't boil down to a largely emotional argument/premise.

[Elegiac]

Yep, there's your out... your get-out-of-jail-free card. And then Didactic said "I don't do multi-media, I want you to type for some reason."

[Grapemask]

The regulations that establish onerous burdens on the smaller providers by forcing them to match the parameters set for the vastly larger ISPs. For example, let's say I'm starting an ISP company designed initially for seniors who just want to check their email and I come up with a 10.00/month plan. Net Neutrality makes that difficult since I'm required to match the kind of speeds that are provided by Spectrum, Comcast and other mega providers... even though my customers are not looking for something that fast and don't want to pay for speeds that they don't need. Even if my plan is to eventually offer faster speeds to those who want them as my company groes, I as a start-up, still have to provide that speed from the get-go.

- - - Updated - - -



How can they disprove that which they won't even address?

This is simply not how either the regulations or the internet work.

[mvaliz]

And there's your out from actually articulating a salient argument. You just link a video and hope that it says what you think it does.

Is he reportable for that? I mean, it seems the Flat-Earther's goal here isn't to debate anything, just to peddle and promote conspiracy theory videos.

[Noradin]

No, simply that this so-called "academic discourse" merely isn't showing both sides of the argument. In order to get a thorough and accurate look at the opposing view, you have to look elsewhere.

You mean the side with the facts and the side with without?
Yes, you'd have to look elsewhere. Their genre is called "Fantasy" as opposed to "'Journals".

[Hammerfest]

The one appealing to emotion is him, his arguments are based off of anti-government fearmongering.

Nope, he's talking about people like you... who base opinions largely on how something feels based on how it's worded. That's why you had so much trouble watching it.

I find it interesting in my little hypothetical back there that you couldn't provide a substantive rebuttal to it other than what amounted to "nu-uh!" The only thing you could come up with was "that only applies to broadband" which was weak since what else would I be talking about. What you ended up doing was corroborating what I said, whether you intended to or not.

[Edge-]

Nope, he's talking about people like you... who base opinions largely on how something feels based on how it's worded. That's why you had so much trouble watching it.

Glad you made an assumption that I base my opinions off of somethings name.

Spoilers: I don't.

Now that we've gotten that taken care of, did you have an actual point?

I find it interesting in my little hypothetical back there that you couldn't provide a substantive rebuttal to it other than what amounted to "nu-uh!" The only thing you could come up with was "that only applies to broadband" which was weak since what else would I be talking about. What you ended up doing was corroborating what I said, whether you intended to or not.

Because your hypothetical has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with broadband classification, which is completely unaffected by a potential repeal of NN rules.

Still waiting on you to provide a single regulation. Because right now you're behaving like the Brexiteers that cried foul on all the terrible EU regulations, but were repeatedly unable to list a single regulation when pressed on what specific regulations were being imposed by the EU that were so problematic.

[Hammerfest]

Because your hypothetical has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with broadband classification, which is completely unaffected by a potential repeal of NN rules.

There ya go again with the "nu-uh!" stuff.

Here's the way I see it: People are looking at NN and, depending on how they feel about government regulation/interference vs the free market/liberty, they're either for it or against it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that without direct, heavy government regulation businesses will invariably do harm to their fellow citizens, then you most likely will be all for the existence of Net Neutrality. On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who thinks the free market provides its own solution to problems within itself and that government interference invariably leads to "crony capitalism" and a general loss of liberty, you'll probably be likely to approve of the removal of the three-year-old existence of Net Neutrality. Like a lot of other things that came out of the Obama Administration, however, NN is mostly just framework for something that the left wants to add to later as they see fit. The internet in the US was just fine prior to NN... if all of these speed reduction hypotheticals that the pro-NN crowd talk about were going to happen, they would have happened long prior to the establishment of NN. The left doesn't want this framework taken away, so they have to come up with all these stories about the evil ISPs giving preferential treatment to various sites. The free market would fix that by holding them accountable to their customers directly. Want to watch Netflix but Spectrum has you throttled because they'd rather you watch their cable service? Switch to a competitor. That's freedom. That's liberty. That's free market capitalism.

In Germany, you have to have broadcasting license to stream on Twitch. That's the US in a few years if Net Neutrality isn't neutered. What if you needed somekind of publisher's license to blog? Or post on a message board? Or Tweet? Can you imagine the people here on MMO-Champion who would bitch if all the mods got fired in favor of government online overseers enforcing a set of rules that are not the TOS set by those who own the site? Some might think I'd like that, but I wouldn't... even if the government said it's okay to discuss something as innocuous as the shape of the Earth.