Removal of Net Neutrality is politically motivated

[KayRule]

you will be able to do everything that you used to be able to do .

It will just cost a lot more.

Removing Net Neutrality as well as the 1939 Title II protections only benefits ISPs and in no way benefits the consumer.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I can. But let's hear you elaborate on why it's preferable for a government or quasi-government agency operated by unelected bureaucrats to decide what you can and can not view...

Well first, the burden of proof is on you, second, Net Neutrality doesn't allow the government to throttle or remove sites either. With it and the 1939 Type II classifications as a whole gone, not only do ISPs have a lot more power, the government does too.

[RobertoCarlos]

Yes, I can. But let's hear you elaborate on why it's preferable for a government or quasi-government agency operated by unelected bureaucrats to decide what you can and can not view...

are you serious or being sarcastic?

Yes the government fucks up a lot and overreaches sometimes into issues like abortion etc but you never answer the question how removing net neutrality helps the consumer more than the ISPs. Surely you are on the side of the consumer?

[Hammerfest]

Yes the government fucks up a lot and overreaches sometimes into issues like abortion etc but you never answer the question how removing net neutrality helps the consumer more than the ISPs. Surely you are on the side of the consumer?

Yes, and it is better for the consumer if the businesses who provide the service control the product moreso than a government. The government just doesn't have the kind of "skin in the game" (to borrow an Obamaism) that the business itself has. Competition between businesses of the same industry is always better for the consumer as well. In contrast, when you let government interfere with the internet, you end up like Germany... which now requires people to obtain an expensive broadcast license to stream on Twitch.

[Sky High]

Competition guys! Competition competition competition com-

[Ahhdurr]

How are these retarded shitposts not considered trolling?

[RobertoCarlos]

Yes, and it is better for the consumer if the businesses who provide the service control the product moreso than a government. The government just doesn't have the kind of "skin in the game" (to borrow an Obamaism) that the business itself has. Competition between businesses of the same industry is always better for the consumer as well. In contrast, when you let government interfere with the internet, you end up like Germany... which now requires people to obtain an expensive broadcast license to stream on Twitch.

Yeah thats great but you never answered my question because you cant look past "government is bad"

[Nihilist74]

https://www.theonion.com/fcc-assures...ocialMarketing

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Yes, I can. But let's hear you elaborate on why it's preferable for a government or quasi-government agency operated by unelected bureaucrats to decide what you can and can not view...

This is not an argument I'm making nor an opinion I necessarily hold, so refusing to back your own point while calling on me to defend one I'm not making is suspect. I am not claiming that government regulation is just the bee's knee's, I was asking why corporate control is better, what are the reasons I should favor one over the other? As I said in an earlier post, my main question here is that most of the criticism I see of government oversight is based around hypotheticals that could also be applied to corporate oversight.

"The government could monitor and restrict content!" Ok. So could a corporation, there's no magical reason they couldn't or wouldn't.

So elaborate on why control by corporate bureaucracy is preferable to control by government bureaucracy, unless you are unable or unwilling.

[Hammerfest]

"The government could monitor and restrict content!" Ok. So could a corporation, there's no magical reason they couldn't or wouldn't.

What's the difference between the two to you? Corporations are beholden to their customers, who pay for the service. Quasi-government organizations manned by unelected bureaucrats are not beholden to those customers at least as directly.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

What's the difference between the two to you? Corporations are beholden to their customers, who pay for the service. Quasi-government organizations manned by unelected bureaucrats are not beholden to those customers at least as directly.

Stop deflecting, I'm not making the argument there is a difference. I see pros and cons to both. The direction I'm coming from here is that, "If the status quo is currently fine, then why is it so important/crucial that we change it?" And instead of answering that, you initially refused and keep trying to turn it around on me to force me to make a point I'm not arguing. That is not a convincing tack. And as I've said, the primary arguments I've seen revolve around hypothetical scenarios down the road that could also equally apply to corporations.

Your argument that you finally provided here has the same flaw. Yes, corporations are beholden to their customers but as I and others have repeatedly stated, there are some areas where a single corporation is the only game in town, so you can basically agree to their terms and like it or go without internet & smartphone service, which is so ubiquitous people are most likely going to be forced to toe the corporate line and either pay more for the same services or pay the same for less/slower service.
As to quasi-government organizations manned by appointed positions, they are beholden. 'Not as directly', but right now Congressional action is being taken to overturn the decision. It will probably fail, but there are always more elections and it it proves unpopular politicians will either be voted out and replaced with someone of the opposing viewpoint or change their vote to retain their seat. And as these appointed positions are appointed, not elected, it public opinion turns strongly against the administration can simply pull the appointee and pick another one, easy-peasy. They have their jobs at the whim of the currently elected administration who is concerned with maintaining their positions, an unpopular appointee can easily be dumped so their jobs are, in fact, at the mercy of customer opinion.

Also of note one of these quasi-government organizations you're so concerned about is responsible for this action you're in favor of, so its not like they exist solely as a negative.

So, was that it or do you have another reason? Because to me this one is two sides of the same coin and not a solid reason to force a change to the status quo.