Net Neutrality

[dudog84]

I apologize in advance if this is PPB stuff, but I am honestly looking for information. The plan to end net neutrality seems like a bad idea but I really don't know much about it. I put a query up on facebook and got nothing, so I was thinking the learned on this board might educate me.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DL21A

If this gets shut down I'm sorry, but please private message me.

[DUKIECB]

https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak John Oliver's take. Warning strong language.

[tbyers11]

Here is a link from the ACLU that does a good job of describing the issues.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-spe...net-neutrality

[dudog84]

https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak John Oliver's take. Warning strong language.

Thank you. Love to laugh while I learn (something never appreciated by my teachers/professors).

[dudog84]

Here is a link from the ACLU that does a good job of describing the issues.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-spe...net-neutrality

Thank you as well (I won't be able to thank everyone who posts, but please know I thank all of you). Pretty eye-opening. I'm pretty well-educated but I guess I haven't been paying much attention lately.

[dudog84]

Expressed my opinion to the FCC (see end of John Oliver video). That's a first.

[dudog84]

So, conceivably, as Skipper kept much of the coverage of the uNC debacle off of espn because he was the boss, if he ran Verizon he could slow down the feeds of Duke games. Or, heaven forbid, restrict access to DBR!

[moonpie23]

it's gone...

[dudog84]

it's gone...

What do you mean? Is it a done deal?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

What do you mean? Is it a done deal?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/t...eutrality.html

[dudog84]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/t...eutrality.html

From the article:

"The plan to repeal the existing rules, passed in 2015, would reverse a hallmark decision by the agency to consider broadband a public utility, as essential as phones and electricity. The earlier decision created the legal foundation for the current rules and underscored the importance of high-speed internet service. It was put in place by Tom Wheeler, an F.C.C. chairman under President Obama.

Mr. Pai, who was appointed chairman by President Trump in January, has eliminated numerous regulations during his first year.

The agency has stripped down rules governing television broadcasters, newspapers and telecom companies that were meant to protect the public interest. On Tuesday, in addition to the net neutrality rollback, Mr. Pai announced a plan to eliminate a rule limiting any corporation from controlling broadcasts that can reach more than 39 percent of American homes."

How can the internet not be considered a public utility? And according to the last line, we may one day get all our information from one source. Fascism catches up to technology. Never thought I'd be glad to get old.

[swood1000]

https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak John Oliver's take. Warning strong language.

Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong which raises an interesting question: if I want to pay more to get my package sent to me by a faster method, why should that be prevented?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong which raises an interesting question: if I want to pay more to get my package sent to me by a faster method, why should that be prevented?

It comes down in my mind to what the previous poster mentioned...

Is the internet a utility or not? If we throttled the availability of water or electricity based on different economic factors, it would be recognized as a terrible move. If instead you see the internet as a luxury to be doled out based on wealth, then there's no issue here.

Two very different perspectives. No one is going to keel over and die from lack of internet, but certainly you could argue that it is more and more a necessary part of our daily lives.

[swood1000]

How can the internet not be considered a public utility?

The argument is that the common carrier rules formulated in the 1930s to govern true monopolies are a bad fit for the Internet.

[dudog84]

Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong which raises an interesting question: if I want to pay more to get my package sent to me by a faster method, why should that be prevented?

While obviously and admittedly new to this subject, I think this is an over-simplification. It's not just pricing, it's screwing with your access and speed to certain content that will not be obvious to the user.

Re your other comment about monopolies, the last line of the quote from the article deals with that in another context. That one company can have over 39% of the media. Seems obvious which way this is heading.

Edit: Just noticed I used obvious 3 times in this short post. Sorry, that obviously seems presumptuous.

[El_Diablo]

While obviously and admittedly new to this subject, I think this is an over-simplification. It's not just pricing, it's screwing with your access and speed to certain content that will not be obvious to the user.

Correct. If someone wants a "package" faster, he or she can already do so by paying more for a plan with a higher download speed. Rolling back net neutrality rules is the equivalent of permitting carriers to open a person's mail and decide when to deliver it based on its content (or whether to deliver it at all). For example:

"This letter's from your grandma? Fine, here you go."
"This package is from Retailer A. And good news! Retailer A has paid us kickbacks to deliver all their packages immediately, so here you go!"
"This package is from Retailer B. But it hasn't given us any kickbacks, so we will hold it in our warehouse for a few extra days before we deliver it. And we will kick it a couple times too--hopefully it's not too fragile. Maybe you should order from Retailer A next time?"
"This advertisement is from our competitor offering better rates for equivalent services...into the trash it goes!"

[El_Diablo]

Correct. If someone wants a "package" faster, he or she can already do so by paying more for a plan with a higher download speed. Rolling back net neutrality rules is the equivalent of permitting carriers to open a person's mail and decide when to deliver it based on its content (or whether to deliver it at all). For example:

"This letter's from your grandma? Fine, here you go."
"This package is from Retailer A. And good news! Retailer A has paid us kickbacks to deliver all their packages immediately, so here you go!"
"This package is from Retailer B. But it hasn't given us any kickbacks, so we will hold it in our warehouse for a few extra days before we deliver it. And we will kick it a couple times too--hopefully it's not too fragile. Maybe you should order from Retailer A next time?"
"This advertisement is from our competitor offering better rates for equivalent services...into the trash it goes!"

And this is an over-simplification as well, of course, but it illustrates the potential issues/concerns some people perceive.

[swood1000]

There are two questions: (a) what should the policy be with respect to Net Neutrality, and (b) can we realize those goals without subjecting the Internet to the massive government oversight and regulation that comes with the Title II common carrier designation?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There are two questions: (a) what should the policy be with respect to Net Neutrality, and (b) can we realize those goals without subjecting the Internet to the massive government oversight and regulation that comes with the Title II common carrier designation?

I am afraid your post pushes this thread from "borderline" to "obliquely public policy."

Will definitely be following with great interest.

[Troublemaker]

Here's my hipster-ish, above-it-all take.

This is a power struggle between giant corporate interests over who foots the bill on bandwidth costs for unlimited streaming HD video.

Both sides -- telecom infrastructure vs content providers -- are trying to couch their cause in nobler, ideological terms, and each has captured and manipulated one side of the political aisle apparently.

But don't lose track of what this is really about.