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-usa-internet-exclusive/fcc-chief-plans-to-ditch-u-s-net-neutrality-rules-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-speech/internet-speech/what-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-speech/internet-speech/what-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/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

[dudog84]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.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 (http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is) 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 (http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is) 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 (http://www.aei.org/publication/a-win-for-the-internet-the-fcc-wants-to-repeal-title-ii-net-neutrality-regulations/) for the Internet.

[dudog84]

Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong (http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is) 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.

[swood1000]

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

Will definitely be following with great interest.
I though we were safe until we got to "disguised public policy."

[dudog84]

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

Will definitely be following with great interest.

Which is just what I was hoping to avoid with my initial post. Thanks swood! :p

[swood1000]

Which is just what I was hoping to avoid with my initial post. Thanks swood! :p
I'm not really sure how distinguishing between net neutrality and Title II goes over the line, so I'll just drop out of the discussion at this point.

[dudog84]

I'm not really sure how distinguishing between net neutrality and Title II goes over the line, so I'll just drop out of the discussion at this point.

Just messin' with ya, man! Come back Shane!

[BLPOG]

In my opinion this thread shouldn't exist, but since it does and it's difficult for me to succinctly describe how awful I think net neutrality is, I will leave this link to a a new subreddit that opposes it. NoNetNeutrality (https://www.reddit.com/r/NoNetNeutrality/)

The posts are being downvoted en mass by other Reddit users, but if you want to find a few collected resources against the policy in order to understand that position you should be able to do so there.

[snowdenscold]

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.

So, in an effort to deal with the current problem Netflix is creating, we may be potentially stifling innovation that could be the next 'Netflix'.


I would think there'd be some sort of compromise/hybrid solution, where if you get above a certain point in terms of aggregate traffic, you could potentially be asked to kick in some money for your OTT content. But we wouldn't want to apply that across the board, otherwise starts-ups may face costs to entry that could prevent them from ever getting off the ground. (And of course you could have more than 1 threshold level.)

[dudog84]

Well, they did it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/federal-communications-commission-repeals-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN1E81CX

[DUKIECB]

Well, they did it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/federal-communications-commission-repeals-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN1E81CXFrom what I'm reading it looks like the courts will ultimately decide unless congress intervenes and passes new legislation.

[RPS]

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.Ding ding ding ding ding.

We have a winner. Deep Throat had it right. Follow the money.

[swood1000]

They have retained a transparency rule, requiring the internet service providers to disclose in detail their practices, such as whether they are blocking or throttling, or providing fast lanes for a fee (which was the threat that justified the Obama rules), so if such activities take place and seem to be harmful to the Internet there will be an opportunity to do something about it then.

One reason given for the change was that the Obama rule was seen to have “depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.” (Of course, this was denied by the other side.) Essentially the argument is the Obama rules put the Internet massively under the control of government agencies and that people are reluctant to make investments when the government has the authority to come in at some unpredictable time and upset everyone’s economic calculations with new fundamental economic rules, possibly politically motivated and therefore impossible to anticipate.

It allows the Federal Trade Commission to once again take over enforcement of practices considered anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive.

[PackMan97]

I haven't followed the sides on this nearly enough to make an educated comment on the issue. However, I will make a comment on the process. I am incredibly disappointed in the state of things that this essentially boiled down to a partisan issue. WTF? I don't care which is "right", this issue is really far too complex to be a partisan issue. I really despise the state of our politics these days.

[LasVegas]

I haven't followed the sides on this nearly enough to make an educated comment on the issue. However, I will make a comment on the process. I am incredibly disappointed in the state of things that this essentially boiled down to a partisan issue. WTF? I don't care which is "right", this issue is really far too complex to be a partisan issue. I really despise the state of our politics these days.

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

[swood1000]

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

What percentage of the people polled do you think really understood the issues? And what was the question asked? Whether they want the Internet to be equal and fair or not? Polls by the other side probably ask whether they want Internet to remain free or to be hamstrung by government regulations, with a totally different result.

[LasVegas]

What percentage of the people polled do you think really understood the issues? And what was the question asked? Whether they want the Internet to be equal and fair or not? Polls by the other side probably ask whether they want Internet to remain free or to be hamstrung by government regulations, with a totally different result.

http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/

Seems like a pretty fair poll to me.

[BLPOG]

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand?

If I asked a resident of Oymyakon, Siberia if he supported or opposed the infield fly rule, I don't think his response would carry much meaning in regard to the subject of the question.

I think that in such a case, it would be more accurate to say that a person claims to favor/object, or perhaps pretends to or purports to, etc.

My experience has not left me with the impression that people are well-informed on this subject. I think you are right that it is not partisan, per se, and your 80% figure, if accurate, could reflect that. I also think that it could reflect a choosing of "sides" based on social affiliations rather than reason.

[LasVegas]

Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand?

If I asked a resident of Oymyakon, Siberia if he supported or opposed the infield fly rule, I don't think his response would carry much meaning in regard to the subject of the question.

I think that in such a case, it would be more accurate to say that a person claims to favor/object, or perhaps pretends to or purports to, etc.

My experience has not left me with the impression that people are well-informed on this subject. I think you are right that it is not partisan, per se, and your 80% figure, if accurate, could reflect that. I also think that it could reflect a choosing of "sides" based on social affiliations rather than reason.

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.

[BLPOG]

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.

If you mean to so say that the poll methodology accomplished that, I don't agree based on what I read, nor do I believe that a poll [of registered voters] could be designed to do so.

[swood1000]

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.
But they didn't explain both sides. They gave a summary of the claims of both sides but no way to judge how likely such an outcome was. Do you really think that such a person understands the issues? Furthermore, the argument in favor said nothing about letting Internet development remain free vs letting it be managed and strangled by government regulation.

Furthermore, here was the final question:

Q15: So, in conclusion, do you favor or oppose the proposal to give Internet Service Providers the freedom to:
• provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower download speed for other websites

• block access to certain websites

• charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites

Are you in favor of extra expense, a faster download speed for the elite but slower for you, blocked access to certain sites, additional fees? I don't think that those supporting the FCC's action today would characterize the likely result of their action this way.

[dudog84]

To me, it's a simple question. Has the internet become a utility, a basic service, like electricity, phone, or water.

I believe it has. Several months ago, I cut the cable cord but kept my internet service. Because I don't need to watch TV, but the internet is a necessity for my business. And I connect more with people by email than by phone. It is the world we live in today.

It's ridiculous to think those that can pay more should get cleaner water than than their neighbor, their phone calls to 911 get preference, or their lights burn brighter.

This is the argument. To make it about anything else is disingenuous.

And don't get me started on the opportunities for censorship.

[BLPOG]

To me, it's a simple question [emphasis added]. Has the internet become a utility, a basic service, like electricity, phone, or water.

I believe it has. Several months ago, I cut the cable cord but kept my internet service. Because I don't need to watch TV, but the internet is a necessity for my business. And I connect more with people by email than by phone. It is the world we live in today.

It's ridiculous to think those that can pay more should get cleaner water than than their neighbor, their phone calls to 911 get preference, or their lights burn brighter.

This is the argument. To make it about anything else is disingenuous.

And don't get me started on the opportunities for censorship.

I'd have to disagree. That is not to say that there are not simple reasons that could be sufficient to decide the issue despite other complex components, but based on the rest of your comment, I don't think you are aware of those complexities.

I've spent some time thinking and I'm not really sure of a way to respond that doesn't come off poorly, as either overly combative or condescending. That's why I don't think threads like this one should normally exist on DBR; despite being a community that stands significantly to the right on the distributions for intelligence, politeness, and good faith discussions, there are some factors that are so difficult to overcome in political discourse that even the best attempts are going to fall short and cause problems, and those with will bleed into our other threads. It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.

I've exhausted what I can say without breaking rules or causing problems in this thread. I just hope that people can try to understand that massive destruction of information is antithetical to human prosperity.

[elvis14]

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

I don't think they really understood the issue. If they did, that 80% would be more like 97% (with a few people voting for Grayson no matter what).

[dudog84]

I'd have to disagree. That is not to say that there are not simple reasons that could be sufficient to decide the issue despite other complex components, but based on the rest of your comment, I don't think you are aware of those complexities.

I've spent some time thinking and I'm not really sure of a way to respond that doesn't come off poorly, as either overly combative or condescending. That's why I don't think threads like this one should normally exist on DBR; despite being a community that stands significantly to the right on the distributions for intelligence, politeness, and good faith discussions, there are some factors that are so difficult to overcome in political discourse that even the best attempts are going to fall short and cause problems, and those with will bleed into our other threads. It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.

I've exhausted what I can say without breaking rules or causing problems in this thread. I just hope that people can try to understand that massive destruction of information is antithetical to human prosperity.

I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us. :)

[elvis14]

I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us. :)

I'd like to think that we could describe the issues, and maybe even describe both sides of some issues, without wandering straight into infraction land. Or at least some of us could (meaning probably not me because unless I learn something new, I'm pretty pissed....but reading about the issues might help me learn something new).

[Reilly]

Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand? ...

How to treat Carolina players' complaints about Swahili homework is a conundrum.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us. :)


But they didn't explain both sides. They gave a summary of the claims of both sides but no way to judge how likely such an outcome was. Do you really think that such a person understands the issues? Furthermore, the argument in favor said nothing about letting Internet development remain free vs letting it be managed and strangled by government regulation.

Furthermore, here was the final question:

Q15: So, in conclusion, do you favor or oppose the proposal to give Internet Service Providers the freedom to:
• provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower download speed for other websites

• block access to certain websites

• charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites

Are you in favor of extra expense, a faster download speed for the elite but slower for you, blocked access to certain sites, additional fees? I don't think that those supporting the FCC's action today would characterize the likely result of their action this way.

In response to duDog, I will cite swood's response, which I personally feel goes way over the lines of PPB material (not sure if this is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 but it is clearly a violation). It is basically an argument of active government vs. limited government. Those who are against government regulation (i.e. those who feel that we are "strangled by government regulation") generally line up against net neutrality. Those who believe it is the government's place to regulate and be involved in certain areas that might be perceived as the common good (and a big part of the argument here is whether internet access is a common good) are in favor of net neutrality.

Very generally speaking, and with a number of exceptions, the first group tends to be Republicans, the second group tends to be Democrats. Though interestingly, Mark Cuban, who is very publicly anti-Trump, has come out against net neutrality. And I agree that polls can be somewhat skewed by how the question is phrased. If the question assumes the worst case behavior by corporate America (i.e. "without net neutrality, here are the horrible things that corporate America will do") even though there is no guarantee that these corporate America will actually do these things, net neutrality sounds a lot better. If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.

Hope this helps. I have a pretty strong opinion on this but tried to stay as down the middle as possible. I hope others can do the same so we can continue this discussion.

[RPS]

It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.Yup. I miss PPB. A lot.

[RPS]

If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.

[PackMan97]

They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.

The counter argument is that in many places, high speed internet is not a free market. For example, where I live, just 15 minutes from downtown Raleigh, I have exactly one high speed provider. Spectrum. And they are only about 30-50 mb/s on good days. My second choice is 1.5mb/s line from ATT. Just saying that the free market doesnt' always provide especially when municipalities regulate what can be burried in the ground.

[swood1000]

If the question assumes the worst case behavior by corporate America (i.e. "without net neutrality, here are the horrible things that corporate America will do") even though there is no guarantee that these corporate America will actually do these things, net neutrality sounds a lot better. If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.

So what's the rush? Why not wait and see whether all those bad things are actually going to happen, since the claimed drawbacks of net-neutrality (depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation) are a lot more difficult to identify and substantiate than the claimed drawbacks of the alternative. We can always impose these net neutrality regulations if they prove necessary, but why do so before that time?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So what's the rush? Why not wait and see whether all those bad things are actually going to happen, since the claimed drawbacks of net-neutrality (depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation) are a lot more difficult to identify and substantiate than the claimed drawbacks of the alternative. We can always impose these net neutrality regulations if they prove necessary, but why do so before that time?

Like many things, once you give up control to corporations, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

That is why I see "wait and see" as dangerous.

And while I don't believe in mob rule, in these polarized and fractured times, if 80% of our country is opposed to something, maybe it should go back to the drawing board.

[alteran]

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

Apparently a lot of us expressed our opinion to the FCC. Whether we knew it or not. Some of us from beyond the grave.

My spin— if you like your cable TV bills and selection, you’re gonna LOVE the end of net neutrality.

[alteran]

Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong (http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/19/net-neutrality-nixed-why-john-oliver-is) 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?

That’s already not prevented.

The situation is more like you used to have the freedom to have any relationship you wanted between you and content providers on the internet.

Now, Verizon/ATT/Comcast get veto power to weigh over those relationships. If you’re lucky, they’ll just charge more.

[alteran]

They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.

What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.

[RPS]

The counter argument is that in many places, high speed internet is not a free market. For example, where I live, just 15 minutes from downtown Raleigh, I have exactly one high speed provider. Spectrum. And they are only about 30-50 mb/s on good days. My second choice is 1.5mb/s line from ATT. Just saying that the free market doesnt' always provide especially when municipalities regulate what can be burried in the ground.
What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.As I understand it, the idea undergirding ending "net neutrality" is to make the market much freer.

Your mileage may vary.


Like many things, once you give up control to corporations, how in the heck will you ever get it back?FIFY: Like just about everything, once you give up control to the government, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

Like kids, lemonade stands and "public safety (http://kfor.com/2016/08/30/california-girl-asked-to-get-permit-license-for-gourmet-lemonade-stand/)." Or governments and gardens (http://www.newson6.com/story/18802728/woman-sues-city-of-tulsa-for-cutting-down-her-edible-garden). Or bloggers and business licenses (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/cash-strapped-philly-bloggers-pay-business-license-article-1.205909). Or the size of your soda (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=1AFD71F3CCFFAE4FE1E70CF6D3CE1190). Or something like that.

[LasVegas]

What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.

Exactly. Cox can do whatever they want to me. I have no other options.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

As I understand it, the idea undergirding ending "net neutrality" is to make the market much freer.

Your mileage may vary.

FIFY: Like just about everything, once you give up control to the government, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

Like kids, lemonade stands and "public safety (http://kfor.com/2016/08/30/california-girl-asked-to-get-permit-license-for-gourmet-lemonade-stand/)." Or governments and gardens (http://www.newson6.com/story/18802728/woman-sues-city-of-tulsa-for-cutting-down-her-edible-garden). Or bloggers and business licenses (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/cash-strapped-philly-bloggers-pay-business-license-article-1.205909). Or the size of your soda (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=1AFD71F3CCFFAE4FE1E70CF6D3CE1190). Or something like that.

Since it is so critical to you and the current administration to reduce the size of government and its level of involvement, how about we start with the defense budget? That seems to be growing quite a bit:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-military-budget-20171212-story.html

While there continues to be a tremendous amount of waste:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/2016-02-03/the-pentagon-could-reach-a-historic-level-of-wasteful-spending

If you want to remove government involvement and spending from our lives, that might be a good place to start...

And as others have stated, I would be a lot more willing to deregulate internet access if there was actually choice involved. Until that day comes, someone needs to be minding the store.

[pfrduke]

This is a fascinating topic but one that abuts too closely to the PPB line, as the last several posts have revealed. People are free to discuss with each other over PM, but the broader board discussion is closed.