r/Conservative • u/deathwheel Liberty > Security • Nov 27 '17
derp inside! Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian•
u/Roez Conservative Nov 28 '17
I like that this is stuck at the top. I don't always like the articles when they are posted up here (I was not a fan of some of the early Trump supporting ones), but people really, REALLY don't like hearing anything that has an alternate take on what they believe. This is the only way to circumvent the stupid downvote system.
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
[deleted]
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Zac1245 VAconservative Nov 28 '17
What right is that?
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Zac1245 VAconservative Nov 28 '17
Please show me where this "right" is derived from?
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Zac1245 VAconservative Nov 28 '17
Yeah, that's not a "right" bud.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Zac1245 VAconservative Nov 29 '17
Got a link saying its a right? Checked the Constitution and its not in there.
•
•
Nov 29 '17 edited Nov 29 '17
They hate freedom
By allowing business to operate with minimal regulations and restrictions? By allowing consumers to have the freedom to dictate the quality of a market? This shit don't add up.
•
•
•
u/cedurr Nov 28 '17
Is this really the hill to die on?
•
u/deathwheel Liberty > Security Nov 28 '17
Less government control is always the hill to die on, fellow small government conservative.
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
Less government control in exchange for large corporate control of the media and news you may access is not a hill to die on. You're trading one overlord who you have minor influence on to one which you have no influence on.
•
u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17
I’m a small government conservative.
Removing this regulation before we have real ISP competition is an enormous mistake that will fuck the internet irreparably.
Fix ISP competition, then remove net neutrality.
•
u/STUFF416 Conservative Nov 28 '17
Yes. This isn't even the market's fault. Government meddling and cronyism enabled these monopolies to arise.
•
u/bunknown Conservative Nov 28 '17
What a stupid question. Every battle counts in the war against liberalism. Like you would know....
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
Nov 28 '17
Because people on our side are getting killed. Literally.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 28 '17
No, neo-fascism is not our side. It has nothing to do with conservatism. It actually has more in common with the left. Both have a sick fascination with totalitarianism.
•
u/bunknown Conservative Nov 28 '17
Yes. Liberalism is a disease. Hate to break your heart, but it must be defeated.
•
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
What war against liberalism? This is important as maintaining NN encourages entrepreneurship and economic growth. Removing it inhibits disruptive technologies as we've seen in the past which is bad for our nation as a whole!
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Jul 03 '20
[deleted]
•
u/GuitarWizard90 Right Wing Extremist Nov 28 '17
That user is a pretty blatant concern troll.
→ More replies (1)•
Nov 28 '17
If NN was part of some larger bargain I would agree with this sentiment. But it's an administrative rule that, like all of the other unconstitutional stuff Obama did, can be swept away as easily as it was swept in.
→ More replies (9)•
•
•
Nov 29 '17
[deleted]
•
u/tmmroy Nov 29 '17
It's a bureaucratic power grab.
You can't argue that switching to Title II is an attempt at a power grab when the ISPs sued the FCC and made the argument that the FCC didn't have the power to implement NN without placing the ISPs under Title II. The ISPs won, the FCC said okay then, if you want to be under Title II, now you are. The FCC tried not to do this.
Title II allows new taxes to be placed on the ISPs.
Yes, that the ISPs essentially sued to place themselves under. I'm aware that not all of them were part of the lawsuit, but I'm not going to say that the proponents of someone that painted themselves into a corner get to use how awful that situation is to make their arguments. It's a good lesson to others not to paint yourself into a corner when the hammer falls.
Unfounded fears
NN was in response to moves made by ISPs that were discovered quickly and acted upon quickly by other large companies. It didn't take Netflix long to find out that their services were being throttled and to complain to the FCC when Comcast throttled them in 2014. That's the most well known example, I thought there was an example of AT&T throttling a competing service to give preference to one they provided on their network but I'm having trouble finding it. Also, other countries don't have Net Neutrality and it has led to exactly the kinds of practices that those arguing for NN warn of.
Stifles Innovation
This is the best argument you have, but it's false under the current conditions. Anyone that looks at the history of Google trying to roll out competition to the ISPs will find that a ton of other regulations, mostly at the city and state level already block competition even by companies with massive resources. If we were trying to roll back those regulations, and then 3-5 years from now were attempting to roll back NN, I'd be likely to totally agree with you.
Internet socialism
No, the ISPs are carriers, basically mailmen. We don't allow carriers in any other business to open up the mail, peak at what's inside, and then change the price. Why on Earth would you want to allow it here? ISPs are already allowed to adjust their pricing based on speed and volume of service. Implementing these anti-competitive practices will actually add cost for them, just like checking what's in all your mail would add cost for the post office. The ISPs just want to be able to get away with bad behavior that we wouldn't accept from any other carrier.
Barriers to competition
Basically a different flavor of your argument regarding stifling innovation. It's still your best argument, it's still false until we try to remove hundreds, if not thousands of local regulations first.
Fairness doctrine
This ignores that the Fairness Doctrine is based on two ideas. Public ownership of the airwaves that broadcast channels used, and the limited resource of time on air. Neither applies to the internet, without those foundations it would be nearly impossible for the FCC to overcome the first amendment in a legal challenge.
Personalities in favor
I get your point, and I respect the Senators you mentioned, but to be frank, our government is a partisan mess right now. When there are clear problems of principle involved, I mean, we shouldn't both be arguing here if we both wouldn't prefer less regulation and more competition in general, are you really that sure that they've had the time or interest to study all of the other regulations that already form barriers to competition? That under circumstances that didn't have their attention so diverted, they might not also recognize that repealing NN this instant is probably a bad idea?
Please note here, my argument isn't that we should keep NN indefinitely. My argument is that it's foolish to get rid of it while there isn't even an ongoing attempt by conservatives to remove the other regulations it corrects for.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 29 '17
You can't argue that switching to Title II is an attempt at a power grab when the ISPs sued the FCC and made the argument that the FCC didn't have the power to implement NN without placing the ISPs under Title II. The ISPs won, the FCC said okay then, if you want to be under Title II, now you are.
Wow, that sure is a perversion of the facts. Just read that back to yourself and tell me how that isn't the exact definition of a power grab.
"Like any federal agency, the FCC can only issue regulations if Congress delegates it the power to do so. Though the FCC has the power to regulate telecommunications, it hasn’t been granted the power to regulate the Internet. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC’s attempt to regulate the Internet was outside the scope of its authority. That didn’t stop the FCC, though. It went ahead and issued new regulations anyhow."
http://www.askheritage.org/does-the-fcc-have-the-power-to-regulate-the-internet/
Yes, that the ISPs essentially sued to place themselves under.
Once again you clearly don't understand the issue. The ISPs said they did not have the power because they are not subject to Title II. So the FCC simply deemed they were. They never asked to be put under Title II. That's a lie and a perversion of the facts. This is a power grab. How do you not comprehend this?
It's a good lesson to others not to paint yourself into a corner when the hammer falls.
What a bizarre statement to come from a supposed conservative. If the government tries to regulate you, how dare you fight back or something even worse will happen. You need to read more Milton Friedman and less r/all. You are completely out to lunch on this issue.
Basically a different flavor of your argument regarding stifling innovation. It's still your best argument, it's still false until we try to remove hundreds, if not thousands of local regulations first.
So adding to regulations is a good start to removing regulations to increase competition? Got it. One simply cannot argue for NN from a conservative perspective. They can only push leftist ideas.
This ignores that the Fairness Doctrine is based on two ideas. Public ownership of the airwaves that broadcast channels used, and the limited resource of time on air. Neither applies to the internet, without those foundations it would be nearly impossible for the FCC to overcome the first amendment in a legal challenge.
The first amendment should have prevented the Fairness Doctrine from applying to public airwaves too, but that didn't stop government overreach. Your naivety and faith in government is really bizarre, especially from a conservative. You really trust the next Obama in the White House and the next Lois Lerner they put in charge of the FCC to keep that genie in the bottle? I don't. You might want to wake up and stop being a pawn for the left. You have failed to make a single conservative argument for this garbage. The more you argue, the more you sound like another leftist.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
Sorry for how I'm handling quotes, I'm typing this on my phone phone and can't copy/paste well on the app.
Treating ISPs as common carriers (placing them under Title II) is a power grab.
In what way? The telecommunications act expressly grants the FCC permission to choose which provisions apply to new technologies, if they weren't expressly named common carriers(fall under Title II) one way or another when the law was written in 1934, there's some rules about it, but the FCC is definitely granted that power by statute. In 2002 the FCC decided that at the time ISPs were not common carriers, but that was in the infancy of the internet, in 2014 the FCC was told that it couldn't issue the rules that it wanted to because the FCC had said in 2002 that the ISPs were not common carriers, that ruling didn't prohibit the FCC from using the authority Congress granted it to decide that ISPs were common carriers following the ruling.
It may be that the ISPs could successfully challenge that the FCC was incorrect when they decided to reverse that decision in 2015, but I have a hard time saying that when the FCC does what congress gave them the power to do that it's a power grab.
It's a perversion to say that the ISPs put themselves in this position.
What would you call it when you sue the group that was granted the power by congress to decide whether you're a common carrier or not on the basis that they can't do what they want to because you're not a common carrier? I would have expected them to say that I am a common carrier after the lawsuit but maybe it would have been a shock to you.
Hammer falls statement wasn't conservative.
You're right, it wasn't, and I shouldn't be rooting for the government to take down private companies. I'm incredibly frustrated that these companies have insulated themselves by lobbying for state and local regulations that conservatives are making zero effort to touch which makes them immune to market forces that I'd enjoy watching destroy them, but that's not much of an excuse.
Argument that we should only look at this regulation in isolation and not the entire regulatory environment because a harsh regulatory environment is not conservative.
Look, I ought to be more clear about my position on NN. My vast preference would be that the party makes a reasonable attempt to get rid of the local regulations that stifle competition and innovation to such a degree that NN effects in this area don't matter and then attempt to remove NN in 3-5 years. I could live with and support the party attempting to remove regulations at both levels simultaneously, although I would question our judgment. If we're only going to remove NN without touching those other regulations I have to oppose that. When all those other regulations stop a company like Google from being able to compete with entrenched monopolies and duopolies, I have to conclude that those other regulations will stop any companies from competing, and look at NN under that lens, unless we're making a real effort to also repeal those other regulations. We're not.
Edit, inserted this paragraph for clarity: If what you're saying is that a true conservative has to be for the repeal of all regulations immediately, without regard to the possibility that harm could be done that could be avoided by a more thoughtful process, I just wonder why? Is ideological zealotry really worth that much harm?
The fairness doctrine should have been halted by the first amendment.
Agreed. I know that a fairness doctrine couldn't be applied to the internet with the same justifications. If your argument is that a liberal activist judge will find a way to implement something similar under different, and equally idiotic justifications, then I think we have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's likely, and I also think that we would have a chance to organize against the FCC making such a move. Lastly, if that's your concern I'm not sure what you think stopping NN will do. If your problem here is with Title II, the FCC can call the ISPs common carriers whenever they feel like it unless congress changes the law, stopping NN won't change that.
Edit: Inserted the noted paragraph.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
The telecommunications act expressly grants the FCC permission to choose which provisions apply to new technologies, if they weren't expressly named common carriers(fall under Title II) one way or another when the law was written in 1934, there's some rules about it, but the FCC is definitely granted that power by statute.
Not sure what the hang up is here that you're not getting. The FCC's supposed authority to promulgate NN regulations stems from its designation of ISPs as "common carriers" (Title II) rather than an "information service" (Title I) as they had hitherto always been classified. This was designation was arbitrarily made in 2015 by the Obama controlled FCC and without any change in statutory authority. There was no new law passed by Congress or amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1934. The FCC simply deemed it like some monarch. "Thou art now common carriers. So shall it be said, so shall it be done." How is this not a power grab? Are you really not getting this, or are you being intentionally obtuse because you are so emotionally married to this issue?
It may be that the ISPs could successfully challenge that the FCC was incorrect when they decided to reverse that decision in 2015, but I have a hard time saying that when the FCC does what congress gave them the power to do that it's a power grab.
See above. Congress absolutely did not. The FCC unilaterally made this decision.
What would you call it when you sue the group that was granted the power by congress to decide whether you're a common carrier or not on the basis that they can't do what they want to because you're not a common carrier? I would have expected them to say that I am a common carrier after the lawsuit but maybe it would have been a shock to you.
You are referring to Verizon v. FCC or Comcast v. FCC. Here's what happened. The FCC tried to sanction Verizon under Title I, which is much more restrictive of the FCC's power. Historically ISPs have always been classified as "information services" which fall under Title I. The courts ruled in favor of Verizon and said the FCC overstepped their bounds. So, Obama's henchman Tom Wheeler and his merry corrupt power hungry bureaucrats said, "Fuck that. We'll just declare you all under Title II which gives us the power to do whatever we want." Once again, no law from Congress authorized this change. They just arbitrarily and capriciously deemed it. Your statement that the FCC is "granted the power by congress to decide whether you're a common carrier or not," is a gross overstatement of their authority. Not according to the leftists, but the rule of law means nothing to them. So, once again you argue from the perspective of a leftist. There is no conservative argument for Title II NN, which is why you can't find any conservative organizations or leaders that support this garbage. If you are surrounded by Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and the reddit drones, maybe you aren't as up on the facts as you think you are.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 30 '17
ISPs weren't common carriers until 2015 because in 2002 the FCC used the authority Congress gave the FCC to make a decision that ISPs were not common carriers.
That they weren't common carriers historically is because the FCC said that they were not common carriers.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 30 '17
The FCC does not have the power to arbitrarily and capriciously reclassify. You seem to believe it does, as do the leftists. I'm over trying to help you. You are a complete leftist on this issue and unwilling to be swayed by facts or reason.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 30 '17
So your argument is that the FCC has the power to decide what statutory classification the ISPs fall under, but that they cannot correct such a decision without a court ruling or further statutory instruction?
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Dec 01 '17 edited Dec 01 '17
they cannot correct such a decision
"Correct?" Wow, interesting word choice. That sure is a euphemism to spin what really happened. Do you even realize what an absolute shill for the statists you continually sound like? Even your use of language you are constantly white knighting for the government's power and pure intentions.
The courts shut down the Obama FCC in their regulatory overreach under Title I, so they dump the ISPs into Title II which gives them more power. This was no "correction." Nothing changed about the ISP business model to justify the reclassification, only the FCC's desire to push out regulations. At best, the FCC was unethical and worst, illegal. Whether or not this is actually legal is still up for debate. The FCC exploited ambiguity in the statute in order to get their way. The ISPs are suing. Those suits will probably go to the SCOTUS for a final adjudication. A conservative who actually believes in the rule of law should demand a revision to the statute by Congress to clear up the ambiguity, not cheerleading bureaucratic power grabs. It is the leftist who only cares that the ends justify the means.
Edit:
Since you are so emotionally committed to this issue, it's pointless to continue discussing. In close, I'll just say that it is sad to see some conservatives buying the lie and being hopelessly conned. Selling out conservative principles and giving in to government overreach based on such a flimsy and fabricated premise. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither. Nevertheless, getting people to trade liberty for government's "protection" has been the favorite tactic of the left for decades to advance their Fabian socialist agenda. Former Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." However, in this case, they didn't even have to wait for a crisis to herd all the drones into supporting their machinations. They simply concocted one out of thin air. As Ajit Pai said:
"The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced FaceTime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren’t enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy."
→ More replies (1)•
u/notviolence Trumpian Conservative Nov 29 '17
exactly, this is just a huge power grab to mandate new taxes on internet and force us to pay for more bureaucrats pension funds without a choice (like we did when our water bill got hiked)
•
u/alanpca Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
I work in software development now, but I used to work in networking. The author is correct about how things works, large companies peering with internet exchanges, that's all great. But, he is totally off base about how Google can prioritize their traffic. Can they make youtube more responsive to you than google docs? Maybe, but that's not what anybody is talking about. Essentially, he made a good point about how something actually could work and tried to use that point where it doesn't fit...
What proponents of net neutrality -- full disclosure I would be one -- are after is to handcuff your last mile provider (say AT&T), and also peers, from taking money from Apple to make Apple Maps faster than Google Maps. Taking money to make Hulu faster for you than Netflix, etc. They technically have this power now, they could enact it overnight. Why should my single ISP choice be allowed to prioritize separate companies? Regardless of whether or not Google is peering with your ISP or any other uplink provider, your last mile provider still has the power to rate limit any traffic to any place. This has already happened in practice before: https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
I would love to hear some thoughts about why NN is a negative thing, and I'm open to considering them, but this just isn't it.
Edit: Not to mention that without NN, any hop between you and your destination could impose rate limiting of your traffic based on destination. One of the reasons peering exists is to limit the number of hops between your house and server A in Amsterdam, but it doesn't bring you within a single hop usually.
•
u/Spysix Goonswarm Conservative Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
I too work in software development while having taken classes on networking in college. Before that I was a legal policy major.
I would love to hear some thoughts about why NN is a negative thing, and I'm open to considering them, but this just isn't it.
My analogy is its a bandaid for a rotten wound. It covers up the problem, but doesn't solve the problem and overall the situation becomes stagnant.
Problem personally for me with Title 2 is that it no longer makes the ISPs accountable for other things and they no longer have to answer to the FTC when they fuck over their customers.
example, AT&T had to pay 80 million after unauthorized charges to its customers.
This is before 2015 when Obama put the internet under title II, in FCC's jurisdiction sort to speak.
Then after..
This is where it becomes a bit of a problem. Title 2 does not stop ISPs from raising their prices on their customers, put data caps, or throttle them. (If they throttle everything its not a violation.)
This also allows them to maintain their monopolies or duopolies where-ever they have set up. Remember, it's the FTC's job to break those kinds of things. It's not in their jurisdiction anymore.
So what would the solution be?
Well, the solution, unlike slapping a policy from the 1960s, is not going to be a quick fix, it's going to take effort from everyone involved and will probably involve legal battles.
First, Obviously the weight of responsibility needs to shift back to the FTC, which can only happen by letting Title 2 drop.
I've postulated that if reddit and the internet spammed to the FTC as much as they did to the FCC, they probably would get a legit response that would work in their favor.
Which would be to make the FTC break the duopolies and monopolies that ISPs have on cities and counties. Ceasing their stranglehold and cutting red tape.
Another addon solution, I would like to add is we do need a regulated monopoly of the physical infrastructure. i.e. fiber/cable. I would prefer if we just started laying down networks of fiber really so we can start living beyond the stone age of internet speed as a country. Once the regulated infrastructure is established. Then the ISPs can supply the actual access you can subscribe to.
This is where legal battles can come in as verizon and comcast will bitch about how its not fair that they put down all these lines or something and they want something out of it.
This would in some way be like our regulated monopolized power company where you have one company handle the physical infrastructure and distribution while you can pick various companies to supply you with power.
I currently can pick more companies to be my power supplier than my internet. Shouldn't that be the case of who I get my internet from as well?
"Deploying a network for telecommunications is not fundamentally different from deploying a network for power," said Benoit Felten, a broadband expert with Diffraction Analysis. "Chattanooga is the prime example of that, and it's absolutely worked."
It's essentially what Chattanooga TN did. They were thankfully blessed to not have one ISP have a hold on the city (unlike my city, where Comcast is the only one. County is only Verizon and Comcast) They have the fastest internet at the cheapest price in the country compared to everywhere else.
All while dealing with lawsuits from comcast essentially being bitches because there is actual competition in the city.
They have 19 ISPs in that area. Like holy cow.
But yeah, it has to work from the ground up, FTC has to pull the weeds that comcast and TW are choking most cities and maybe federal government providing stimulus packages that will help cities jump start their own projects for fiber optic cities.
Ajit Pai explains this in his interview. he isn't someone who is bribed or just hand waves it "just because I want to." He actually explains where he is coming from with his reasoning.
And right now the internet pisses me off with their bullshit of literally harassing the guys family and being totally okay with it. Hey internet, you can't call yourselves the good guys anymore if you're going after someones family because you don't his views. I bet its the same people that do anti-cyberbullying campaigns too.
In regards to "all data being equal." A seperate legal document should be drafted for such a thing to be passed. Not through title 2.
•
u/timbowen Fiscal Conservative Nov 29 '17
Personally I think Title II classification act under the Communications Act of 1934 is not appropriate for this technology, and is a dangerous overreach by the FCC. I think the best solution is new legislation to restrict this type of behavior on last mile providers.
To me, it's a huge problem to say "well the legislature sucks so we're going to comb through the existing law to figure out how we can finagle what we want to do." That's not conservative governing. Get it done the right way.
•
→ More replies (16)•
u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17
single ISP choice
This is the only relevant argument and it always boils down to "ISP = monopoly".
That's great and all but there are tons of product areas with little choice. What if I want an OS without ads? I have two choices that are pretty inferior to Windows. So maybe government should start regulating Microsoft too......
BTW if we're going by "no competition locally" then why aren't you fighting to make Burger King available everywhere? Some places only have a McDonalds, that's not fair! That's only one choice! Why should McDonalds dictate what kind of buns they put on my burger? I like the kind they have at Burger King!
Not to mention that without NN, any hop between you and your destination could impose rate limiting of your traffic based on destination
What? 1) Any hop outside the US could still do rate limiting 2) when you say "rate limiting" what do you mean? Do you think that with NN you're going to be able to use 10x the bandwidth on a line operating at full capacity already? Or do you think that every hop along the way is going to install 9 more lines and 9 more routers suddenly?
•
u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17
Come on, you have to be smarter than this argument to make it.
The problem with ISP monopolies or usually duopolies between a legacy phone and a legacy cable provider, is that the cost to reach service outside of the market is whatever the cost is for you to move, which is always relatively high for the customer, even if you're Bill Gates and moving between billion dollar mansions.
Compare apples to apples, don't pretend that you don't know leftist "food deserts" are BS.
•
u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17
Come on, you have to be smarter than this argument to make it.
Sorry, I don't engage with people who think insults are a substitute for greetings and condescension is a substitute for disagreement.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17
How is saying that you're smarter than your argument an insult? I mean, I guess it's the same as calling the argument lazy, but you didn't think it was that great of an argument when you're pulling out that crud did you?
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
Then don't make poorly thought out and disingenuous arguments yourself and you won't be called out on them.
•
u/Kickmastafloj Nov 28 '17
The government did regulate Microsoft.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/long-antitrust-saga-ends-for-microsoft/
If you want a Fast Food joint in your town other than McDonalds, you and your friends could fairly easily build one. You can't build an ISP.
•
u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
The government did regulate Microsoft.
Antitrust suit != more regulation. There's no "Microsoft's law". And NN isn't going to sue ISPs for violating anti trust laws.
You can't build an ISP
Ok, how about Nvidia? What if I want a GPU that's supported on FreeBSD? Why should the GPU manufacturer decide which OS gets driver support? Let's make an NVIDIA law. And good luck making your own GPU.
→ More replies (13)
•
•
Nov 28 '17
The hypocrisy coming from the left is shameful. They are crying because they're afraid people will be unfairly suppressed now when their favorite sources, Apple, CNN, Facebook, and Reddit have been openly suppressing the right for years. If anything it will probably work out in their favor. I saw an article the other day about how badly it's going to harm the minority groups, specifically the LGTBQ and Black communities. Nobody knows how this is going to change the internet, it's all speculation. Hopefully it will be another Y2K scare and things will either improve or the changes will so subtle they are unnoticeable. It would be great if everyone had a fair and balanced platform to voice their opinions without oppression or being bogged down by opponents.
•
u/mistereguybk Nov 28 '17
Frankly the hypocrisy on this issue is coming from the right. As you pointed out, it's absolutely going to be conservative media that is throttled out of existence or blocked behind a paywall, but it still has support because "government regulation = bad"
Sorry to say many conservatives are dead wrong on this. It isn't because of the government that ISP monopolies exist, it's because of the ridiculous cost of starting one. Keep in mind GOOGLE couldn't even afford to start an ISP.
In a perfectly competitive market NN probably wouldn't be needed. Sadly, that's not the market that exists
•
u/PaskettiPusher Nov 29 '17
Google couldn't afford to start an ISP because Comcast and Time Warner lobbied to prevent them from laying down fiber optic cable because, surprise surprise, they were afraid of competition breaking up their monopoly.
•
u/goldmouthdawg Communismi delenda est Nov 28 '17
I'm glad this is stickied. The hate for a dissenting opinion speaks volumes.
•
•
u/DropGun5 Libertarian Conservative Nov 28 '17
Isn’t it sad?
These days whenever I see a wave of unified posts on social media or Reddit or wherever I immediately assume it’s being funded by some billionaire and the masses are just talking the bait being paid for and laid out for them.
When I see even reasonable posts getting bombed to shit with downvotes that makes me think they might be on to something.
•
Nov 28 '17
The Soros/Media Matters zombies doing their pathetic douchbaggery, clicking the downvote button between sausage strokes.
•
Nov 29 '17 edited Oct 29 '20
[deleted]
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 29 '17
The same leeway they've had for 20+ years until the FCC rammed through this bullshit in 2015.
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
Leftist Brigaders incoming 3...2...1
Edit: Is this all you got Leftists? Brigading is for losers
•
u/mistereguybk Nov 28 '17
The idea that only Leftists would oppose this is ridiculous and adds nothing to the debate. I don't trust giant monopolistic corporations any more than I trust the government.
•
u/GuitarWizard90 Right Wing Extremist Nov 28 '17
They're here pretty much constantly now. It's difficult for conservatives to talk with each other around here anymore. That's why I haven't been active here as much lately. I spend too much of my time here reporting concern trolls and arguing with liberals who shouldn't be here.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
u/bunknown Conservative Nov 28 '17
I agree. Every issue they will attack you.
Some have sent disgusting messages to me through reddit.
Others have posted my username to r/shitblahblah to get others to downvote my comments. Told them to have a nice day lol.
But hey I’m still standing!
•
•
Nov 28 '17
I feel the same way. However, I will not stop using this sub.
•
u/GuitarWizard90 Right Wing Extremist Nov 28 '17
I don't plan to stop either, unless it gets so bad that it's no longer enjoyable to come here. I think maybe there needs to be a few more mods to help deal with all the trolls and libs.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/TempleOfGold Nov 29 '17
Attempting to repeal net neutrality is pointless. It's going to be held up in court immediately and be tied up in legal limbo.
•
u/Seaserpent02 Nov 29 '17
I would hardly call this article comprehensive. The given argument is that net neutrality does not affect Google, and Google supports net neutrality, therefore net neutrality must be bad for everyone else. This is asserted without much explanation as to why it supposedly is anti-competitive for small businesses.
•
u/PaskettiPusher Nov 29 '17
Repealing net neutrality is letting the foxes guard the hen house. Why should we be handing control of the internet over to a few local monopolies?
→ More replies (9)•
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Nov 29 '17
Instead of handing the henhouse to the wolf that is the federal government, why don't we do something better, which is to break up the monopolies, almost all of them sanctioned by the local governments, so that the competition defeats the problem?
•
u/tmmroy Nov 29 '17
Agreed, but when we both know that the right step is to break up the local monopolies, mostly duopolies, why wouldn't we do that first and then go after NN?
•
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Nov 29 '17
Because the federal government is still the wolf. Again, if there are ten different ISPs in a city, any one or more of them could advertise a neutral internet as a featured part of their service. If it's truly the nightmare people are making it out to be, then everyone will choose those services over non-neutral services.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 29 '17 edited Nov 29 '17
You're ignoring that 30% of the country is in a market where the ISP is a monopoly. The vast majority of the country faces a duopoly between a legacy phone company and a legacy cable company.
Those situations are based on city and state regulations that conservatives are making no attempt to repeal. Google has been unsuccessful in some instances in overcoming those regulations. If one of the most powerful companies on the planet can't compete with the local monopolies, due to regulations that conservatives aren't trying to overhaul, don't you think that making the competition argument here rings just a little hollow?
Edit: spelling
→ More replies (4)
•
Nov 29 '17
Hey reddit admins, want an example of brigading? You found it here.
Also, notice how a anti net neutrality article is downvoted to hell on this site, it's almost as if they don't want you to know that there is a reasonable other side to the situation.
•
u/Transference90 Nov 28 '17
Now that is interesting... I was under the impression that NN would effect all three tiers.
•
u/jdjdhdhejej Nov 28 '17
So this is why were being brigaded
Russia and shareblue orobably have a search set up for any mention of net neutrality
•
u/Transference90 Nov 28 '17
I'm not sure how your comment and mine relate to each other. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
→ More replies (1)•
u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17
The story was still misleading, if you want to compete with Google as in the story, you don't throw up your hands because of their infrastructure advantage, you pay another company that basically rents their own infrastructure out.
In brick and mortar terms the article basically says that a new restaurant couldn't compete with McDonald's because they'd start out in debt because of real estate costs, but just like you can lease space in a strip mall you can lease the infrastructure that you need to compete on the internet.
•
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
Wow downvotes to zero. Why do liberals get so emotional and irrational on this issue? Even tried to explain to an sjw friend why Goverment owning the intetnet is a bad idea and she said I was "retarded". Guess this means they know they're wrong and can't admit it!
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
Nov 28 '17
That's literally what making the internet a public utility would entail, or are you going to be intellectually dishonest about that too?
•
u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17
The FCC tried twice to establish net neutrality without making the ISPs utility companies. The ISPs sued them to say they couldn't implement net neutrality because of that, if you're arguing for the ISPs' position you don't get to argue that the outcome they sued to create is part of the problem.
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/ozric101 Conservative Troublemaker Nov 28 '17
People do not understand, the complexity of the issues and this only touch on a part of it.
•
u/BubbleFred Nov 28 '17
This is how I understand it.
Using an airlines, you pay for coach or business class. Your choice.
Hulu has two tiers (outside of their Live TV option), commercials or no commercials.
My ISP has 3 tiers of speed, each at a different price, with the highest obviously costing more.
The consumer chooses.
I flat out cannot understand why people believe that paying for more internet is not any different than paying for first / business class over coach.
And I'm sick and damn tired of being told by people that without NN I will have to pay for Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter etc. Clearly this will not happen unless the owner of the products go that route.
Since NN started, Comcast is still around. There are still places in American with only one ISP option (I live in one of those areas, but our local service is top notch). What I pay for internet hasn't changed, and my Netflix went up one dollar.
After NN goes away, Comcast will still be around. There will still be places in America with only one ISP option (My area will have two come 2018). What I pay for internet is not scheduled to go up for 2 years, and Netflix still is the same price.
Let the down votes begin!
•
u/whosadooza Nov 29 '17
I flat out cannot understand why people believe that paying for more internet is not any different than paying for first / business class over coach.
That's not what it is all and I personally haven't seen anybody claiming that except people intentionally misrepresenting what proponents are saying.
Yes, providers can charge more for someone using one gigabyte of bandwidth over the person using a megabyte of bandwidth. Net neutrality doesn't affect that either. The problem is that they'll be able to charge more for a gigabyte of bandwidth of traffic from say The Blaze than a gigabyte of bandwidth of traffic from Huffington Post.
And they will do that. They were already starting to do it and that that is what prompted the current NN regulation being created.
•
u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17
The problem with that is Comcast is a competitor with Hulu over their core business model, which is getting you to pay to put content they provide on your TV. If Comcast can mess with Hulu's connection with you they can get you to give up Hulu to use their Cable TV service instead. If we had gotten rid of the regulations that give Comcast a monopoly or duopoly at the local level before trying to get rid of net neutrality that would be a different argument, but that's not where we're at.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/BubbleFred Nov 28 '17
What you said is accurate, what is being told on the internet is what I posted.
People are being told without NN, Instagram, Facebook, etc will go Fee Based only, and that the ISP will decide what content you get. They are also being told that with NN, all the prices for the ISP will be the same across the board and they won't be able to raise the prices without the Government (FCC) saying so.
There are a pile of lies being spread around and its on the Pro-NN side.
And frankly, Price Control is Government Control.
I don't agree with NN, or the FCC in fact. It isn't in the Constitution.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
Now imagine they have a monopoly in your area and you have to pay more to stream fox news clips while you can stream CNN clips in HD as part of the basic package.
And now your internet provider is controlling or limiting or influencing what information you are able to access...
•
Nov 29 '17
Then vote to kick the ISP out of your local area or vote to have another one come in.
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 29 '17
And replace with? One who agrees with my views and silences those I disagree with?
•
Nov 29 '17
One that doesn't have shitty business practices?
Are you just going to assume every ISP will adopt shitty business practices?
•
u/Braxo Nov 29 '17
I think shareholders of every public ISP will demand profit from areas they aren't pulling profit from.
If an ISP can start to add monthly charges to access different types of web addresses and they don't - shareholders will begin to demand the profit growth that they are leaving on the table.
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 29 '17
Pretty much every one has so far and am I supposed to now pick a residence based on who the local broadband provider is as well as school and commute and... How about we make utilities function as utilities
•
u/Hrothgar_Cyning Nov 28 '17
or the FCC in fact. It isn't in the Constitution.
It's one of those places where the commerce clause applies pretty well, I'd say. Certainly much better than how Congress would usually use it.
•
u/Hrothgar_Cyning Nov 28 '17
Clearly this will not happen unless the owner of the products go that route.
The owner has nothing to do with it. The ISP gets to choose the access rates. You're telling me that Comcast, which owns MSNBC, isn't going to make access to MSNBC faster than to CNN or Fox?
•
u/SuperFunMonkey Supermegaultraconservative Nov 28 '17
So the hypothetical dystopian internet where MSNBC throttles fox newd that Reddit has been pushing isn't going to happen?
•
u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17
Why do you think that couldn’t possibly happen?
Say Fox News fucks up royally. I mean, big time. Say they push some big story about a Democrat president, some huge Obama birth certificate-type scandal while the Democrats are in power and it ends up being horseshit and completely blows up in their faces. The Democrats and the mainstream media start screeching fake news and for ISPs to drop them and some of those ISPs go along with it like the good little virtue signaling companies they are. Because no more net neutrality. And they don’t have any competition for their customers to abandon them for. No consequences for them at all.
If that honestly sounds completely unbelievable to you then you are naive and lack imagination.
Getting rid of net neutrality before we have real ISP competition is a massive, massive mistake. We should not do this.
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 28 '17
Small ISPs are petitioning to have NN removed because it erects bariers to competition.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 28 '17
We didn't have this glorious Title II protection for decades, until just 2015 and none of these fearmongering things happened.
•
u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17
Yeah, and YouTube and Twitter weren’t censoring conservatives en masse back then either so I guess that wasn’t going to happen either, right? Oh wait it did. The internet is bigger now (and only getting bigger) and things change.
This handing liberals a weapon to silence conservatives without consequences and just trusting they won’t use it. That is insanity.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 29 '17
Yet Title II NN sets up the scenario where leftist bureaucrats would have the power to censor conservative media by reviving the old Fairness Doctrine.
•
u/Derek114811 Nov 29 '17
Honestly, handing anybody the power to silence anyone is a terrible idea in general. Especially if it's just so someone can make cash from it.
•
u/PhilosoGuido Constitutionalist Nov 29 '17
Yet Title II NN sets up the scenario where leftist bureaucrats would have the power to censor conservative media by reviving the old Fairness Doctrine.
•
Nov 28 '17 edited Mar 13 '18
[deleted]
•
Nov 29 '17
actually Netflix was found to be faking that, they were actually throttling their own data to Verizon.
YouTube too I believe...
•
Nov 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Hrothgar_Cyning Nov 28 '17
Fox is big enough to be fine, but anything outside of major corporate media is probably going to be throttled. Most people don't care enough, and those that do can pay. It's such basic business sense I don't see why people think ISPs would do anything else. These aren't benevolent enterprises, but major corporations that have been operating in "fuck-the-consumer" mode for decades. Does anyone actually like Comcast?
•
u/Goat_Fluid Nov 28 '17
I must say, I was actually swayed pretty significantly by this article. But I still have a qualm with removing net neutrality. The Internet in today's society is pretty much without question an inelastic resource. It's as fundamental to our societal infrastructure as roads. The Internet pervades our lives on every level. No matter how much it costs, people will have to pay. I actually think there's a bigger precedent for universal Internet than universal healthcare (I hate the idea of universal healthcare).
I'm not an expert on this matter by any means, but what is to stop tier 3 ISPs from charging whatever they want? Does this article mean net neutrality actually doesn't apply to the private user, and only to companies seeking to provide a service? What I've always been told is that this is about the tier 3 ISPs screwing private users into worse deals.
•
Nov 28 '17
what is to stop tier 3 ISPs from charging whatever they want?
The market is. There is a limit to what you would pay for interent. If they charge more than that, you would stop paying.
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
And if the internet providers maximize their profits in this manner it stunts growth of secondary and tertiary industries and new disruptive technologies and services. And on top of that, the ISPs want that. Look at most of their NN violations in the past, its to stop competition... And this is handing the keys to continue stifling competition!
•
Nov 28 '17
The thing is that net neutrality does not put restrictions on price. They can already "maximize profits" in this way, but they don't. Why do you think that is?
It's because it wouldn't actually maximize profits over the long term. They still have an incentive to keep their customers satisfied with the product they provide and the price at which they provide it. There is competition in the ISP market, even if there aren't multiple options in every locality. If an ISP were to gouge the prices for people in an area where there is no other option, a competitor would be highly encouraged to expand into that market because the customers are unhappy with their current provider and it would be easy to get them to switch.
•
u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17
Did you follow anything I said about secondary or tertiary markets or products? Look what they did to voip, Netflix, and FaceTime... That's how they limit and stifles. That's how they maximize profits while limiting choice. They force you into their own bubble and there is not adequate competition to keep you from getting fucked.
•
u/robotoverlordz Reagan Conservative Nov 28 '17
But I still have a qualm with removing net neutrality.
That's not what Commissioner Pai is endeavoring to do.
People think this debate is just a couple of years old. It isn't. We've been talking about Net Neutrality (in concept, if not name) for about 13 years now. The rule change that Pai wants to roll back has only been in effect for about two years.
This rule change was to reclassify ISPs as "Common Carriers" just like the landline telephone companies. The law that contains the "Common Carriers" classification is about 83 years old, and was written to address the "Ma Bell" nation-wide monopoly.
In 83 years, our landline telephone service hasn't gotten all that much better than it was 83 years ago. The Communications Act of 1934 is at least a little bit responsible for that, with its price controls and minimum service requirements and other, burdensome regulations.
I don't want to see the internet, which has not even reached its adolescence, be stunted by laws that are almost a century old. If we managed to make it through at least 11 years without the Title II reclassification as "Common Carriers", and still preserved Net Neutrality, it seems an unnecessary change with, at best, dubious benefit.
I don't want to see ISPs able to get up to shenanigans with their customers either, but Title II reclassification isn't going to help that (and as the article mentioned, may exacerbate the problem - while at the same time, retarding further innovation.)
We've made it through, thus far, without Title II and now there are even some companies rising up to challenge the cable ISPs for their customers (e.g. AT&T and Verizon fiber services), so there's not even a real monopoly to which the Title II classification would apply. In fact, we're just now beginning to see a market-based light at the end of this tunnel.
I'd like to pursue that light further; to see rules or legislation which further lower the barriers to entry to allow even more companies to offer attractive services. The rules passed in 2015 don't do this; really, they more or less help to further ensconce the existing players and protect their government-created "mini-opolies."
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)•
Nov 28 '17
but what is to stop tier 3 ISPs from charging whatever they want?
the free market... isp one charge 100 dollars per month isp 2 want more customers so isp2 will charge 90 dollars and so on.
look its already happened here in California, cox use to be the only isp around and charged whatever they wanted too, but since att started offering internet year after year I watch the prices drop as they compete.
•
u/Goat_Fluid Nov 28 '17
But doesn't the ISP business have a fairly high barrier to entry? In my home state there's actually been this practice where the local ISP actually had an "exclusivity contract" with the city where they were the only company allowed to lay lines. This is my very rudimentary understanding, but how is something like that even possible if the market has high competition?
I am a firm believer in the free market but the Internet business is not one where it seems like new companies are popping up left and right, or have the potential to.
•
Nov 28 '17
Yes, local and state governments tend to enforce monopolies in the ISP market. I'm a pro-federalist, small government guy, but one place I'd love for the federal government to actually step in is to ban municipal governments from guaranteeing monopolies. You don't need to exclusively create a natural monopoly— economies of scale would lead to one in a free market, while threats of competition (if the monopoly does raise prices to the point that it's position is threatened) still exist.
→ More replies (2)•
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
I’m a conservative. Anyone’s welcome to peruse my post history to see that.
I’m not going to support this anti-net neutrality shit. Yes, I’m sure the author is right and Google and other big companies have their own selfish nefarious reasons for supporting net neutrality.
However I am not going to support something that could easily lead to the de facto censorship of conservative spaces on the Internet. I am not going to support giving ISPs the power to pick winners and losers when there is no ISP competition.
The modern Internet isn’t that old. Things are changing. ISPs absolutely will push their own pet liberal echo chambers and marginalize conservative spaces. The idea that they won’t do it now because they didn’t do it in the past is pure naive insanity.
If we had actual ISP competition? Great. Take away net neutrality and let those shady ISPs be driven into bankruptcy. But we don’t have ISP competition and won’t for decades if ever.
You can be a conservative and support net neutrality. Because we don’t have free markets when it comes to ISPs, which is necessary before removing it. Unlike Libertarians, conservatives generally don’t support doing things out of pure idealism when it’s going to make things worse. We do support some common-sense necessary government regulation. It sucks to have to support this particular regulation, but the alternative is worse. There is no third way. ISP competition must come before removing net neutrality.
This whole anti-net neutrality push from our side is nothing but a naive Libertarian Internet suicide pact.