Net neutrality
- Thread starter kolelt
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
RunninInGA
New member
This isn't a laughing matter guys. According to Nancy "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi, people with DIE if this is repealed.
AntleredRuin
New member
Hahaha I love how they manage to bring race into everything.
They know the buttons to push, don't they?
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure I'm against this (I'll need to do some more un-biased research) but I find that funny. Net-neutrality keeps your ISPs from being racist.
They know the buttons to push, don't they?
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure I'm against this (I'll need to do some more un-biased research) but I find that funny. Net-neutrality keeps your ISPs from being racist.
Ray Dunakin
Senior Member
The internet was unregulated ever since the beginning, and thrived. Oddly enough, many of the folks who used to insist that government should keep out of it, now seem to be the same ones demanding that it be regulated.
lucky7
New member
The biggest 'WMD' out there is the television and media, and it's very easy to tell who consumes it vs those that don't. It's poison. It's the Hegelian Dialectic - problem, reaction, solution. It's how this world actually operates.
It's been about a week though, and I have to give all sorts of personal info to use a bunch of shitty apps now? Yeah, no. It's about time to quit supporting it all. After I ditch my ragged iPhone 5, this computer will be my only window into the digital world.
Last edited:
Hepar
New member
There were reasons it was implemented in the first place. And that was because many companies were caught doing what most at the time considered less that ethical business practices.
As far as net neutrality overall, I do see the pros and cons of it. I lean in favor of it until there (if there ever is) is a time where there are more options when it comes to internet access.
grapemilk
Member
Not true. The internet has been "neutral" since it's inception. (Although, since the government created it you may not want to use it.) Only in 2005 did the rules change to allow ISPs to prioritize access. After complaints and lawsuits (Netflix vs Comcast) the FCC stepped in to reclassify it to make it open to competition among different types of data.
Do none of you have HOV lanes in your area? You know, the govt regulated lanes that are allowed to be used at certain times if you have multiple people in the car... or a motorcycle...or a hybrid...or an EV like a Tesla...or you're a cop...
I'd consider the internet as a digital road. If you think the government is the right entity to keep things "open and fair" I feel as though you are mistaken. Sure their may be some bad apples, but if the consumers punish them, there's nothing to be gained from it. Fewer regs and taxes on the internet will allow for small providers to enter the market and place pressure on bigger companies even if it's just regional. I'm sure no one would argue that small banks are bad for consumers right?
I think there is too much push for the reliance on a government to tell us what's good for us through their BS regs, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.
I'd consider the internet as a digital road. If you think the government is the right entity to keep things "open and fair" I feel as though you are mistaken. Sure their may be some bad apples, but if the consumers punish them, there's nothing to be gained from it. Fewer regs and taxes on the internet will allow for small providers to enter the market and place pressure on bigger companies even if it's just regional. I'm sure no one would argue that small banks are bad for consumers right?
I think there is too much push for the reliance on a government to tell us what's good for us through their BS regs, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.
grapemilk
Member
There is no such thing as a free marketplace - large companies have manipulated laws in their favor. There were no taxes add to the internet by keeping it regulated under Title II.
Where have all the small banks gone? Can you give me an example of how small banks have put pressure on large banks to favor consumers?
Yep, client just had a local bank provide a mortgage on a property linked to a pot dispensary. Something that federally insured banks cannot do.
I personally was turned away from PNC, and Wachovia for a car loan when I was younger. But a local bank that my grandparents were affiliated with allowed them to collaterlaize their account for my benefit.
Edit: also, you're kind of lending to my point by saying there is no free market because companies have lobbied to their advantage. Why pay more taxes to still have someone potentially screw us. The difference is that one screws us through law and the other through consumer choice.
Last edited:
grapemilk
Member
Not quite the same thing. And you probably payed a higher interest rate, so was it good for the consumer? Do you want to pay more for your internet service if you use "twitter"? Do you want it to be like your cable TV bundle?
Banks are regulated to be equal, they don't borrow money from the fed at different interest rates. Can you image if they did? You make my argument for government regulations.
It was great for the consumer since I was actually able to buy a car to replace my car that was stolen and totaled. And no, it was 3.25% because it was essentially a secured loan, although using someone elses assets. It's risk management. You can't expect everyone to be willing to take a chance on a 20y/o with little credit, and the likelihood of a big bank doing that is even less than a local bank.
And yeah they borrow from the fed at the same rate. If they didn't, that would be the government intervening and picking winners and losers, not the people. AKA more govt regulation.
Banks all have their certain margins that they're trying to hit. If one bank consistently charges a higher interest rate or is too strict in their lending practices, they will likely start losing business to other lenders. You ever notice how close the rates are if you get quoted? Same thing with ISPs. If they try to pick winners and losers they will be punished by consumers or other businesses. There's no real advantage to trying and screwing the customer and collusion is still illegal.
As a part of this repeal, they will also be required to disclose their data management practices, something that was not required before.
e60ral
Banned
Roads and brisges were initially unregulated, utilities were initially unregulated, radio was intially unregulated etc...
When something becomes a vital part of your nations infrastructure you have to put in place basic protections that allows it to function freely without a few companies controlling it.
Imagine if your power company could decide what brand television it would power, or if your water company only gave you a trickle of water because other faucet companies paid them more, or if your telephone could block parts of your conversation if they went against their political beliefs.
This is common sense stuff, if you think otherwise it's because you fell for some pro-oligarchy nonsense
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
grapemilk
Member
There is no point coming up with analogies. There are place that don't have net neutrality. This is what Portugal looks like:
Net neutrality: Portugal shows how American internet could look after FCC ditches rules - Business Insider
I don't want to be Portugal.
Net neutrality: Portugal shows how American internet could look after FCC ditches rules - Business Insider
I don't want to be Portugal.
Are big corporations evil profit mongers or do they only want to get half the potential business revenue, what is it? Because you can't have it both ways. There is no benefit in trying to screw the consumer. None. Maybe in the short run, but in the long run they will either adapt or lose to someone else who wants to serve everyone. For instance, Google, who is adamantly for net neutrality. They also happen to have an ISP. They can put their money where their mouth is and keep a free and open internet. The irony on Google fiber is that they haven't been able to expand their Network the way they wanted to because of cost and slowness of the bureaucratic bs approval process for laying line.
Let's also use the baker who refused to do work for the gay couple as a smaller example. That's their right as a private business to do that. It is also the public's right never to shop there again. Not only has he immediately lost the gay population, but he's also lost anyone who is perturbed by his business model. That's not a good model for growth, and might have been even more effected than if the govt got involved since his business was then boosted by sympathizers (in the short run). Might still be out of business now, I have to admit I don't know.
Because it's vital, the govt sees an opportunity for steady income off tax dollars. They're not trying to protect us. Again, Monopolies and collusion are already illegal and governed.
There is no point coming up with analogies. There are place that don't have net neutrality. This is what Portugal looks like:
Net neutrality: Portugal shows how American internet could look after FCC ditches rules - Business Insider
I don't want to be Portugal.
Sorry dude, but that's mobile internet and not a part of this wire line internet regulation. The mobile providers absolutely differentiate their Network such as charging more for.mobile hot spots (until of course someone decided not to do that and everyone followed suit), or like TMobile giving you unlimited streaming from certain services. I could go on and on.
grapemilk
Member
Dude...this is an example of what no net neutrality looks like. In addition to paying for traditional "data" they pay extra for "data" to use those services. How is it different?