The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Thoughts on this?  I, for one, am in favor of it.  If you want faster internet and are willing to pay for it, you should be allowed to.

That's not what net neutrality does.  What "net neutrality" means is that internet service providers are not allowed to examine where your traffic is going and change the speed based on the destination.

With net neutrality, if you pay for 100Mb service from Comcast, then Comcast is obligated to do their best to provide you 100Mb service, no matter what part of the internet you are using.
Without net neutrality, if you pay for 100Mb service from Comcast, Comcast can then go to (say) Netflix and say, "We see you have a lot of customers using our bandwidth.  We might have to throttle Netflix connections down to 5Mb to preserve our quality of service.  That is, unless you give us extra money."

A huge company like Netflix can pay that.  But what about a smaller company trying to start a new idea?  If they have a lot of traffic, ISPs can simply demand more money on the back end, or throttle them until their product is useless.

Given that nearly every market in the U.S. has a monopoly or duopoly in broadband access, this means without net neutrality, the 4-5 major ISPs in the country can basically choose which websites are fast and which are slow.  Add to that the fact that AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable all offer streaming products that compete with Netflix, and you can see how these media companies can leverage their ISP product to drive competitors out of business.  (AT&T already does a lesser version of this; you have monthly caps on how much bandwidth you can use, but U-Verse TV and DirecTV don't count against that cap, which means Netflix is capped but AT&T's TV streaming isn't.)

Because everyone loves car analogies:

Imagine that the highway system, instead of being public, was built out as private toll roads, and that over the course of decades, GM/Ford/Chrysler bought out all of the smaller toll road companies so that they were the only three toll road providers.  Net neutrality is like saying that the Big Three can set their own speed limits on their roads, but that the speed limit may not be based on the brand of car.  And the AT&T/DirecTV streaming scenario I mentioned is like saying that for $50/month you can drive 1000 miles on the roads, but it's $10 extra for every 100 miles after that... unless you are driving a GM car on a GM road (etc.), in which case you can drive as much as you want.  It should be obvious that such a situation would be quite hostile to Toyota, Volkswagen, and the other car companies.

It's not about "faster internet"......That's total B.S.,it can be used to throttle competition,and free speech.Giving the power to the big corporations,to make the decisions for you,on where you can and can't go on the internet.

In very plain English from the New york times...

These are the rules that were repealed
The original rules went into effect in 2015 and laid out a regulatory plan that addressed a rapidly changing internet. Under those regulations, broadband service was considered a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the F.C.C. broad power over internet providers. The rules prohibited the following practices:

BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.

THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the content, as long as it is legal.

PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

Those simple protections put in place to protect us,the consumer.

You should listen to Spider and B on this one, they're 100% correct.  This is all happening because Ajit Pai is a Verizon shill.  If you don't believe me, Google Verizon shill.

No question this is bad for consumers and very, very bad for startups. It's not going to make a huge difference to most established sites, except for very high bandwidth ones (Netflix, YouTube), where an ISP could either force the consumer to pay extra or make the destination pay extra.

The lack of net neutrality, although completely stupid, wouldn't necessarily have a huge impact if actual competition existed between Internet Service Providers.

The bottom line I get from repealing net neutrality is that the government isn’t “overseeing” the process so less taxes. We go back to the same standards we were under in 2015 so if you didn’t have issues then ... you shouldn’t now either. Basically we were paying the government to get involved with our online services. All this fear mongering about what “could” happen seems like wasted energy to me.

1) Worrying about "what could be" usually seems like wasted energy until it becomes "what is."
2) We're going to give massive corporations the option to screw the end user for profit...and you think they won't exploit that opportunity?

Why didn't they "screw the end user" before 2015? Did they just suddenly become greedier or is there more to it?

I can't believe there would be people in favor of this move. They're probably also in favor of the tax bill. Just sad...

The FCC actually kept the net neutral as best as it could in the years before. The 2015 stuff was to codify it. We absolutely need this stuff to remain in place. That stuff that the ISP did to NetFlix that throttled service to it a little while ago if NetFlix didn't pay up? That would become standard without these rules.

They did....and there was endless fights over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States)

Yeah, I know that's not to be believed... ::)

Follow the money! AT&T,Verizon,Comcast all own networks,and broadcasting rights,and keep acquiring more of them...



My favorite,may not be safe for work is Trae Crowder's take on Net Neutrality (Then again, I'm a big fan of his rants,and comedy)...It's using PORN websites to explain it...
https://youtu.be/NcQKtL2pY8M?t=1m24s (https://youtu.be/NcQKtL2pY8M?t=1m24s)

Netflix already agreed to pay Comcast a premium in 2014, after many users complained about slow service.

This is terrible.  Anyone who supports this is an idiot.

The Internet is a utility and this decision was bought and paid for by corporations trying to make a buck off of consumers.  It's fucking terrible bullshit.  This isn't a conservative/liberal thing -- it's telecom companies buying a law that allows them to exploit the market.

If you support this, fuck you.

Couldn't agree with you more Dave.  There is a ginormous amount of American citizens that don't want this to happen.  The FCC knows this and still doesn't care or even try to hide it.  That scumbag Ajit Pai is even making jokes about being a shill, like it's not a big deal.  It's insanity that almost the entire population of the U.S. doesn't want this and they're still pushing it through to fill their pocket.  Sickening.

This is an absolutely indefensible position.  Nobody who actually understands the issue actually supports it. 

You can tell by OP saying "you should be able to pay for faster Internet if you want" which has literally zero to do with Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality treats the Internet like other utilities.  The power company sells you electricity.  It works the same, regardless of what you plug into the wall.   If the power company gave preferential power to GE appliances, but you're out of luck if you own a Kenmore stove -- that's what repealing Net Neutrality is.  Then Kenmore would have to pay the power company to get preferential treatment.  And the cost of your stove will go up to compensate. 

And guess what, the next company to make the new innovation in stoves is like "We can't compete to pay off the power company to get the preferential treatment", so you'll stall the technology.

This whole thing is terrible for consumers.  It's not even a debatable issue.  The put a corporate troll from Verizon in a position to wipe a law that will give these telecoms power to fuck consumers.  Bend over, idiots.

The best position to defend it is "they might not fuck us".

Fuck.  Reading OP's post again makes me so goddamn mad.  The misinformation is ridiculous.  The populace is so fucking stupid that they deserve to get fucked.

There is a minimum of 20% of the population that is cheering this event because if Obama enacted Net Neutrality, it must be terrible.

People just don't know what it is.  Please, giant corporations -- charge me more for something you don't even own to limit how I access this utility.

It's goddamn absurd.

Which is terrible in itself.  I by no means was an Obama supporter, but even I know it's not about that.

Yup.  Kinda reminds me of a discussion I had with one person who told me they were glad that Trump is repealing Obamacare because her premiums are so high.  I mentioned to her that the only reason she has health insurance at all is because of the AHCA.  She then checked with someone who worked there longer and the company had no health insurance before Obamacare.  She couldn't believe it. 

I'm waiting to see what the normal Trump supporters on here think about it.

oxymoron
[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-]

1.  a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.

Don't make the mistake of calling this a Trump supporter issue.  It's not.  It's a nobody issue.  Nobody supports this that actually really gets it.

Even if you voted for Trump, you didn't vote to fuck yourselves.  You got played.  Still support Trump...whatever...but be pissed about this, because you got sold out so that politicians could get paid off.

It's really hard for me to get upset about something that hasn't happened. To the uninformed (and that's me) ... it's a "he said, she said" argument until something actually happens. Like I said I was perfectly fine in 2015 so if that is where we are headed I'm ok with it. If I have to pay more for movie channels, sports, social media or whatever then I will be pissed. As far as I can tell is that taxes will be removed from my internet service and government isn't involved.

^ Why do you think all these telecom companies are pushing to remove this legislation?

And this already started to happen before.  Companies like Netflix were starting to get strong-armed into working out deals with the telecom companies.

You WILL have to pay for this.  There is no might about it.  The telecom companies have power to charge the companies they work with for preferential treatment.  And that cost will be forwarded back to you.

Any bullshit you've been fed about lower taxes is exactly that...bullshit.  You're getting played for a fool.

It's also worse than just money.  It's access.  It's stunting technological growth.  You won't even see what you're missing.

If you have Netflix, you are already paying more.  Netflix has raised their prices several times since paying off Comcast.

There is no tax component of net neutrality.  None.  Net neutrality simply tells ISPs that they are not permitted to restrict access based on the destination of internet traffic.  They are required to treat all (legal) traffic equally.  That's it.

I see that you have made the point that you don't think repealing net neutrality will be that bad, but what is the actual argument in favor of repeal?  "This has no clear upside and I think the drastic potential downside is not very likely" is not exactly a compelling reason to change existing law.

+1

I was watching the HLN news the other morning and they had a figure of 82% against the repeal.  This is not a Trump/Obama issue.  It's a corporate greed issue.  When do 82% of Americans agree on anything???

Around 90% (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/) of Americans agree that there should be universal background checks on gun purchases.

That should tell you how much "the vast majority of Americans agree" means; i.e. nothing.

That's a very pessimistic statement, and a gross over exaggeration.

I think you are underestimating the impact of "Democrats want this thing, therefore I do not want this thing."

Bwahahahahah...

Here's a great video from Burger King (?!) explaining Net Neutrality in a way that is more easily understood by people who are unfamiliar with what Net Neutrality really means:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q

It is a crazy world when a hamburger joint has the best political ad of the year.

But nothing has happened. It's like complaining about the sky falling. Until it actually happens it just sounds really stupid.

haha ... Netflix raised their price by $1 a month and $2 if you have the premium plan and I don't think it had anything to do with net neutrality. They hadn't raised prices in 2 years. My other utilities are going up much more often. 

You said "nothing has happened."  I gave you an example of a company directly affected by net neutrality - in fact, maybe the MOST affected - who had raised their streaming prices once ever, and has raised them multiple times since making Comcast a net neutrality-related payout.  What, exactly, would you accept as evidence that something has happened?

And again, you're saying that you don't see any proof that this is terrible... but what is the logic in favor of net neutrality?  Why do you, personally, support repealing it?

Are there more than 2 Democrats on the other side of the argument? Surely that is reason enough!

;)

I'm not sure how you say the $1 raise is due to net neutrality. They raised the price after 2 years ... a time where many other utility companies were already raising prices.

^ Why are you defending this?

They removed a protection that allows them to screw you.   Why are you content with this?  Hoping they won't screw you?  What possible political motivation do you have to be OK with this?  Is it because you support Trump?

I mean...there's no possible way to think this is a good idea. 

Netflix has raised the price twice since paying off Comcast in 2014.

And the primary objection to repealing net neutrality is that it will increase prices because content providers like Netflix will have to pay protection money to ISPs like Comcast in order to keep their product from being slowed down... which is literally what already happened before net neutrality was enacted.  What more proof do you want?

But again, that's not even the question I'm asking you.  Why do you, personally, support repealing net neutrality?  What do you believe is the benefit for Americans in doing so?

They weren't screwing us before NN was signed into law.  Why would they do it after?  The NN Act was just another example of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. 

FWIW Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order this week stating that if any ISP's want a contract with the State of New York that they must abide by the Net Neutrality Act.

You're not answering the question, it seems.   Your best position is that they might not screw us.  There is a law that doesn't let them screw us.  Why would you be against that?

And, for what it's worth, they ABSOLUTELY will charge you more.  That's why they lobbied so hard for it.  These telecom companies aren't pushing super hard to kill NN just so they can do what they were already doing.

Wow.

My reaction exactly.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...Johnny we have a winner, tell him what he's won!

How do you know that they were lobbying for ANYTHING.  I think this is Trump having his own agenda and a massive ax to grind with Obama, so he's undoing everything Obama did.

There might be something to that, certainly. Trump will just undo everything Obama just because. But it most certainly has to do with the telecom companies wanting this deregulation. After all, it'll just do nothing but help them screw over the people.

Like I said ... the whining seems to be pretty silly to me. It's as close to "the sky is falling" as anything I have ever seen. People were up in arms about the tax cut with literally millions crying it only benefits rich people and yet even the most liberal companies like Disney and Starbucks are giving bonuses/raises as well as the most conservative like Wells Fargo who have raised their minimum to $15. The best the criers can say is $1000 bonus isn't a big deal.  It's really just people bitching just to bitch.

Naivete is adorable...in young children. In adults, it's just dangerous.

I still don't understand what you believe the actual benefit of repealing net neutrality is.  So far, it seems like the main argument for it is, "It pisses off liberals and it probably won't do much harm."

I can do better than that (https://twitter.com/bcappelbaum/status/943601246849720320?lang=en):

The tax cut is projected to increase Wells Fargo’s profits by $3.7 billion. Raising the pay of its 25,000 workers who make $13.50 an hour (the lowest wage Wells Fargo pays) up to $15 an hour will cost $78 million... or slightly more than 2 percent of the projected tax cut windfall.  I leave it to the reader to guess where the other 98 percent is going.

This is the point where one might mention the $1.5 trillion hole the tax cut blasts in the deficit, but as we all know, the deficit only matters when a Democrat is in the White House.  And these employees who are receiving $2 raises and $1000 bonuses (that are tiny fractions of the corporate windfalls from the Trump tax cut) will be sufficiently distracted when the GOP declares that the national debt is dangerously high and we need to raise SS/Medicare retirement age to 70.

This is what I can't seem to get answered.  Nobody supports the repeal.  The best that can be said for it is that it might not be disastrous.

mod edit: fixed broken quote tag

I'm against government restriction in business. I think free market should dictate whether a company succeeds. If companies get together and start screwing us over then it paves the way for a Dave Gray to come along and do it cheaper and better. In general the government is corrupt ... and I mean that for both sides...  so the less they are involved the better things seem to work out. There are no shortage of tapes showing many politicians saying the same things and then changing it to the opposing view only because the other side is now in favor for it. It's hard for me to take anything serious from either side when they say it's doom and gloom.  Obama wasn't as bad as the right made him out to be and neither is Trump. The reality of both is far from what we hear from the vocal minority.

CF, are you in favor of laws that prevent corporations from colluding?  What about anti-monopoly laws?  Both are, strictly speaking, anti-capitalistic and restrictions on the free market.

Net neutrality is similar.  We, the people, have essentially granted companies like AT&T and Comcast a monopoly on running telephone and cable wires to our homes, for the simple reason that logistically we can't have 30 different companies digging up the ground and laying wire every other day.  In exchange for that granted monopoly, we expect them not to use that position of advantage to drive their competition out of business, or to give their own products a leg up over their competitors'.  This is the intent at the heart of anti-monopoly laws.

Not really sure how I feel. It seems pretty gray to me. I mean  ... how can Disney own so much if there is such a thing?