Last year, the United States faced the repeal of Net Neutrality, causing an uproar across the internet. The FCC voted in favor of repealing the 2015 law, leaving a large amount of disappointed Americans in its wake. Now, 6 months after the fact, the United States Senate has forced a vote, getting a minimum of 30 required senators in an attempt to bring back Net Neutrality. Once the vote occurs, they'll need a further majority of over 50 to vote in their favor, with around 50 exactly on bill's side, and while it's uncertain how things will play out when they do take it to a vote, even if they do pass the revival of Net Neutrality in the Senate, they still need to pass it in the House as well, which has a majority that does not favor bringing it back.

The vote will take place most likely by next week, and at maximum, must be done by June 12. A large amount of social media sites have come out in support of the Senate's attempt, but those against Net Neutrality claim that regaining government interference with the internet is wrong, and will set standards back.

What do you think? Do you support bringing back Net Neutrality? Or has it become a non-issue since the drama revolving around it has died down in recent months.

If you want to read more about Net Neutrality, what it is, and how it affects people, you can find a detailed report here.

 

[ATofix]

Honestly I really don't want to voice my opinion on this. I Know it's hugely unpopular...

 

[grossaffe]

i would like to say bit i'm keep my mouth shut.

Then why did you say anything unprompted in the first place?

 

[Joe88]

What is going on with the state level implementations? I saw Washington State doing something but have not kept up with things there.

From what I am understand since the FCC is governing the internet, states can't pass their own laws going back on it https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691344/fcc-preempt-block-state-local-net-neutrality-laws
so more or less FCC will sue Washington state over it
Sort of like the mess with "sanctuary cities"

 

[osaka35]

we see the effects of this years down the line, so the uninformed and politicians can blame their boogiemen in a few years when things go shitty. glad the democrats are actually trying to help people. Republicans stopped being for the people a long time ago. well, not all, but those who "fall in line" which is most of them.

 

[cracker]

Even most Democrats are snakes-in-the-grass corporatists nowadays.

 

[Xzi]

From what I am understand since the FCC is governing the internet, states can't pass their own laws going back on it https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691344/fcc-preempt-block-state-local-net-neutrality-laws
so more or less FCC will sue Washington state over it
Sort of like the mess with "sanctuary cities"

Washington state is like one of three states to enact/start enacting their own NN laws. The FCC can claim authority all they like, but in the end it's limited just like the DEA's authority to go after legal weed states.

Also, the way the states have written their NN laws is a clever way of circumventing any legal trouble: they aren't requiring ISPs to enforce NN, but they simply won't do business with any ISP that doesn't. The FCC doesn't get to decide which ISPs states buy in to.

 

[Chelsea_Fantasy]

If GBATemp wanna join this fight for Net Neutrality mods can add this line to the GBATemp code:

<script src="https://redalert.battleforthenet.com/widget.js" async></script>

It will show an alert in the right corner of the website and you can close it if you do not wanna read it.
Take an example of how it looks on this web of mine http://hwcsenden.co.nf/

Maybe @Costello will think this is a good idea!

 

[Foxi4]

Oh yeah, because the Internet totally collapsed since it was repealed, cats began sleeping with dogs, dogs started barking with their as*holes and frogs all turned gay. Where are all the negative effects doomsayers prophesied would hit us, swearing up and down like a bunch of Nostradumba*ses? If I don't want the government to do one thing, it's regulating the Internet. I want the Internet to be the wild west, I was anti-NN and I still am.

 

[bi388]

Oh yeah, because the Internet totally collapsed since it was repealed, cats began sleeping with dogs, dogs started barking with their as*holes and frogs all turned gay. Where are all the negative effects doomsayers prophesied would hit us, swearing up and down like a bunch of Nostradumba*ses? If I don't want the government to do one thing, it's regulating the Internet. I want the Internet to be the wild west, I was anti-NN and I still am.

That 'regulation' includes guaranteeing fair internet access to everyone, without ISPs being able to block sites they dont like, throttle companies who dont pay them or decide "we like this candidate in the election. lets just block all of the other candidates websites and any positive articles about them".

 

[Foxi4]

as long as that orange gasbag is in office shit like this won't go anywhere, i know this is a bit early but.....

That 'regulation' includes guaranteeing fair internet access to everyone, without ISPs being able to block sites they dont like, throttle companies who dont pay them or decide "we like this candidate in the election. lets just block all of the other candidates websites and any positive articles about them".

Oh, you mean all the stuff that basically doesn't happen? Okay. Net Neutrality is a roadblock on free enterprise, ISP's are unable to properly compete for customers when they cannot diversify their offer. The free market self-regulates, this includes Internet providers - if you don't like your ISP, you switch your service, it's really quite simple. The reason why you can't in many areas is because local governments pay specific providers to provide access in certain areas which effectively creates a government-backed monopoly, the only monopoly that's actually harmful to customers, instead of letting ISP's compete for every customer like they should.

I just want to post this to show people like me who need a simplified explanation to what the net neutrality is. (Yeah, I don't understand every little detail but keeping it simple makes more people notice a lot better why it's important.)

So simple that it's basically not representative of the truth. Conservatives like myself ridiculed this video when it was new and it's not any better now, but let's stick to your burger analogy. In the UK McDonald's actually did this - you can now fully customise your burgers and not just remove, but also add ingredients to the standard recipe. The result is that I now love McDonald's - I pay a bacon surcharge on every double cheeseburger I buy, and I add mayo and tomato to it as well, and they've never been better. I never want burger neutrality back, now I'm free to choose what I want - I have options, as opposed to "fair and equal" access to burgers which royally sucked due to dry burgers with no mayo and no bacon. Oh, and my burger bills went down since I don't need to buy the high-end burgers anymore to get the good stuff - I can add the good stuff to the dollar menu if I so choose. Never going back to burger king, they can "have it *up* their way" for all I care, Mickey D's won me over. I'm not kidding, it's not a stupid made-up analogy, it's a real thing and I've never been happier with fast food. It's the best thing since the bottomless cup refills. Everything is fresh, made to order and just the way I like it. I'm sorry that it's not "fair", it's just "better".

 

[bi388]

View attachment 123031
ISP's are unable to properly compete for clusters when they cannot diversify their offer. The free market self-regulates, this includes Internet providers - if you don't like your ISP, you switch your service, it's really quite simple. The reason why you can't in many areas is because local governments pay specific providers to provide access in certain areas which effectively creates a government-backed monopoly, the only monopoly that's actually harmful to customers, instead of letting ISP's compete for every customer like they should.

Ah yes lets let the people in charge of how most of us get our news and information self regulate themselves, theres no way that could ever turn into a dystopian horror story. Im sure the free market will make sure that they are all fair to everyone and politely turn down offers of money from websites in exchange for blocking competing sites. And if you dont like them, switch to their competitor who is doing the exact same thing.

 

[Foxi4]

Ah yes lets let the people in charge of how most of us get our news and information self regulate themselves, theres no way that could ever turn into a dystopian horror story. Im sure the free market will make sure that they are all fair to everyone and politely turn down offers of money from websites in exchange for blocking competing sites. And if you dont like them, switch to their competitor who is doing the exact same thing.

You're forgetting who gives them money - that'd be you. In a free market economy the customer is in charge, ISP's compete for *your* favour. Net Neutrality specifically blocks *them* from adding superior access to certain sites and services as part of their Internet plans, something that's mainstream across the globe. It is not in their interest to block any site, it's in their interest to provide you with the best access possible for the lowest price possible so that you remain their customer and give them money. They don't care about politics, they like your cash. If they do make anti-consumer decisions, guess what? Bad PR will cause them to lose customers, and this has happened before. You know who *is* interested in policing the Internet? The government. In fact, they do it all the time. The last thing I want the government to control is the free exchange of ideas and information - if you don't want them violating the 1st, you don't want them anywhere near the Internet.

 

[bi388]

You're forgetting who gives them money - that'd be you. In a free market economy the customer is in charge, ISP's compete for *your* favour. Net Neutrality specifically blocks *them* from adding superior access to certain sites and services as part of their Internet plans, something that's mainstream across the globe. It is not in their interest to block any site, it's in their interest to provide you with the best access possible for the lowest price possible so that you remain their customer and give them money. They don't care about politics, they like your cash. You know who *is* interested in policing the Internet? The government. In fact, they do it all the time. The last thing I want the government to control is the free exchange of ideas and information - if you don't want them violating the 1st, you don't want them anywhere near the Internet.

The problem is they can make far more from bribes then from our money. The same reason that politicians often vote very differently from what their supporters believe, because voting against net neutrality or climate change bills gets them sick corporation money which is worth more to them then the donations of normal people. If every ISP has shitty service, youre stuck with one of them and they all get bribe money. And show me the part of NN that allows the government to control free speech.

 

[Foxi4]

The problem is they can make far more from bribes then from our money. The same reason that politicians often vote very differently from what their supporters believe, because voting against net neutrality or climate change bills gets them sick corporation money which is worth more to them then the donations of normal people. If every ISP has shitty service, youre stuck with one of them and they all get bribe money. And show me the part of NN that allows the government to control free speech.

ISP's don't have legislative power, politicians do. If you have corrupt politicians who sell out, it sounds like you have some politicians to hang. As for the latter, I will happily show you. The 2005 "Obama implementation" of Net Neutrality is based on the Open Internet principle and effectively gives the government the right to determine what are and are not "lawful communication" and "legal content". They can step in at any time, tell ISP's to block sites and the ISP's *must* comply, I already spoke about this way back when:

I don't know if you're being silly on purpose or if you're misunderstanding my posts and repeating yourself as a result. Net Neutrality was enshrined in December 2010 in the Open Internet Order which legalised the previously non-binding tenants of the open Web. This order was fought over in federal courts, we've already established that.

"The United States Federal Communications Commission established four principles of "open internet" in 2005:

• Consumers deserve access to the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• Consumers should be allowed to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• Consumers should be able to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• Consumers deserve to choose their network providers,application and service providers, and content providers of choice.

These tenets of open internet essentially encapsulate the ideas of net neutrality. From 2005 until the establishment of Open Internet in December 2010, these standards existed in name only."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Again, this is the origin of the concept of Net Neutrality and effectively its beginning. Notice the wording used - Net Neutrality concerns "legal content". Guess who decides what's legal and what's not? Regulation like this subtlety introduces a cudgel with which the long arm of the government can censor speech by deeming it unlawful for whatever reason. No thanks, I don't need that kind of reassurance.

I don't want them to have that power. The FCC has used its authority to ban speech in the past, I don't need them doing that on the Internet. In fact, I don't want the Internet regulated at all - crimes, if any, should fall under local jurisdiction.

 

[bi388]

I don't want them to have that power. The FCC has used its authority to ban speech in the past, I don't need them doing that on the Internet. In fact, I don't want the Internet regulated at all

Source on the first part? And for having no regulation, good luck with that. Things work when theres a mixture of regulation and freedom. If you have no regulation, then companies exploit their consumers, the environment and anything else they can to death.

 

[Foxi4]

Source on the first part? And for having no regulation, good luck with that. Things work when theres a mixture of regulation and freedom. If you have no regulation, then companies exploit their consumers, the environment and anything else they can to death.

I give you the source in the quote.

 

[bi388]

I give you the source in the quote.

I mean the first part I quoted, about how they have infringed on free speech in the past with this authority

 

[Foxi4]

I mean the first part I quoted, about how they have infringed on free speech in the past with this authority

I hate giving huffpo traffic, but here you go:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/609392

Besides, don't tell me you've never seen a government-blocked website - it happens all the time, mostly on the grounds of DMCA.

 

[bi388]

I hate giving huffpo traffic, but here you go:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/609392

Besides, don't tell me you've never seen a government-blocked website - it happens all the time, mostly on the grounds of DMCA.

If that's all true and there isn't some reason they are omitting then that's rather worrying. I still don't trust companies to regulate themselves either though. If anything bad really does happen then I hope my vpn will be able to protect me but hopefully it never comes to that and Cox continues to provide equal service to all sites.

 

[grossaffe]

You're forgetting who gives them money - that'd be you. In a free market economy the customer is in charge, ISP's compete for *your* favour. Net Neutrality specifically blocks *them* from adding superior access to certain sites and services as part of their Internet plans, something that's mainstream across the globe. It is not in their interest to block any site, it's in their interest to provide you with the best access possible for the lowest price possible so that you remain their customer and give them money. They don't care about politics, they like your cash. If they do make anti-consumer decisions, guess what? Bad PR will cause them to lose customers, and this has happened before. You know who *is* interested in policing the Internet? The government. In fact, they do it all the time. The last thing I want the government to control is the free exchange of ideas and information - if you don't want them violating the 1st, you don't want them anywhere near the Internet.

In a free market economy, there's competition. Our cable providers are granted regional monopolies.