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.

 

[osaka35]

the goal is to ensure internet traffic cannot be censored or restricted (or tracked?) based on ISP or government desires. well, giving exceptions for illegal activities like hiring a hitman or kiddie porn.

can we agree on this point at least? because we can't talk about how to make this happen if we can't agree on this goal.

 

[Foxi4]

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.

At the very least you are saying that such overreach is worrying, and that's a bigger concession than I expected, so thank you for having an open mind. You also misinterpret what I'm saying - I don't trust companies either. The reason why they're in business is to make money, that's what they want from me, so I'm sure they will lobby to have more avenues of getting money from me and that's precisely why I don't want the government to have the capacity of giving them those avenues. I am in a reciprocal relationship with my ISP - I pay for service and the ISP renders the service. I am not in a reciprocal relationship with the government - the government says what's legal and what's not, takes my money in taxes and that's that. I can change my ISP at will if I want to, I can't change my government to what suits me unless 150+ million people agree with me, and that's just not happening. I have a consensual agreement with my ISP, I have no agreement with the government, I'm merely coerced to do certain things. Between the two I will err on the side of less government rather than more government. I fully understand that this is a position you cannot reconcile with and that's fine - you believe that you deserve certain freedoms and the government grants them to you, I believe that you inherently have freedoms, the government exists to protect them and the moment they start curbing them, regardless of whether you're in the 99% or the 1%, that's inherently wrong. Those views are incompatible and that's also fine, just know that I have good reasons to believe what I believe.

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

That's absolutely true and it's specifically due to local governments engaging in pay to play schemes and regional coverage deals as well as the federal government burning money through subsidies to "expand coverage", subsidies that reach the big corporate giants, but fly over the heads of small, local Internet cowboys. The answer to that is less government, not more government, because it's the government installing those monopolies in the first place.

the goal is to ensure internet traffic cannot be censored or restricted (or tracked?) based on ISP or government desires. well, giving exceptions for illegal activities like hiring a hitman or kiddie porn.

can we agree on this point at least? because we can't talk about how to make this happen if we can't agree on this goal.

I will happily make that concession on the proviso that you agree that there's no such thing as "illegal speech", there's only speech that you don't like, and the government should not be involved in the proliferation of content on the Internet. As I said earlier, should a crime occur, as in the instance of "kiddie porn", the local law enforcement is entitled to find and prosecute the offender, pursuant to the law of the land. What I don't want is the government being in charge of what can and can't be said online because they're the ones dictating what is and is not illegal in the first place, and that's a loaded gun waiting to be fired at me.

 

[Dr.Hacknik]

And South Carolina is still being an illiterate fuck... Sigh.

 

[Xzi]

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.

NN repeal hasn't taken effect yet, but there are no potentially positive effects of its repeal. There's no reason for any individual to be anti-NN, its repeal only benefits the two already-monopolistic ISPs in America. So unless you're name is Comcast or AT&T/Time Warner, all you're doing is cheering for rate hikes on your service. I know you believe the more overpriced and anti-consumer corporations become, the more "freedom" they're offering, but most of us don't have your apparently unlimited resources to funnel into shady business practices.

Net Neutrality has never been about "government controlling the internet," that's obviously a gross misinterpretation of the way it was structured and continues to be structured in some states. Rather, it was about keeping control of the internet out of the hands of big ISPs who are dumb enough to label sites like this one 'piracy' and throttle it to shit.

 

[Foxi4]

NN repeal hasn't taken effect yet, but there are no potentially positive effects of its repeal. There's no reason for any individual to be anti-NN, its repeal only benefits the two already-monopolistic ISPs in America. So unless you're name is Comcast or AT&T/Time Warner, all you're doing is cheering for rate hikes on your service. I know you believe the more overpriced and anti-consumer corporations become, the more "freedom" they're offering, but most of us don't have your apparently unlimited resources to funnel into shady business practices.

Net Neutrality has never been about "government controlling the internet," that's obviously a gross misinterpretation of the way it was structured and continues to be structured in some states. Rather, it was about keeping control of the internet out of the hands of big ISPs who are dumb enough to label sites like this one 'piracy' and throttle it to shit.

You're free to interpret it that way, I see a slew of potential benefits of not treating all traffic equally. If I can get a Gamer's Plan that gives me low ping and good transfer when on PSN and "adequate" service everywhere else, I'm all in. Some people only use the Web for Netflix, they can benefit from a media plan. What about people who just need Facebook? Why should they pay for unilateral access that they don't use? I'm sorry, but all I see is potential competitive advantage and there's absolutely no reason to treat all Internet traffic equally, irrespective of infrastructure or plan. Do you know why big cities have bus and bike lanes? Because they don't want buses blocking intersections or bikers in harm's way. Sometimes a priority lane benefits everyone.

 

[Xzi]

You're free to interpret it that way, I see a slew of potential benefits of not treating all traffic equally. If I can get a Gamer's Plan that gives me low ping and good transfer when on PSN and "adequate" service everywhere else, I'm all in. Some people only use the Web for Netflix, they can benefit from a media plan. What about people who just need Facebook? Why should they pay for unilateral access that they don't use. I'm sorry, but all I see is potential competitive advantage and there's absolutely no reason to treat all Internet traffic equally, irrespective of infrastructure or plan. Do you know why big cities have bus and bike lanes? Because they don't want buses blocking intersections or bikers in harm's way. Sometimes a priority lane benefits everyone.

You're giving big ISPs way too much credit if you believe things will be split neatly that way and the service will cost less as a result. More likely they just keep the existing service at its current price, and add another higher price tier for people who don't want throttling. Or just throttle competitors and sites they don't like with no option to unthrottle them. They can do whatever they want and charge whatever they want, because NN repeal is giving them unlimited control over internet access, and neither of the big players has been known to act ethically even before they were self-regulated.

 

[Foxi4]

You're giving big ISPs way too much credit if you believe things will be split neatly that way and the service will cost less as a result. More likely they just keep the existing service at its current price, and add another higher price tier for people who don't want throttling. Or just throttle competitors and sites they don't like with no option to unthrottle them. They can do whatever they want and charge whatever they want, because NN repeal is giving them unlimited control over internet access, and neither of the big players has been known to act ethically even before they were self-regulated.

Oh wow, they can do whatever they want with the service *they provide* and the customer can choose whichever they like better? Oh no, we must immediately put a stop to all this freedom and give everyone spaghetti factory-style service instead. Y'know what I think? I think you put too much credit in the government. If they wanted to overcharge for service *they can already do it*, there's no legislation stopping them from doing that. What you NN guys don't quite grasp is the equilibrium of price and value - corporations can only charge as much as the customer is willing to pay, otherwise they cannot operate. Giving them more flexibility will inevitably lead to more variation in coverage, we know this because such plans exist in countries with no Net Neutrality legislation or legislation that's extremely lax. You're free to have an opinion though, I'm just not going to put stock in your crystal ball-style prophecies. In fact, I have it on good authority that the Internet existed before NN and it will continue to exist long after it's dead and buried.

 

[Xzi]

Oh wow, they can do whatever they want with the service *they provide* and the customer can choose whichever they like better?

Again with the daydreaming lol. Half the country is owned by Comcast, the other half by Time Warner, and they sue any smaller ISPs that try to establish themselves. There is no choice, which is why they're repealing NN now and not twenty years ago when there might have been. Not that we needed NN at the time, because there was plenty of competition and people weren't forced to take abuse from their only ISP option.

Y'know what I think? I think you put too much credit in the government.

Net Neutrality is corporate regulation, it's not about faith in government. It's about lack of faith in big ISPs that have already shown how willing they are to fuck over their own customers. Your argument boils down to, "this time they'll be trustworthy, I promise," which is not at all reassuring given the reputation of the companies we're discussing.

I'm just not going to put stock in your crystal ball-style prophecies.

Everything I've stated about these ISPs has historical precedent, it's common knowledge that they aren't viewed favorably among the general public. If you're going to go against that perception you better have good reasoning for doing so, because you're definitely betting against the odds by assuming Comcast is suddenly going to do a 180 and become a paragon of ethical behavior.

Cable (TV) prices have risen 700% since the year 2000. What makes you believe ISPs want to go in the opposite direction with internet pricing is lost on me. Unfettered capitalism is the antithesis of what the internet was meant to be in the first place, a free exchange of data and ideas.

 

[tbb043]

this is stupid

 

[buda81]

Oh wow, they can do whatever they want with the service *they provide* and the customer can choose whichever they like better? Oh no, we must immediately put a stop to all this freedom and give everyone spaghetti factory-style service instead. Y'know what I think? I think you put too much credit in the government. If they wanted to overcharge for service *they can already do it*, there's no legislation stopping them from doing that. What you NN guys don't quite grasp is the equilibrium of price and value - corporations can only charge as much as the customer is willing to pay, otherwise they cannot operate. Giving them more flexibility will inevitably lead to more variation in coverage, we know this because such plans exist in countries with no Net Neutrality legislation or legislation that's extremely lax. You're free to have an opinion though, I'm just not going to put stock in your crystal ball-style prophecies. In fact, I have it on good authority that the Internet existed before NN and it will continue to exist long after it's dead and buried.

By your logic, Water and Power should be the same way. That if applied, people who can't afford the basic necessities, is SOL. I'm not saying the net is a basic necessity atm, but it has become an important part of our culture. And yes, if people don't pay the bill their water/power will be shut off. But at least if the price isn't increased 2-5x the normal minimum wage, people will have access to it. Or if their is a cap or flow limit on the water and power per payment plan.

 

[Foxi4]

You guys are all so wonderfully silly. If the government is so benevolent then why do you need a bunch of private companies to deliver power, water and the Internet to you? Is it because the government sucks at everything? Because that's my line. If you want a truly neutral web, why not shill for it to become a public utility, like water, gas and electricity, and nationalise ISP's? I'm sure it'd work out great - I'd make a mint selling 56k modems.

 

[Xzi]

You guys are all so wonderfully silly. If the government is so benevolent then why do you need a bunch of private companies to deliver power, water and the Internet to you? Is it because the government sucks at everything? Because that's my line. If you want a truly neutral web, why not shill for it to become a public utility, like water, gas and electricity, and nationalise ISP's? I'm sure it'd work out great - I'd make a mint selling 56k modems.

It's already regulated like a public utility in several European countries with much better broadband coverage than the US, so that kind of invalidates the idea that that would be a bad thing. The inference that quality goes up with price in this case is ridiculous, it's the same product either way.

If you truly want to encourage competition then I'm fine with that, but repealing Net Neutrality does nothing to further that goal.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Of course NC don't give a shit, glad I moved from there.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You're free to interpret it that way, I see a slew of potential benefits of not treating all traffic equally. If I can get a Gamer's Plan that gives me low ping and good transfer when on PSN and "adequate" service everywhere else, I'm all in. Some people only use the Web for Netflix, they can benefit from a media plan. What about people who just need Facebook? Why should they pay for unilateral access that they don't use? I'm sorry, but all I see is potential competitive advantage and there's absolutely no reason to treat all Internet traffic equally, irrespective of infrastructure or plan. Do you know why big cities have bus and bike lanes? Because they don't want buses blocking intersections or bikers in harm's way. Sometimes a priority lane benefits everyone.

I just have to say, what if a random guy creates the next youtube, he will not be able to afford to compete, isps would be able to keep his site slow, wanting large amounts of money to get his site to load in a decent time.

 

[Deleted member 420418]

Hopefully net neutrality is brought back.

 

[Foxi4]

I just have to say, what if a random guy creates the next youtube, he will not be able to afford to compete, isps would be able to keep his site slow, wanting large amounts of money to get his site to load in a decent time.

I already explained why it is not in the ISP's interest to slow down sites that are popular - their customers want to see them. If they like money, they'll serve their customers.

The conversation is getting circular, I already said what I wanted to say. I know that I'm fighting an uphill battle, the Internet has been sliding leftwards for a long time, both in terms of content on the Internet itself and its legal status as a public forum. Perhaps us righties just need to build a new Internet and leave the old one behind with you guys? That'd be great, come to think of it.

 

[Ericthegreat]

But what if your site never becomes popular because it's slow?

 

[Foxi4]

But what if your site never becomes popular because it's slow?

Why would my site be targeted if it's small and why would it need to be fast if it's small? It's demand that drives the supply, not the other way around. If the opposite was true, Netflix wouldn't beat Blockbuster. Blockbuster had all the advantages, including brick and mortar stores, but Netflix had a more compelling offer.

 

[ATofix]

Honestly this isn't as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Tbh "Fight for the Future" seems to be trying to scare people into supporting net neutrality because they "Will have to pay more!"which may not even end up being true.

 

[voracious]

Deadline June 12... they need to make the vote asap.

 

[Paralel]

There is only a single damn republican listed in the image in the OP. I can't say how annoying that is. I'll be damned if I ever vote republican again.

Ajit Pai needs to be removed from the FCC.

He needs to be set on fire.

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.)

Awesome stuff.

As for the argument above for and against NN, the two viewpoints are fundamentally diametrically opposed, so it makes the middle ground extremely small and hard to reach. One is "trust the companies to do what is in your best interest, because it is in their best interest as well." But this has some serious flaws, in that companies, time and time again in America, have shown that they will, if at all possible, work against the people if they can make a quick buck. A good example of that is the current problem with pharma companies and the skyrocketing prices of generic medications. The other point of view is "we need government regulations because companies are scum and can't be trusted to be good, honest corporate citizens. This is also flawed because regulations create barriers to entry and make it that much harder for new entities to establish themselves in the market. This can be seen in the companies that want to make new generics to counter the generic monopoly that some companies have that allows them to charge such outrageous prices, but they can't because the requirements to manufacture medications for offer in the US is complex, difficult, and very expensive, and if they did all that work, there is no guarantee they will ever make their money back, so its an extremely risky business proposition.

In the end, there needs to be a compromise between the two point of view in order to establish a functional, working balance. So, there needs to be regulations, but it needs to be proportional to the value and risk of the service or product offered or produced, as well as having the lowest barrier to entry with the assurance that the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the government are protected. As such, the trick is just the right amount of regulation for a given area, which can be very hard to do. With regard to NN, both sides need to give a little to reach a good middle ground. The government should establish what constitutes a minimum level of service, and that ISP's aren't allowed to actively slow down or inhibit types of traffic across their networks, as long as it isn't illegal. The ISP's should be allowed to customize what services they can offer people, including prioritized access to certain services and types of traffic, as long as it doesn't cause anyone else's service to fall below that minimum established level. That should give everyone on both sides exactly what they want, certain guarantees that ISP's won't be allowed to adversely affect traffic for users across their networks, and the ISP's will still be allowed to offer additional services for those that are willing to pay more.

What do you guys think, reasonable compromise? Everybody gets something, and no one walks away empty handed.

However, in the end, if I'm forced to pick between the current two sides, which are trusting the companies, or government regulation, I have to go with government regulation. Lesser of two evils.