General Net Neutrality: Team Cable Vs. You and everyone Else!

[Enock-O-Lypse Now!]

​

This battle has been looming for over a decade, now that a former Verizon big wig got promoted to FCC Chairman the storm is at hand! This will effect every single internet user in the United States, it is very important for everyone to speak up now and let their thoughts be heard:

Internet freedom in the US is facing impending challenges as leadership within the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) looks to reverse net neutrality rules originally set in February 2015. Those rules placed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under a governing board to ensure they do not differentiate between content served to Internet users.

The newly appointed FCC Chairman and former Associate General Counselor for one of the biggest ISPs in the US – Verizon, Ajit Pai, is now setting out to overturn these rules in an effort to empower ISPs’ authority on Internet broadband distribution. The legislation would enable ISPs to create “slow lanes” and “fast lanes” and influence content delivery overall.

Potential outcomes include placing parts of the Internet behind a paywall, slowing down some sites or even preventing access to certain sites altogether. Many consider net neutrality equivalent to freedom of speech law in the US (the First Amendment), and for the Internet, dismantling net neutrality can have disastrous effects by decreasing access to information and increasing costs for end users.


What can you do about it?

Today, over hundreds of tech companies worldwide are coming together to prevent this unwanted scenario from unfolding. Other companies participating in the Internet Day of Action with us include Amazon, Netflix, Reddit, Twitter, Spotify, Github, and many others. If you are an American citizen, you can express your disapproval to the FCC and your elected representatives through the official protest website at Battle For the Net. ~ Protonmail

Join the Battle! Speak up now!
Comcast wants to control what you do online. Do you want to let them?

​

 

[Jesus X]

sets a scary precedent.

if they can censor and control the internet they can do that with anything in society.

except now they have some of the most dangerous wireless technology and robots to use.

 

[Enock-O-Lypse Now!]

sets a scary precedent.

if they can censor and control the internet they can do that with anything in society.

except now they have some of the most dangerous wireless technology and robots to use.

Agreed, we are entering into some very very disturbing times.

 

[kneeblock]

I used to be very pro-net neutrality, but I've come down more in the center lately. The big content providers have basically hijacked the narrative to make it seem like the little guy is getting screwed for the profit of cable companies, but the truth is, it's really just two flavors of megacorps dueling over who has to foot the bill on constantly shifting infrastructure upgrades. The state is probably going to weigh in with its own investments soon enough. I do believe content should generally be treated equal and that consumers shouldn't bear the brunt, but essentially we're bearing the brunt in our cable bills now while most content can be artificially kept at low prices or traded for advertising dollars. There are ways in the middle to spread costs while still disallowing practices like throttling etc.

 

[Splinty]

I used to be very pro-net neutrality, but I've come down more in the center lately. The big content providers have basically hijacked the narrative to make it seem like the little guy is getting screwed for the profit of cable companies, but the truth is, it's really just two flavors of megacorps dueling over who has to foot the bill on constantly shifting infrastructure upgrades. The state is probably going to weigh in with its own investments soon enough. I do believe content should generally be treated equal and that consumers shouldn't bear the brunt, but essentially we're bearing the brunt in our cable bills now while most content can be artificially kept at low prices or traded for advertising dollars. There are ways in the middle to spread costs while still disallowing practices like throttling etc.

Agreed.
When I was in the information technology industry you could have never pulled me away from the pro net neutrality positioned.
But why are Google and Facebook any more right then Time Warner? Just big companies looking for the government to pick a win or a loser in the marketplace.

From a technology standpoint I actually have real concerns that we shouldn't just be blindly pushing net neutrality as the law of the land.

I like to see some real protecting for Consumer access to the internet, but a hundred percent neutrality seems a heavy-handed way that overrides potentially more efficient Technologies and ways of handling data.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

This topic was also discussed here: Sci/Tech - Senate Votes to Reverse FCC Consumer Internet Privacy Rules | Page 4 | TMMAC - The MMA Community Forum

Some entertaining opinions in this thread.

 

[Team Bisping]

Opinion: In Defence of Net Neutrality | Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Web Foundation · June 28, 2017

As the battle around net neutrality rages again, we need to take stock, and ask ourselves: What is the debate really about, and why should business leaders and entrepreneurs care?

Businesses of all sizes create value, jobs and investment opportunities online. Their innovation and value creation are wholly dependent on access to internet connectivity. Net neutrality is the principle that all content must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America’s growth in the digital era.

Net neutrality allowed me to invent the World Wide Web without having to ask anyone for permission or pay a fee to ensure that people could use my idea. Now imagine what would happen if internet service providers—usually a handful of big cable companies that control the connectivity market—were allowed to violate net neutrality. Their gatekeeping powers could be used to require businesses and individuals to pay a premium to ensure their content is delivered on equal terms—or even at all. This would create barriers that disadvantage small businesses and startups across all sectors that rely on the internet in any way.

In the early days of the web, ISPs saw demand for their services surge as people encountered content like never before. As more people got connected, they created more content. A virtuous circle of growth and innovation ensued. You could always access any website over any connection. The technology of the underlying internet advanced dramatically from phone modems to fiber, with speeds available in a home connection growing by a factor of a million. Connectivity and content saw an explosion in growth as separate markets.

But a power struggle emerged as both markets evolved and incentives for ISPs to abuse their abilities to increase profit margins became stronger. Court battles followed, and enforceable net-neutrality rules became a necessity. In 2015 the Federal Communications Commission responded by classifying internet access as a Title II service. That establishes broadband as a vital utility, giving the FCC the requisite authority to enforce net neutrality.

Today, with billions of dollars at stake in the competition for views, sales and clicks, the incentives for ISPs to violate net neutrality for profit have never been greater. Yet the FCC is now proposing to roll back the rules that were put in place to neutralize those perverse incentives.

Do we want a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online? Where they decide which opinions we read, which creative ideas succeed? That’s not the web I want. To judge by support in opinion polls for upholding net neutrality, it’s not the web you want either.

The future of innovation, freedom of speech and democracy in America depend on strong, and enforceable net neutrality rules. So the question is: Will we fight hard for the web we want?

 

[Team Bisping]

I stand by Tim Berners-Lee, who is both director of my faculty and the inventor of a beautiful yet complex sociotechnical phenomenon we call the Web.

 

[Team Bisping]

View: https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/885100007749287936

 

[Team Bisping]

Without Net Neutrality. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

 

[Team Bisping]

I used to be very pro-net neutrality, but I've come down more in the center lately. The big content providers have basically hijacked the narrative to make it seem like the little guy is getting screwed for the profit of cable companies, but the truth is, it's really just two flavors of megacorps dueling over who has to foot the bill on constantly shifting infrastructure upgrades. The state is probably going to weigh in with its own investments soon enough. I do believe content should generally be treated equal and that consumers shouldn't bear the brunt, but essentially we're bearing the brunt in our cable bills now while most content can be artificially kept at low prices or traded for advertising dollars. There are ways in the middle to spread costs while still disallowing practices like throttling etc.

Give just a lil leyway and they will take more than you will ever expect. Sometimes there is a middle ground, sometimes you can mediate, and sometimes you have to fight for what is right. This is one of those times to fight.

 

[kneeblock]

Without Net Neutrality. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

See this is the issue with this debate. In every case, it focuses on the consequences to the end user because there are no plans for major content providers to contribute. To me, sensible regulation would disallow passing costs on to the consumer while brokering an agreement whereby cable providers could levy fees on content distribution with certain volumes of data.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

AT&T Seeks Supreme Court Review on Net Neutrality Rule

AT&T Inc. and other broadband providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Obama-era "net neutrality" rule barring internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals’ content.


The appeals, filed Thursday, will put new pressure on a rule enacted in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission was under Democratic control. Filing a separate appeal from AT&T were the United States Telecom Association, a trade group, and broadband service provider CenturyLink Inc.


Now under Republican leadership, the FCC is already considering a plan to replace and weaken the rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants to remove strong legal authority that critics say over-regulates telephone and cable providers and that defenders say is needed to enforce fair treatment of web traffic.


The embattled net neutrality rules bar internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. from blocking or slowing some web traffic in favor of other content -- their own or a paying customer’s.


"The practical stakes are immense," AT&T said in its appeal of a ruling that backed the FCC. The company pointed to a dissenting opinion that said the regulation “fundamentally transforms the internet” and will have a “staggering” impact on infrastructure investment.

The rules are backed by tech companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc.

Pai, elevated to chairman by President Donald Trump, hasn’t said when the agency may take final action on the replacement rule. The prospect has produced a public outpouring, with the FCC’s website receiving more than 22 million comments.

Republicans say the Obama-era rules discourages investment and hamstrings broadband companies. The rules were passed at the urging of President Barack Obama. Democrats say they’re needed to prevent unfair treatment of web traffic by companies that control access to homes and smartphones.

A federal appeals court upheld the rules last year.

 

[Yossarian]

Massive online protest planned two days before FCC net neutrality vote

 

[Greenbean]

Without Net Neutrality. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

In this scenario, what tier would tmmac fall under? I frequent a handful of forums and don't mess with Facebook, twitter... etc. I mostly get my info from sites like tmmac and others and for the most part, most of the internet goes unused to me. Will this impact tmmac traffic, or is this for mainstream shit like google and Facebook? Because the way I see it, in the most expensive tier, it says 485 websites included. Tmmac being among a zillion other websites on the web, I cannot imagine it would make the cut. Or am I way off on this?

 

[Yossarian]

In this scenario, what tier would tmmac fall under? I frequent a handful of forums and don't mess with Facebook, twitter... etc. I mostly get my info from sites like tmmac and others and for the most part, most of the internet goes unused to me. Will this impact tmmac traffic, or is this for mainstream shit like google and Facebook? Because the way I see it, in the most expensive tier, it says 485 websites included. Tmmac being among a zillion other websites on the web, I cannot imagine it would make the cut. Or am I way off on this?

We can't affort to take the chance.

 

[Greenbean]

We can't affort to take the chance.

I understand, and I agree, but I was just interested in how it will look as I'm not very optimistic on the whole deal. Big money speaks louder than the people and has for some time. I'm worried that, of the half dozen sites that I frequent daily, none of them would I consider mainstream enough to be included in any package of any size unless an absolutely unlimited package was purchased and that would be quite cost prohibitive going by those prices in the picture..

 

[Splinty]

We can't affort to take the chance.

Bro, I own bitcoin and a yacht. I'll pay anything to get the forum to you in a speedy manner.

 

[Yossarian]

Bro, I own bitcoin and a yacht. I'll pay anything to get the forum to you in a speedy manner.

That, or this...

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I find it convenient that the worst privacy exploiters on the web are the ones lobbying for "neutrality".

 

[Yossarian]

I find it convenient that the worst privacy exploiters on the web are the ones lobbying for "neutrality".

Well, we have the freedom to not partake, we have choice. I don't want that choice to be funneled or corralled by some monetary scheme. I want that choice to be mine.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Well, we have the freedom to not partake, we have choice. I don't want that choice to be funneled or corralled by some monetary scheme. I want that choice to be mine.

You sort of have the freedom to not partake. The TOS for things like Facebook or Google is often non-existent and people often don't realize it. Now, I agree that "buyer beware" and all that jazz. But if you think for a single second that you can avoid Amazon, Google, and Facebook in their entirety you're dreaming in technicolor.

 

[Yossarian]

You sort of have the freedom to not partake. The TOS for things like Facebook or Google is often non-existent and people often don't realize it. Now, I agree that "buyer beware" and all that jazz. But if you think for a single second that you can avoid Amazon, Google, and Facebook in their entirety you're dreaming in technicolor.

Well, you can't avoid cable providers even less. Because then you only may have one or two viable options. You get fucked but your dick is still in your hand. In short, you did not get any service other than, someone is allowing you to breathe air. The Internet does NOT belong to those companies and with net neutrality gone, they will be able to act as if they do.

It is much like those water bottle companies trying to buy a body of water.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Well, you can't avoid cable providers even less. Because then you only may have one or two viable options. You get fucked but your dick is still in your hand. In short, you did not get any service other than, someone is allowing you to breathe air. The Internet does NOT belong to those companies and with net neutrality gone, they will be able to act as if they do.

It is much like those water bottle companies trying to buy a body of water.

It's almost as if the government shouldn't be interfering, isn't it?

 

[Yossarian]

It's almost as if the government shouldn't be interfering, isn't it?

Better than companies that want as much money as they can possibly take from me. And besides, the Government is one of the very first investors of the Internet, as it was funded by the Department of Defense back in the day.

Cable companies raise prices all the time, they are not in your best interest. At least the Government we can hold accountable. The Internet should be governed much like water or air, it is THAT important. It brings information to the poor and unlucky, it brings hope and oppertunity; I would like it to be the exact same for everyone, not just the ones with money. Cause that is what happened to our Justice system, money became justice. So, I do have to side with Governmental involvment on this one, as they represent a far larger group of people, than those cable companies with their bad track records of raising these ridiculous rates every fucking time.