Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Thanks, that is why I upload his video instead of news segment from a GOP or a Dem or a liberal, etc site/person. I was trying to find as neutral of a news entity as I could (and comedy helps to lighten the mood too). So that there wouldn't be any one hyper focusing on it being from a certain party, instead of the topic which affects everyone no matter which side of the fence that they may sit on.

And he's funny too!

Then why do you work for the government?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - there are a few things that only the federal government can and should do. Military and national defense is one of them. I nether need or want the feds in every thing that I do. So far the internet has done a fair job of regulating its self and should be allowed to do so.

SSG (Join to see) - My question is why, given your poor opinion of the federal government, you, personally, chose to work for an inept, corrupt, and incompetent entity?
If the government is so incompetent, why should they be running the critically important military and national defense? The Constitution stipulates, "provide for the common defense", but does not specify how it must be provided. Why not privatize the military?

SSgt (Join to see) - What are you talking about????
My very first link was a post from business insider about how tech firms (the ones that you quoted, facebook, google) are fighting AGAINST!!! the FCC's plan to gut net neutrality.

What press conference has google stated that it was against net neutrality? They have been swaying back on forth on the issue but have for the most part remained a supporter of net neutrality. They are a huge player, so what they have stayed quite for the most part, as to not wake up the bee hive nest.

I was responding to your latest post which was from reason.com in regards to how companies should be able to throttle speeds because quote "Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media" With zero cited sources to back up such a bold claim. And then a weak argument that hey! No net neutrality is a good thing, because your internet will be cheaper......if you allow it to be chopped up into little bits and pieces that ISP choose to dish out.

Here is a simple break down "net neutrality" refers to adhering to the policy of no Internet service provider (ISP) giving preferential treatment of any kind, either in terms of slowing down or speeding up transmission of any specific Internet traffic. That's it, period. To keep it just as it is now. Open, free, just the internet. To prevent monopolies. Guess what, the government has largely (for once) stayed out this, until a small group of companies tried to monopolist, then government stepped in to stop that from happening, then that was it nothing more was done. Doing the right thing once every thousand years (the thousand year thing is a joke).

Yes I listed that other forbies post, to show all of the shades, I never stated that google isn't a all encompassing company, I've been trying my best to stay on one subject matter at a time. If I wanted to get into google, I would have brought up how google was sued big time for their monopoly tactics in the EU (which I actually did response to another member about this).

I used the most against (my own stand point) on the issue, to still show that google still has not stated what you said that they have. I also enjoy that article because it is a good example of how easy it is to twist a view depending on commentary (this was in response to your links which were heavily edited and bias). I should have made that more apparent. There are many empty talking points in it. per example "except that ISPs have never offered paid fast lanes or blocked small business owners’ web sites". Why ISP have never done this, because they haven't been allowed to do so. But once there are no more regulations ISP will make a fast lane and a slow lane. Hence one of the reasons why people are fighting to keep Net Neutrality. Then to the opening sentience "As soon as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intention to roll back Obama’s net neutrality rules, the Left’s net neutrality faithful began chanting their well-worn mantras about “big corporations” taking over the internet. Their mantras are based on fear mongering, not fact." But later on during the third paragraph the article completely renig's on it's opening character attack against the reader, to talk about and show evidence of, and harp over how a "big corporation" taking over the internet, for the remainder of the article..... completely doing a 360.

This is one of those topics, where in a few years from now (if I still have access to rally point) I will tell you. I told you so.....
I'm off to make food and enjoy the rest of the night. :)
Take care, good night.

SPC David Willis - You are correct if you paid for a certain service you should get it, maybe I worded my response in a manner that made it seem otherwise but that was not my intent. If the current NN regulations end, companies cannot do what you suspect they will without letting you know as the current proposal requires them to inform customers of their network policies so customers can make informed decisions on what it the best plan for them is. As long as you are being informed as to what you are getting for your money it is capitalism. Granted a lot of people do not read through the lengthy terms and conditions when they sign contracts so maybe many would not realize the limits that are being imposed until it was too late.

I also stated at the end of my that if PS (I know that was just one possible example) tried to do what you stated, it would probably run afoul of antitrust regulations like the railroads got in trouble for at the beginning of the 20th century.

I will also give to you the fact that I may be wrong. Maybe the internet will be destroyed without NN, but I just do not think so. I tend to trust business more than government since if businesses screw you over or defraud you they can be sued and you therefore can get some compensation. When government does that all they do is say sorry and raise taxes to fix the problems they caused costing you even more money.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/rip-net-neutrality-fcc-chair-releases-plan-to-deregulate-isps/

SSgt (Join to see) - Truthfully I hope that I am wrong, but when it comes to $$$ companies rarely care about doing what is right. I don't know I guess we just have to wait and see how it all pans out. I'm holding my breath though with fingers crossed.

My biggest gripe comes from, who owns the internet?? ISP do not own the internet or the content that it is on it. Add in that the internet isn't even a tangible "thing" and it spans across the entire globe. ISP's did not write the code, manufacture the hardware, or even came up with the means to provide the internet in the first place. So why should they get to decided what we get to see and view? When I make a video, Comcast did not fund it, write the script, shoot and edit it, I did. So how do they get to determined which "internet package payee" gets to see it? How is that content different from reading a web page filled with pictures? Content is content, it's all code with 00111011 in it.

I actually spent a day thinking about this, mostly because I create content and have a website and a small business, with videos, pictures and script. All of which I did myself Verizon did not help, but Verizon made be able to made it impossible for many people to visit my site. It's a conundrum really.

LCpl (Join to see) - You are correct ISPs own very little of the content that is on the internet, they are just the conduit that people use to access that information.

I distrust most of the larger businesses but I distrust government even more. For an example of why just look at the sexual harassment/ assault allegations that are going on in the entertainment world versus Washington, DC. The entertainment world is reacting by firing many of the alleged culprits because they know if they do not they will lose business since there has been such an outcry over it. But in Washington what is happening? None of the members of Congress that have been accused are being forced to resign, Roy Moore is still running for Senate, and the President is not liked by the media but his comments and the allegations against him did not keep him from being elected. At least when business screws you over one can bring lawsuits against them or stop being their customer which usually results in some change for the better, government - not so much. Politicians just wait it out and hope the people forget about what they were accused of by the time it comes for them to run for reelection again.

I will admit I could be wrong in my opinion. I just think that other laws already in place could be used to stop some of the apocalypse that keeps getting said will happen if net neutrality goes away, mainly anti-trust type laws. The current proposal will still require ISPs to let their customers know what data management policies are so customers will be informed of any fast lane or throttling policies and if the ISPs go too far they will face backlash from their customer base. While no business can keep everyone happy, if they do not keep a large enough proportion of their customers satisfied their business will suffer.