A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...(Net Neutrality)

[legion]

"Net neutrality" is really about giving the US government oversight of the internet so that it can ban non-politically correct speech there.

Net Neutrality Supporters Want to 'Ban Drudge'

Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a "free and open internet," want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undue the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read "Ban Drudge," with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.

Protect Our Internet claims its mission is to "keep the internet vibrant, free and equal."

The campaign also claims net neutrality rules are "protecting our freedom to use the internet!"

A report released this week found that net neutrality regulations lead to higher internet prices for consumers and less innovation.

[wildthing]

This is how I generally understand it, which is far too simplistic and may be entirely wrong:

1. We wanted a network of networks to share research.
2. Instead of the government owning the connections, we used private corporations.
3. Internet use exploded beyond original intent.
4. Because they own the network, should they be allowed to slow down some services (Netflix), and favor others (e.g. Verizon making Yahoo faster)?

[Gogar]

If you're a free market capitalist then yes.

Alternatively you could ask the government "protect it" for you.

[wildthing]

If PG&E owned the power lines, but someone else wanted to distribute power over the same lines, who pays PG&E for the usage? Is it the consumer or the power provider?

I think Netflix is paying fees to some of these folks, which I tend to agree with.

On the other hand, like in UC Berkeley, they protest when someone they don't agree with wants to exercise their free speech, the network owners can block some content that they don't like. This one, I don't agree with.

[aschen]

Should the energy company be allowed to turn down the voltage to your house when it senses you have turned on your AC, after advertising to you free unlimited electricity?

catching a few morons in the wild doesn't add or detract from either side of the argument.

[wildthing]

Originally Posted by aschen

Should the energy company be allowed to turn down the voltage to your house when it senses you have turned on your AC, after advertising to you free unlimited electricity?

No, but they can charge me more. (Maybe that's why there are no "Unlimited Energy" plans.) But in that case, the energy company also owns the lines. In the Netflix case, Netflix owns the content, but the SP owns the line.

[widebody911]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/24/fcc_under_cable_company_control/

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by widebody911

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/24/fcc_under_cable_company_control/

Big Cable also wants to get rid of over the air broadcasts (roof top antenna TV), and has worked legislation to that end.

A sure sign that they have gotten too big and too powerful.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Gogar

There's always going to be someone calling the shots.

Net neutrality just makes sure that the government will call the shots on your behalf, as opposed to some 'evil corporation.'

How has the government done so far?

Pretty well. My gas and electricity delivery is stable and prices are controlled. Out here there is no choice for fast internet connections. The service is a monopoly and without government oversight we are at the mercy of the one provider - Time Warner. I even trust my idiot congressman more than I trust time warmer.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Pretty well. My gas and electricity delivery is stable and prices are controlled. Out here there is no choice for fast internet connections. The service is a monopoly and without government oversight we are at the mercy of the one provider - Time Warner. I even trust my idiot congressman more than I trust time warmer.

Corporations are psychopaths.

[legion]

Originally Posted by widebody911

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/24/fcc_under_cable_company_control/

When the government "regulates" (controls) something, it gives big businesses a place to cozy up to to get preferential treatment and get laws, rules and regulations passed making it impossible for smaller competitors to enter the market. It ALWAYS works out worse for consumers. The government doesn't protect things on behalf of the people, it just enriches itself while making them worse.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by legion

It ALWAYS works out worse for consumers.

That's a mindless platitude. The free market works in some areas of the economy, and not in others. Utilities are one example of government control that works. Can you imagine 10 different gas line companies and the electric lines of half a dozen electricity distributors crisscrossing every street? Internet service should be regulated like any other utility.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by legion

When the government "regulates" (controls) something, it gives big businesses a place to cozy up to to get preferential treatment and get laws, rules and regulations passed making it impossible for smaller competitors to enter the market. It ALWAYS works out worse for consumers. The government doesn't protect things on behalf of the people, it just enriches itself while making them worse.

I'm not sure I would use the word always.

However, take a look at cost of pills in the United States vs Canada if you want to prove your point.

[WolfeMacleod]

I can't wait till the people who oppose net neutrality have their Netflix slowed to a crawl.
Or their HULU
Or Amazon streaming.
Or Youtube.
Or any audio streaming service.
Or any high traffic website they might visit. or own, and are forced to pay ISP's to deliver their content.
Or any gaming hub like Steam. Or Xbox Live. Or the PSN Network.
When those services are forced to start paying ISPs, you can expect their prices to go up for you.

Having the government oversee Net Neutrality? Yeah. I'm all for it, if it means that all services and sites are treated equally.
We pay OUR ISP to access everything at the same rate.
Those services pay their hosting companies.
Why should they also have to pay OUR ISP to deliver the content WE want?

Simple. They shouldn't.