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

[Don Ro]

net neutrality was safe. Today, there is a disturbance in the force. Take action now to help us save the Internet.
.
From my Firefox browser >>>
.
https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality?utm_source=desktop-snippet&utm_medium=snippet&utm_campaign=net-neutrality&utm_term=6617&utm_content=rel&sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6617
.
The Federal Communications Commission's new Chairman Ajit Pai just announced a proposal to gut net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the freedom to say, watch and make what we want online without interference from internet service providers. Two years ago, after hearing from nearly 4 million people urging it protect the open internet, the FCC passed rules protecting net neutrality.
Why should we protect net neutrality?

There are a million reasons why we must protect net neutrality. Here are a few of them:

Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the "First Amendment of the Internet."
.
Net neutrality is fundamental to competition. Without net neutrality, big Internet service providers can choose which services and content load quickly, and which move at a glacial pace. That means the big guys can afford to buy their way in, while the little guys don't stand a chance.
.
Net neutrality is fundamental to innovation. Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could struggle to reach new users. Investment in new ideas would dry up, and the internet would start to look more and more like cable TV: a zillion channels and nothing on.
.
Net neutrality is fundamental to user choice. Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many cat videos in one day and throttle your Internet speeds leaving you behind on the latest Maru memes.

[legion]

What you think is "net neutrality" is actually handing control of the internet to unaccountable bureaucrats and taking it away from the free market.

[Don Ro]

????
.
What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.

Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.
.
When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

But right now this win is in jeopardy: The Trump administration and new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai want to destroy Net Neutrality.
.
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

[Tervuren]

Are you trying to troll?

The Net Neutrality bill does exactly the opposite.

[Don Ro]

Troll? LOL.
Net Neutrality Bill?
So far everything I've read about the definition of "Net Neutrality" says the opposite of what you two say.
Define "Net Neutrality"...not the "Net Neutrality Bill".
Got more info/links for me to assist my clarity?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Net Neutrality Explained
.
It's my understanding that the FCC wants to end the "Neutrality" of the Net.
.

[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?

[Don Ro]

Wait a minute.
From what I have read, Net Neutrality is what we have now and what we want.
The FCC wants to end Net Neutrality.
Is the above correct or not?

[aschen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

The wikipedia page on the subject seems pretty good, not that I have any sort of expertise on the matter. This might be on of the few corners of the internet where people support no regulation of it.

I cant wait to not be able to post on this forum, because i'm rocking comcast DSL brought to you by the fine folks at rock auto. Thankfully the free market will prevail and bring me lots of other ISP to choose from.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

The fact is internet service providers (comcast, verizon, etc.) are several steps down from insurance companies. So it's not a question of IF but WHEN they will screw us.

[dlockhart]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Are you trying to troll?

The Net Neutrality bill does exactly the opposite.

exactly! It is a however a brilliant job of branding/naming by someone or org.

[stomachmonkey]

Ugh, that guys like having to listen to your drunk uncle.

Worse cause he seems sober so really has no excuse.

You owe me 30 minutes of my life back.

[Don Ro]

Originally Posted by Don Ro

Wait a minute.
From what I have read, Net Neutrality is what we have now and what we want.
The FCC wants to end Net Neutrality.
Is the above correct or not?

A simple question from a simple person.
.
The next question I have is >>>
Why has no one on this forum answered my simple Q?
.
I don't want to watch/listen to 45 minutes of explanations. (Above)

[dlockhart]

Originally Posted by Don Ro

A simple question from a simple person.
.
The next question I have is >>>
Why has no one on this forum answered my simple Q?
.
I don't want to watch/listen to 45 minutes of explanations. (Above)

Mostly because it is a very complex mess to sort out.

6 min from a George Mason econ prof.

[aschen]

I listened to those 6 min carefully, and his argument doesn't seem compelling

Even his example, which Im sure is chosen as a best case, is scary.

You buy a phone service that advertises "free unlimited data" and think you have access to YouTube as normal.............then you discover nope sorry on low res is available to your because your free unlimited data is actually limited by throttling video.

[Hawkeye's-911T]

Just a thought & if you are so inclined - have a boo at John Oliver's last installment of 'Last Week Tonight'. I have to admit this was the first time I've ever given the issue any sort of thought or consideration. It is also the first time I've heard of Ajit Pai & who by the way, comes across as a bit of a door knob. This subject may get interesting & probably worth keeping an eye on.

Cheers
JB

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by dlockhart

exactly! It is a however a brilliant job of branding/naming by someone or org.

It would be interesting to pass an amendment, that only allows bills to be given numbers, and not names.

This means that the mass of people, couldn't support it yes/no on a name, but what is actually contained in the bill.

Confusion is raining in this situation from the name given to a bill that does something else.

Similar to the (un)affordable health care act, you have the (non)net-neutrality act.

[flipper35]

Keep in mind that Verizon has in the past already suppressed stuff it does not agree with prior to the current regulations in place.

The original intent of NN was so that someone like Comcast/Mediacom could not throttle Netflix and allow their own streaming services full pipe capacity. Or, worst case scenario they would disallow Netflix in favor of their own offerings. Chances are slim that it would come to that worse case scenario since people would try to switch to a company where they could get Netflix.

The above was an example and only partly based on reality.

Basically it was to ensure that all services got equal treatment.

I have not yet read what they are doing with the current regulation changes.

[stealthn]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Keep in mind that Verizon has in the past already suppressed stuff it does not agree with prior to the current regulations in place.

The original intent of NN was so that someone like Comcast/Mediacom could not throttle Netflix and allow their own streaming services full pipe capacity. Or, worst case scenario they would disallow Netflix in favor of their own offerings. Chances are slim that it would come to that worse case scenario since people would try to switch to a company where they could get Netflix.

The above was an example and only partly based on reality.

Basically it was to ensure that all services got equal treatment.

I have not yet read what they are doing with the current regulation changes.

And guess who wrote those documents for Verizon...the new FCC chairman...

[spuggy]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Chances are slim that it would come to that worse case scenario since people would try to switch to a company where they could get Netflix.

Yebbut. That conveniently ignores 10's of millions of consumers who don't live in a Metro area and so can't switch to a non-existent competition...

I live in a a city. 13 years ago, there was one choice for > DSL speeds, the local cable company monopoly. 6 years ago,V/FIOS arrived at the bottom of my hill - but it took until last year before it was available here.

So now there's two choices - neither of which I'd trust, without legislative oversight, to do the right thing/not to ream consumers for money every chance they got, Given their track record.

[Tervuren]

Congress could do about anything right now, so many are caught up with "trump & russians" that legislation passed right now would fly under >50% of people's radar.