How the downfall of net neutrality will effect the second amendment

[teflon6string]

Killing off net neutrality is just another increment of people control with more to follow. Like censoring the news, making up fake news and outlawing guns one suppressor/magazine/stock/BGI at a time.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Really....The ISPs charge a flat fee for "unlimited" data, but they all have data caps. Essentially, you are paying a flat fee for up to 1TB of data. If you don't use that much it's not my fault. Do you think you'll get a lower rate somehow? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Data all weighs the same. It doesn't matter whether it's a movie or email. A Gigabyte of data is a Gigabyte of data. It shouldn't matter to Comcast or Verizon. Except for the fact that they have their own products to sell. If they can throttle delivery speeds for Netflix (which they've been caught doing) and force Netflix to pay them extra for "premium" delivery, then what you and I pay for Netflix content will have to go up, making Comcast's in-house content relatively cheaper. That's the motive behind ending net neutrality. Net neutrality was instituted when it was because up until then these non-competitive practices didn't gain anyone anything. But now in the age of internet TV and video content the big ISPs began using these anti-competition practices.

I suspect that the anti-anything-Obama mentality will prevail though, so goodbye internet. It was nice knowing you. My Congress-critters are just looking out for my best interests, I'm sure. I'm sure I won't be facing a bill from Comcast in the very near future that makes my cell phone bill look simple. I'm sure I won't have to police my kids' usage on their iPads to make sure we don't get zapped with an extra $100 on the bill every month. I'm sure our ISPs are just fair and simple folk looking to make a reasonable profit using the PUBLIC internet for their own benefit. Oh, and the tooth fairy is coming tonight.

Oh, so you think classifying ISPs as public utilities and common carriers prevents them from charging additional prices for more data?
Now who needs a visit from the tooth fairy?
Talked to other "common carriers" lately? Like UPS? FedEx?
Want it fast? Pay more.
Want it tomorrow? Pay more yet.
Want something in a larger box? Pay the oversize charge, even if it weighs the same as a bag of tater chips.

Classifying ISPs under Title II does NOTHING to prevent the charges you're talking about Zeke.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

But Title II also ties the regulation of ISPs to an antiquated regulatory structure written and implemented in the 1930s. One designed to watchdog the Ma Bell communication network.
We need better, and we need more modern. Title II is NOT the answer.

But it still doesn't address the ability of content providers to censor. Just like Youtube and Twitter and Facebook are already starting to do.
Now maybe you're not a big social media guy, but 10s of millions of people are. And social media has become the #1 way to communicate and disseminate news and links to news. Allowing the social media content providers the last word in who talks and who doesn't is akin to having a private politburo driven by the same ideology as their political friends.
Zuckerberg and others in silicon valley already admitted they tried to help hillary get elected.
And you want to hand these guys the keys to the kingdom, and do away with the FCC's ability to regulate them.
That's right, under the Title II Common Carrier classification, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) takes over regulatory oversight of the net, not the FCC.
Tom Wheeler knew this. Tom Wheeler was an obama fundraiser (500k in '08) and a lobbyist for the cable industry for decades. He wasn't a regulatory wonk. He was a shill for the industry and a political hack doling out dollars on capitol hill to get what he wanted.

Tom Wheeler - Wikipedia

Tom Wheeler, Former Lobbyist and Obama Loyalist, Seen as FCC Frontrunner | TIME.com

And obama put him in charge.
So yeah, I'm anti-obama. You betchurass I am. "The "net neutrality" bullsheite was a Trojan horse intended to sell free speech and the American people down the river. By a crooked-azzed president known for attempting to do that multiple ways, multiple times.

Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

 

[slimmer13]

The main arguments in favor of Net Neutrality are really arguments guarding against hypotheticals: that ISPs could otherwise block and censor content (they never have) or that they'll run their operations like shakedowns, requiring content providers to pay up or slow their traffic to molasses. The main documented instance of an ISP favoring one content provider over others wasn't sinister collusion. Metro PCS offered unlimited YouTube in a budget data plan but not unlimited Hulu and Netflix, because YouTube had a compression system that could be adapted to the carrier's low-bandwidth network. In a different context, critics might have applauded Metro PCS, since bought by T-Mobile, for bringing more options to lower-income customers.

Net Neutrality is a proxy battle over what type of internet we want to have—one characterized by technocratic regulations or one based on innovation and emergent order. Progessives are generally suspicious of complex systems existing without powerful regulators present and accounted for. Small-government folks are repulsed by bureaucrats in general, and think the internet will fair better in a state of benign neglect. The FCC has come down on the side of an organic internet, instead of treating the internet more like a public utility.

We don't know how the internet is going to evolve over time, but neither do the government administrators trying to rein it in. But given the record of free-market innovation vs. government-regulated services, the odds are with market forces and entrepreneurs.

Why John Oliver Is Wrong About Net Neutrality: New at Reason

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And the government using supposed "neutral" agencies (IRS) to punish political opponents has also proven to have been reality.

At the end of the day, you either believe in the principle of a free market or you don't. Like I said, there may be bad actors, but that is akin to making a food that tastes terrible. Nobody will want it. And you will know because there will be transparency rules.

"Under my proposal," commission chair Ajit Pai noted yesterday, "the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate." Sounds like a good start."

Pro–Net Neutrality Graphic Makes Argument Against Net Neutrality

Free market? I have one provider available. I'm going to make a prediction. Without net neutrality the internet will be an exact duplicate of the cell phone industry. Good luck with that. Let's talk again 5 years from now and see how your "free enterprise" overlords are treating you.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Oh, so you think classifying ISPs as public utilities and common carriers prevents them from charging additional prices for more data?
Now who needs a visit from the tooth fairy?
Talked to other "common carriers" lately? Like UPS? FedEx?
Want it fast? Pay more.
Want it tomorrow? Pay more yet.
Want something in a larger box? Pay the oversize charge, even if it weighs the same as a bag of tater chips.

Classifying ISPs under Title II does NOTHING to prevent the charges you're talking about Zeke.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

But Title II also ties the regulation of ISPs to an antiquated regulatory structure written and implemented in the 1930s. One designed to watchdog the Ma Bell communication network.
We need better, and we need more modern. Title II is NOT the answer.

But it still doesn't address the ability of content providers to censor. Just like Youtube and Twitter and Facebook are already starting to do.
Now maybe you're not a big social media guy, but 10s of millions of people are. And social media has become the #1 way to communicate and disseminate news and links to news. Allowing the social media content providers the last word in who talks and who doesn't is akin to having a private politburo driven by the same ideology as their political friends.
Zuckerberg and others in silicon valley already admitted they tried to help hillary get elected.
And you want to hand these guys the keys to the kingdom, and do away with the FCC's ability to regulate them.
That's right, under the Title II Common Carrier classification, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) takes over regulatory oversight of the net, not the FCC.
Tom Wheeler knew this. Tom Wheeler was an obama fundraiser (500k in '08) and a lobbyist for the cable industry for decades. He wasn't a regulatory wonk. He was a shill for the industry and a political hack doling out dollars on capitol hill to get what he wanted.

Tom Wheeler - Wikipedia

Tom Wheeler, Former Lobbyist and Obama Loyalist, Seen as FCC Frontrunner | TIME.com

And obama put him in charge.
So yeah, I'm anti-obama. You betchurass I am. "The "net neutrality" bullsheite was a Trojan horse intended to sell free speech and the American people down the river. By a crooked-azzed president known for attempting to do that multiple ways, multiple times.

Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?

I'm sure you'll get your way. Because, after all...."OBAMA!"

Like I said, 5 years from now let's talk again and see how much you like paying by the email (including spam), and different rates for email, social media, and video. Maybe you've never dealt with companies like HughesNet with surcharges for everything from running over your ridiculously low data cap to scratching your butt. I have. Welcome to the cell phone industry's big brother, the internet.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I'm sure you'll get your way. Because, after all...."OBAMA!"

Like I said, 5 years from now let's talk again and see how much you like paying by the email (including spam), and different rates for email, social media, and video. Maybe you've never dealt with companies like HughesNet with surcharges for everything from running over your ridiculously low data cap to scratching your butt. I have. Welcome to the cell phone industry's big brother, the internet.

So, now you're saying Title II will bring competitors to your door?
Or are you hoping the Oregon Public Utilities Commission comes to your rescue, and caps HughesNet's prices? What incentive does that give HughesNet to ensure your data speed?
Newsflash,... It doesn't.
And if you live in an area with only one provider, what exactly is it you DO want? Don't you think if it were profitable that Hughes would already have a number of competitors? Do you think Title II makes it easier/cheaper to install new lines? Fiber?
Competition makes for better service and lower prices, not government regulations.
That DOESN'T work and never has.
Come on guys, think this through!

And in the meantime, I'm not going to sit and wring my hands over what HASN'T happened. And regardless of your doomsday fears, I doubt will ever materialize.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So, now you're saying Title II will bring competitors to your door?
Or are you hoping the Oregon Public Utilities Commission comes to your rescue, and caps HughesNet's prices? What incentive does that give HughesNet to ensure your data speed?
Newsflash,... It doesn't.
And if you live in an area with only one provider, what exactly is it you DO want? Don't you think if it were profitable that Hughes would already have a number of competitors? Do you think Title II makes it easier/cheaper to install new lines? Fiber?
Competition makes for better service and lower prices, not government regulations.
That DOESN'T work and never has.
Come on guys, think this through!

And in the meantime, I'm not going to sit and wring my hands over what HASN'T happened. And regardless of your doomsday fears, I doubt will ever materialize.

My present provider is Comcast. That's all that's available that has acceptable speeds and pricing. Century Link refuses to provide service. HughesNet is more expensive and slower than tethering to my cell phone. So I have one viable provider, much like my electric provider situation. Don't get me started on electric service deregulation. I was at the epicenter of that for several years when I worked in that industry. It turns out that deregulation was a disaster for consumers in that industry, causing huge issues with grid management, shortages, brownouts, blackouts, and wild cost increases, not to mention Enron's gaming of the system.

Like I said, we will see, and we can discuss the outcome a few years down the road. I'm pretty confident that complete deregulation will lead to the same abuses we see in the cell phone industry, the airline industry, the banking industry, and everywhere else where unfettered capitalism is allowed to rape and pillage. Your ideas might work if we truly had a free market, but the big corporations always game the system to eliminate any real competition. It's theory versus reality. What should work in theory just about never works in reality. It would work if corporations had morals and ethics, but they do not. Their only consideration is profits.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I guess it's a good thing no one in government is talking about complete deregulation, despite what reason TV's guy wants done.
And what your doomsday sources are telling you.

When I look at options for Eugene here:
Internet in Eugene, OR: There are 21 Providers

It looks like more than Hughes and Comcast, but I don't know what kind of speed you're wanting or expecting so,...

And BTW, all those prices are cheaper than what I pay, and I have only 2 choices. One with a data cap and one without. Wave Broadband is kind of cheaper with a combo plan but has a data cap lower than Comcast's.
And the one without a cap is fiber, but the prices are outrageous for anything above 15Mbs down. They were part of obama's community block grant promoting FTTH.

 

[Heywood]

Free market? I have one provider available. I'm going to make a prediction. Without net neutrality the internet will be an exact duplicate of the cell phone industry. Good luck with that. Let's talk again 5 years from now and see how your "free enterprise" overlords are treating you.

If you live in Eugene, you have many more than one provider available. Look a little harder. There may be weird one off scenarios where this may be the case but 99% of people have more than a few to choose from.
You do make the connections to regulating the net like a utility, then complain about only having one choice.......makes no sense
Can you choose your power, water, sewer or garbage company? No, there you truly do have only one choice.
Finally, the net did ok for 30 years without daddygov. Fingering it.
Investment in internet infrastructure dropped as a result of net neutrality and that was before many of the effects were realized.

 

[albin25]

I'm probably too old... but, I really don't remember being invited to any Net Neutrality celebrations back when it was introduced.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

If you live in Eugene, you have many more than one provider available. Look a little harder. There may be weird one off scenarios where this may be the case but 99% of people have more than a few to choose from.
You do make the connections to regulating the net like a utility, then complain about only having one choice.......makes no sense
Can you choose your power, water, sewer or garbage company? No, there you truly do have only one choice.
Finally, the net did ok for 30 years without daddygov. Fingering it.
Investment in internet infrastructure dropped as a result of net neutrality and that was before many of the effects were realized.

I can throw a rock and it will land outside of Eugene. I'm at 1000' elev. on Spencer Butte. They don't even maintain my street. I had NO service providers when I moved in. Century Link lied and said the line didn't qualify for DSL. When I asked them how the previous owners were DSL customers of theirs they admitted they just didn't want to sell new accounts in my area. I finally offered Comcast $2000 to extend their service 1000' to my property. Before that we had HughesNet, which is about the equivalent of dial-up for $150 per month with a 10 GB data cap. Additional 1 GB of data were $15. We ran out of data on the 20th of every month. Tethering to our cell phones was faster and cheaper. The only way we could get someone who spoke english from HughesNet on the phone was to stop paying our bill. THEN we got a call from an english speaker forthwith! We told them to come and get their equipment or we'd start charging them storage.

"You do make the connections to regulating the net like a utility, then complain about only having one choice.......makes no sense"

I do only have one choice. If I had 6 choices and real competition I wouldn't mind deregulation. But as long as city governments are granting monopolies I don't see that happening. The reality is that no matter where you live there's no real competition.

I've been on the internet, and involved with independent ISPs since 1987. I've seen 99% of those independent ISPs put out of business by Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. Companies who produce and sell content should not be allowed to also be in the delivery (ISP) business. There's too much potential for abuse, and there actually is too much abuse right now. ISPs should agnostically deliver generic data over the "last mile" of connection to your house from the internet at the same rate regardless of what type of data it is. When content companies are allowed to be gatekeepers between your house and the internet that's a huge problem. They have a product to sell, and the ability to make sure that you buy their product, and no one else's. They've been caught doing it already. Several years ago my NetFlix account became unusable because my DSL provider preferred that I buy their product.

Right now, I ignore and turn off every internet service from Comcast except the basic connection. I operate my own off-site email, game, and data servers at one of the few remaining independent ISPs around the country. It's located near Seattle. The internet is public. It was built with tax money and private university investments. To permit the large cable and comm companies to block it off and charge fees to access it, over and above a basic connection fee, is theft. To allow them to censor and distort the market for the benefit of sales of their own products compounds the crime.

That said, I'm sure you will get your way in this, and that a few years from now we will all be bemoaning what happened to the internet.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Oh, and a case in point, my independent ISP in Seattle that hosts my domains, web servers, game servers, email servers, etc. could provide me basic DSL connection services too through their contracts with Mammoth Communications, except that Century Link refuses to let Mammoth lease their lines in this area. And we can't get around having to use Century Link because of the City of Eugene has given them a monopoly on the phone lines. This is a shining example of the big comm companies putting the competition out of business. Free market? Competition? Think again.

 

[JRuby]

When foreign governments buy these ISP's and start to control our access I think could become a serious threat to our country.. with the deregulation in my mind we are helping them do this to us. Thoughts?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Oh, and a case in point, my independent ISP in Seattle that hosts my domains, web servers, game servers, email servers, etc. could provide me basic DSL connection services too through their contracts with Mammoth Communications, except that Century Link refuses to let Mammoth lease their lines in this area. And we can't get around having to use Century Link because of the City of Eugene has given them a monopoly on the phone lines. This is a shining example of the big comm companies putting the competition out of business. Free market? Competition? Think again.

Wait, you mean the socialists that run Eugene city government are preventing free market principles from working for their citizens?

Gee,... Whodathunkit eh?

Your complaint is obviously with your local government Zeke, not the feds or your potential choice of ISPs.

Then again, you could always choose the remedy I did when I decided I'd had enough of the commies that run Eugene,...
Move.

I hear the Mohawk Valley is nice.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Wait, you mean the socialists that run Eugene city government are preventing free market principles from working for their citizens?

Gee,... Whodathunkit eh?

Your complaint is obviously with your local government Zeke, not the feds or your potential choice of ISPs.

Then again, you could always choose the remedy I did when I decided I'd had enough of the commies that run Eugene,...
Move.

I hear the Mohawk Valley is nice.

ALL municipalities grant telephone company "franchises" (monopolies) in return for those "government fees" you see on the bottom of your phone bill. Try changing your land line provider and get back to me with your success rate, wherever you live.

And there's the little problem of land that has been in the family since before the City of Eugene existed. How do I jack it up and take it with me?

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

When foreign governments buy these ISP's and start to control our access I think could become a serious threat to our country.. with the deregulation in my mind we are helping them do this to us. Thoughts?

you dont have net neutrality in that sense now! with that phony law nor do you need to wait for foreign govt's to control your access, facebook, google et all have all ready been caught choosing access or restricting access and zuckerberg admitted to helping Hillary get elected by providing access to what THEY wanted you to see!
the net neutrality bullstein was yet one more wealth redistribution scheme by obama using our Govt to pick winners and looser

 

[Hop Sing]

I don't understand a thing about this thread but thought I should point out that the OP should have used affect instead of effect in the title.

That is all.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't understand a thing about this thread but thought I should point out that the OP should have used affect instead of effect in the title.

That is all.

I was just going to say that - beat me to it.

 

[The Heretic]

National - 'Ghost gun' sellers under fire from gun-control group

 

[JRuby]

you dont have net neutrality in that sense now! with that phony law nor do you need to wait for foreign govt's to control your access, facebook, google et all have all ready been caught choosing access or restricting access and zuckerberg admitted to helping Hillary get elected by providing access to what THEY wanted you to see!
the net neutrality bullstein was yet one more wealth redistribution scheme by obama using our Govt to pick winners and looser

Just so I understand correctly that removal of net neutrality is not another wealth distribution process and a level playing field is bad for our rights.