This impacts all of us. Let's act like it.

[vla1ne]

On the contrary, choosing to protest instead of choosing not to would surely lead to different outcomes. Those differences in outcome could be the tipping point that determines this bill being overturned, they could contribute just enough momentum to a sea of outrage, they could be trivial, and they could backfire. We've seen protests backfire, certainly of late. Protest culture has been sweeping in the year of 2017, yet with each revelation that the latest noble protest was staged by vast corporate entities with think tanks and cash, the air around subsequent protests grows thicker with disillusionment. You needn't look any further than here to see how easily a protester can preach so zealously to the converted as to inspire apostasy. "That's no reason not to fight" is, to me, a completely f***ing backwards sentiment. We don't need reasons not to fight, we need reasons to fight. I'm sure you have as valid reasons as anyone for opposing this bill, but opposing this bill isn't much of a stand to take when damn near everyone is opposing this bill to the extent where not opposing it strongly enough is vilified, as if I'm under some moral imperative to fight alongside you with all my might.

 from where i'm looking at things, yes, there are definitely different outcomes that can be reached from both avenues, but the avenue of protest, to me holds what i consider to be the most valid possibility. yes, we have seen protests backfire, but it does not invalidate every protest, to have a few (or even many) of them collapse. i have no issue with protest culture, it is a right that all deserve, and is, in general, a healthy expression. now, when mixed with outrage culture, and a mindset that desires everything be given unconditionally, it becomes unhealthy, but that is not what this is, at the very least, not for me. i am protesting, because a service, that i pay hard earned money to maintain, is under threat of being gimped, in both quality, and overall freedom. 

 

no matter who stages said protest, those behind the cause, are often, if not always genuine, you can oppose them, but it is not an invalidation of a protest, simply because the funds come from a larger source of wealth. looking at the reason behind each and every protest, is what makes protest reasonable, and unreasonable to me. the reasoning behind this one being that paying more for less, for no clearly defined reason, does not sit well, and no suitable reason (or any reason at all) has been put out there to defend such a change.

 

my reason to protest/fight(nonviolently of course), is that the money i pay does not come without expectations of quality, letting the service providers know as much, instead of being lead around by the nose, is my reason. if they refuse to provide services, that is their choice, and my money shall eventually flow elsewhere, same for the politicians, my votes will go to those who understand that their own wallet is not the object of importance when running for an office.

 

 

 

Anything that's easier to fight for than not to isn't a worthwhile cause, it's an insufferable bandwagon. To me, my right to abstain from movements like this is infinitely more important than something so trivial as overturning this bill, and so that's where I'm focusing my energies.

you are somewhat right that opposing this bill is the strongest stance, but i do not wish to vilify you, only persuade you to join this side of the discussion. and for a strong example of underestimating your opponent, even one that may have been easy to fight, look at the recent elections. this is that kind of bill, sure, a lot of people are against it, definitely more than those who are for it, but if everybody has this same thought, then what happens then? the bystander effect is what. to be fair, no, that may not happen in this case, but why take such a risk? especially on something that could disrupt modern life as much as this can? yes, eventually another company may rise and provide the services better, effectively destroying the old model of censored service for good, but until then, it would be a terrible inconvenience, and an even worse drain upon my wallet if i wished to maintain the current services that i possess. i cannot financially afford more bills than i have right now, i have an interview in two days for an insanely good job, but even then, why would i want to spent twice as much on the same sevices? so why would i sit by and hope for the best when even the most basic of the worst results could easily cause me no end to my financial troubles

 

 

 

Perhaps, but consider that in protesting this bill you're protesting a protest of a protest. Are you really preventing disease, or are you contributing to it?

 i am protesting this bill, it's that simple. i do not support this bill, i am letting the companies, and the politicians, know as much, and from where i stand, the more who make this known, the stronger the sentiment will resonate, especially with politicians. 

 

 

I don't need your permission to think as I do.

indeed you don't, and i would not vilify you for thinking as you do (if such a meaning came across to you, that was not my intention) but there is no harm in attempting to persuade you to see things my way, or vice versa, right?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm glad that you are representing your personal opposition to this bill as just that, but this notion that you'll be charged twice as much by your ISP (you're not the first here to suggest that exact extent) doesn't make sense and is blowing things out of proportion. If ISP's wanted to arbitrarily skyrocket their rates, they could totally do that right now and they don't because it would hurt them and it'd still hurt them if this bill passed.

 

The controversy is that ISP's like Comcast could potentially slow down or block their service to certain sites, which they wouldn't in most cases because it'd be against their best interests. There isn't as much of a demand for internet service without internet service. Comcast has done this in the past prior to the 2015 FCC rulings to slow down piracy sites like BitTorrent, which isn't that unreasonable. Even then, you could bypass restrictions fairly easily with basic hax. 

 

Oh, this again. ;_;

 

Sure, it needs to be stopped and such, but it looks like they can and will just try, try again until they get their way. 

 

Just thought I'd mention for the record that I've changed my mind on this bill needing to be stopped, if that weren't already apparent through self-contradiction (which is necessary for growth). I still think it would be preferable that this bill be overturned, but after further thought and research into what it means, it certainly doesn't need to be. Perhaps clarifying this makes my stance appear a little less defeatist. 

[mido9]

 

Net neutrality is bad for consumers. It prevents ISPs from slowing down/charging more for congestion causing websites like Netflix/Youtube/etc which passes the congestion and costs on everyone else, it prevents ISPs from allowing users to only pay for websites they use, and there would be little censorship both because of competition and because it's rarely and very shortly happened before(and only to said supercongesting sites).

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

This issue, like many, is one that both sides oversimplify.

 

I'm going to put this in simple terms, for ease of discussion. The way the internet is set up, information travels through interconnection ports. As an example, we will use information streaming from Netflix to one's home computer. Netflix streaming is the largest and most significant use of these interconnection ports in North America. Around 2014, as Netflix became more and more popular, it actually managed to outpace the infrastructure Comcast had in place. They literally couldn't transport all the data consumers wanted from Netflix with their current setup, without giving Netflix what some people would consider "preferential treatment" in access to these interconnection ports.

 

A lot of people argued over whether Netflix was to blame, using significantly more data than anything else, or whether it was Comcast's fault for not providing an infrastructure that could accommodate the high requirements Netflix had to function. Whoever was right in this conflict is really a matter of opinion (personally, I sit somewhere in the middle on it) but the situation was ultimately resolved when comcast paid to gain access to more interconnection ports, vastly increasing the speeds of their service.

 

That said, this solution does have some potential concerns. From a capitalistic point of view, it absolutely works: businesses pay premiums so that their content can more effectively reach the consumers. Unfortunately, this premium did not go toward increasing infrastructure, rather the ISP simply rerouted already-existing ports for the service. This means that, by speeding Netflix up, they were inherently slowing down other services who did not pay such a premium. This creates a bit of a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation, where well-standing content providers take up more and more of the interconnection ports, decreasing diversity in the market.

 

Another potential issue is that these ISPs do more than just provide access to the internet. Comcast, for example, has its own streaming service which, though much less prolific than Netflix, is in every way a competitor. Since they control the interconnection ports, it would be very easy for them to cut from their competitor's speed to help their own. This has already happened. As I have mentioned in previous posts in this thread, this puts comcast in a position where they can exploit their monopoly to extort more and more money from their competitors. This bill makes these arbitrary charges and slowdowns completely legal.

 

While in the past, Netflix was slowed down by the sheer mass of its content, creating congestion in the infrastructure as Mido9 mentions, they are now put in a position where Comcast can decide to just start reducing Netflix's access to these interconnection ports, throttling their speeds until their demands are met. Due to the monopolistic nature of the ISP business, they are pretty much at the mercy of Comcast (or TWC, depending on location) and without regulatory legislation, this power can be flexed however the ISP sees fit.

 

On one hand, this could be considered the natural (and rightful) progression of capitalism. The two big cable companies control this infrastructure, and it doesn't take much of a leap to say they have the right to control commerce within.

 

On the other hand, this is an example of the threats posed by monopolies. As these companies gain more and more control, it becomes progressively easier for them to become bulletproof. Nothing holds them back, and they can exploit their power to push out any potential for competition or diversity.

 

Though I am absolutely on the side of net neutrality, it really isn't as black and white as many depict it to be. The power held by Comcast and Time Warner Cable is undeniable, but whether they should be allowed to have so much power is much more widely contested.

[vla1ne]

gonna be a bit sloppy, since i'm already tired, but gotta respond somehow.

i suppose i should thank the three of you for the alternate perspectives, giving me some new ideas to chew over. so to respond to the first two:

 

I'm glad that you are representing your personal opposition to this bill as just that, but this notion that you'll be charged twice as much by your ISP (you're not the first here to suggest that exact extent) doesn't make sense and is blowing things out of proportion. If ISP's wanted to arbitrarily skyrocket their rates, they could totally do that right now and they don't because it would hurt them and it'd still hurt them if this bill passed.

 

The controversy is that ISP's like Comcast could potentially slow down or block their service to certain sites, which they wouldn't in most cases because it'd be against their best interests. There isn't as much of a demand for internet service without internet service. Comcast has done this in the past prior to the 2015 FCC rulings to slow down piracy sites like BitTorrent, which isn't that unreasonable. Even then, you could bypass restrictions fairly easily with basic hax. 

 

 

Just thought I'd mention for the record that I've changed my mind on this bill needing to be stopped, if that weren't already apparent through self-contradiction (which is necessary for growth). I still think it would be preferable that this bill be overturned, but after further thought and research into what it means, it certainly doesn't need to be. Perhaps clarifying this makes my stance appear a little less defeatist. 

 

it does make some sense, it's been seen in history from monopolies of the past, and considering the near-monopoly of the current system, it's not completely far-fetched to assume as much as a result. the reasoning behind this, is that they could make more money overall (short-term) should they implement such an idea, more sites would be paying for more room, thus boosting profit (i'm well aware that it would be an artificial bubble doomed to destroy the company eventually, and that any businessman worth his job would know as much as well, but it wouldn't be the first completely stupid thing done by a company in the name of profit) so put simply, i know it's foolish, and the sheer foolishness of it is what threw me off at first. i get where you're coming from though.

 

corporate censorship turned legislation is the issue i have here, if they put it up as an option for customers, or if they gradually explain their decision before implementing it, intent and significant changes included, then i would likely have far less opposition to it than i feel at the moment. they have already shown they can do parts of what they're planning without legal legislation, so the need to involve the government, is what makes this seem odd. and most of the time, things like this, only end up messing with what wasn't broken. were this to be used in contract form instead, where people were allowed to opt in or out of it (not at will of course, but within reason) then i could see myself making an argument for it but as it stands, i can't support simply removing restrictions on what is almost already a monopoly.

 

 

 

 

 

Net neutrality is bad for consumers. It prevents ISPs from slowing down/charging more for congestion causing websites like Netflix/Youtube/etc which passes the congestion and costs on everyone else, it prevents ISPs from allowing users to only pay for websites they use, and there would be little censorship both because of competition and because it's rarely and very shortly happened before(and only to said supercongesting sites).

 

the flip side of this has been pointed out already, it could be used in competition with multiple sites, or to lower quality of service as a facade should they choose to. that being said, after i thought all the above points over i still have to wonder: would it not be possible to simply do this without a bill? i mean it's not like you can't provide new forms of contracts, and update the terms of service with a complete explanation of intent and purpose. the need for legislation is what bugs me here. with a full explanation provided directly from the horses mouth there shouldn't be a reason to lobby for the removal of restraints, an argument could easily be made for loosening them, for the sake of both parties, but i see no reason at all to remove them. i could be missing something simple, but it seems to me that new legislation would be pretty much unneeded should they simply take the time to map this out properly (assuming good intent of course) 

[Dad]

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/6mtgtp/we_need_your_voice_as_we_continue_the_fight_for/

 

Even Twitch and IMGUR are advertising for Net Neutrality.

 

[vla1ne]

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/6mtgtp/we_need_your_voice_as_we_continue_the_fight_for/

 

Even Twitch and IMGUR are advertising for Net Neutrality.

it's still the best stance imo, but i'd have no issue if other options existed alongside it. 

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

The argument that whatever we try to do is useless since the elected officials apparently don't listen to constituents, and/or the belief that said officials are competent enough to know that this idea was a stupid idea before it's too late. (Or right now, since Republicans control the White House and Trump literally only cares about his wallet and executive privileges, they'll do anything to prioritize corporate welfare and dump the rest of us on the side.)

 

But yeah, the internet needs to remain free access. I do not want Comcast or some other companies controlling what we can / cannot do on the internet. If they get their way, a lot of the stuff we can currently do may not be an option; that, and shittier net speed unless we pay for it. Also will be a much larger pain in the ass to do research online for papers and stuff; both if you're in the public school system and as a college student. 

 

Do not let companies get their way and turn our net privileges into what's being done in China/North Korea (in the sense that certain sites will be blocked unless you pay for it).

 

====

At the same time, I'm happy that I don't have Verizon/Comcast for a net provider, but let's hope mine doesn't (given they have their own issues related to service at times). 

====

 

Wonder if anyone else in this state brought this up to Hanabusa/Tulsi in Congress? Haven't seen anything on FB yet.

 

This argument that if net neutrality falls, fees skyrocket and sites get blocked makes no sense:

 

Lets say that verizon made you pay $10 per day for accessing facebook, $15 for twitter, and $30 for youtube where as comcast kept all those sites available free. Verzion would likely go out of business or at the very least, lose a lot of money because they made some incredibly stupid business decisions: they expected people to pay those fees instead of switching to a competitor. People don't seem to understand that corporations need customers to buy their product to stay in business. Thus they are accountable to the consumer's will via free market competition. The same goes for blocking sites and services.

 

Also lets say that an innovative new internet "function" was created. Something like the next Instagram perhaps. ISPs would be fools to block or downgrade it because their competitors would take all their business away by embracing the new "service".

 

If people are worried about ISPs accepting bribes to prioritize sites or something, in addition to free market forces described above bad publicity would screw them over big time.

 

Out of time to post I'll add to this later

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

stuff

As has already been explained, competition in ISPs in America is nonexistent. This is why internet prices are already at high as they are.

 

That being said, allow me to reiterate this one last time:

 

 

NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT ABOUT CONSUMERS

Loss of net neutrality won't make prices skyrocket. It won't result in censorship. The internet won't become like China or North Korea. That is not what this is about.

 

Net Neutrality is important because it prevents Comcast and Time Warner Cable from exploiting their monopolies in the ISP environment, strongarming providers such as reddit, Netflix, and YouTube into paying into artificial premiums to avoid having their speeds throttled.

 

You can talk about "free market" and "bad PR" preventing ISPs from doing things like this, but you are certifiably, absolutely, blatantly empirically wrong. This throttling has already happened, and lack of competition on a large scale means that public perception won't hurt them much at all.

 

These companies are already despised, and yet and the internet becomes more and more entwined in culture and people become angrier and angrier, their profits only go up.

 

People need to do their damn research. Both sides.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

Answer me this:

 

Was there any problem with the internet before the 2015 net neutrality rules went into effect?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Answer me this:

 

Was there any problem with the internet before the 2015 net neutrality rules went into effect?

If you actually read my previous comment you would note that Netflix and Comcast had an issue of this nature in 2014. So yes. There were problems.

 

This isn't even going into the fact that the regulations didn't solve the problem. But that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.