Net Neutrality

[Micah888]

What? Net Neutrality's whole goal is to keep service providers from doing just that.

However, the power to enforce equal treatment on the Internet can easily become the power to control the Internet in less beneficent ways.

Look at what happened with radio and television. Though it’s charged to regulate our media landscape in the best interest of the public, the FCC opened the doors to unforeseen levels of media consolidation. That consolidation has contributed to the gutting of newsrooms and a steep decline in diversity of viewpoints and local voices on the air, as independent broadcasters across the country shut down, unable to compete with big media monopolies.

Why the FCC Can't Actually Save Net Neutrality

 

[SummerMadness]

I know the left loves to try and invalidate our thoughts and opinions on issues, such as suggesting we only support (or don't support) things that make liberals go crazy. That's not true at all.

Most of us are for free market. When the government sticks its hands in to try and force businesses to change, that's not free market. That's government control and it's rarely done for the good of the people.

In fact, the government tends to screw up just about everything it sticks its fingers in.

Are you for or against monopolies? Monopolies are a byproduct of a free market. The government prevents them from forming, that's the government's hand in the market, so if you support that, you to support government intervention. However, that is not what net neutrality is, but please feel free to explain why there should be no net neutrality without resorting to claims about the government controlling the market (a nebulous statement that you have not qualified in discussing the Internet). What is the problem with saying companies must treat all content equally?

 

[Brent W]

Why the FCC Can't Actually Save Net Neutrality

I agree, there is a serious issue with monopolizing our media and those that provide access to it. Which is why we need Net Neutrality to exist while, hopefully, the American people press this issue and our representatives find a solution to it.

 

[HereIStand]

I'm glad the admin note was posted about net-neutrality. Thought I had a virus.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[Saucy]

Which one(s) specifically? I see people asking genuine questions on why Republicans are against Net Neutrality. I do not understand why, personally. Net Neutrality only helps ISPs. It leaves consumers at the mercy of their ISP. Why Republicans think that corporations such as ISPs should be able to dictate the internet and what is served to their customers is beyond me.

So I have the same question as them.

Because it's their company. If I was the CEO of a company, I'd want the freedom to offer whatever services I wanted, at whatever prices I wanted. Shouldn't you have the right to have control in your own business without the government interfering? No one ISP owns or controls the internet. Even in areas where there are monopolies, there are options. I only get Spectrum here, but there are smaller internet/satellite internet companies. Most phone providers have options, as a larger chunk of all internet traffic comes from mobile with each passing year.

I'm not FOR the cable companies. I think they suck and charge way too much money as it is, so this isn't about being their supporter.

It's like Netflix. There are payment tiers. If you want to use normal Netflix, it's one price. If you want premium HD streaming, it's a higher price. If you want DVDs, it's another. I don't see anything wrong with structuring things that way. If the government steps in and says Netflix can't charge more for HD premium streaming, than HD premium streaming might not exist.

Let the people decide what they want and what they don't want. If businesses decide to sell out to companies or join them to force monopolies, that's their business. They should be able to run things as they see fit. It opens the door for better innovations. If the government can control who can do what and how much they can charge for it, that not only stifles innovation, but it handcuffs businesses.

Again, I'm not for monopolies either. Just because you fight for the rights of others to freely run their business according to their own models doesn't mean your pro-monopoly. Fear mongering about what companies 'might' do isn't a valid reason to create a law that handcuffs companies. If it's something like health regulations that involves the safety of others, that's one thing. But spreading fear that the internet companies *might* charge you more for a premium service isn't that.

 

[Serving Zion]

However, the power to enforce equal treatment on the Internet can easily become the power to control the Internet in less beneficent ways.

Look at what happened with radio and television. Though it’s charged to regulate our media landscape in the best interest of the public, the FCC opened the doors to unforeseen levels of media consolidation. That consolidation has contributed to the gutting of newsrooms and a steep decline in diversity of viewpoints and local voices on the air, as independent broadcasters across the country shut down, unable to compete with big media monopolies.

Why the FCC Can't Actually Save Net Neutrality

I am missing a link in the logic here, that would lead to the conclusion that giving every customer equal access to every website could possibly lead to "[little websites being] unable to compete with big [website] monopolies".

As I see it, the mediums of internet and televised broadcast are completely different.

Internet is capable of streaming unique content to every user on demand, whereas the radio band is capable of transmitting only a single content to all recipients at a given time.

This is not an equal comparison because the competition for resources is entirely different. On one hand we have competition for the speed of delivery (ie: quality of performance) while on the other hand we have competition for diversity of content at any given time (ie: control of information). In addition to this, there is a direct threat implied through regulation of the internet, that by nature it is desiring to control information - and this is why the argument seems so illogical at face value.

Of course I understand in the example how broadcast media became monopolised - when only one programme can be supported at a given time yet there are many programmes that desire to be that one, there is a need for consolidation. But I do not see how that can flow to suggest that the same danger exists due to an internet where the competition for resources is only limited in it's capacity to deliver the sheer mass of media that is transmitted.

Micah, are you able to explain how Net Neutrality (that is the legal right for every website to serve it's content to every customer) can possibly lead to little websites being unable to compete with the bug guys, and to explain how regulation would protect their interests? .. I just haven't yet come to understand that there is a valid reason to believe that it is likely, but I am willing to consider that you might be able to explain otherwise.

Thank you!

 

[KarateCowboy]

Google is an ISP lol. People come to the weirdest conclusions.

Yes, Google has an ISP offering. Their main revenue stream, however, is from ads.

 

[Brent W]

Because it's their company.

This is ridiculous. They have to work within the laws of this country. Just because it is their company they can not do whatever they want. This idea that there be no regulation of corporations is ridiculous and dangerous!

It used to be that Congress respected the views of their electorates. This is not the case now. Net Neutrality is overwhelmingly supported in America but one party has decided that ISPs are more valuable than their constituents.

Your ridiculous assertions that businesses should be able to do whatever they want is a Libertarian pipe dream. You are simply transferring political power from the Government, which the U.S. public can vote on, to a corporation that are only held accountable by their shareholders.

An unregulated free market system creates monopolies and moves power and money out of the hands of the vast and into the hands of the fews. This idea that there can not be a capitalist market system with regulation by elected officials is ridiculous and one of the reasons why Libertarians always fail to gain momentum. Their economic policies are too extreme.

It's like Netflix. There are payment tiers. If you want to use normal Netflix, it's one price. If you want premium HD streaming, it's a higher price. If you want DVDs, it's another. I don't see anything wrong with structuring things that way. If the government steps in and says Netflix can't charge more for HD premium streaming, than HD premium streaming might not exist.

You still fail to prove your own points!!!!!!!!!!

What you just described is exactly how the internet works today. If you want more bandwidth you pay for it but you still get the same exact content.

That is exactly what you described. Netflix is not denying you different content for price. It is the exact same content. The only difference is how it is delivered to you.

What you described has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality wants to make sure that each bit is treated the same. An ISP can not charge you more for Netflix than Hulu or their own streaming service.

This is what you fail to grasp in each of your arguments. You go on rants about big Government and then make points that have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Your Netflix analogy has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality at all.

Let the people decide what they want and what they don't want.

I agree and most Americans want Net Neutrality. Why are you so bent on denying their voice in the favor of corporations?

Fear mongering about what companies 'might' do isn't a valid reason to create a law that handcuffs companies.

This is nonsense. You are using the phrase fear mongering to discredit something that has already happened and has already been pointed out to you time after time. Companies have been fined and caught breaking Net Neutrality. Now they have nothing to fear. It certainly will get worse because you can look at the past and see how bold they were while breaking regulations and understand how bold they will be with none to face.

 

[Saucy]

This is ridiculous. They have to work within the laws of this country. Just because it is their company they can not do whatever they want. This idea that there be no regulation of corporations is ridiculous and dangerous!

It used to be that Congress respected the views of their electorates. This is not the case now. Net Neutrality is overwhelmingly supported in America but one party has decided that ISPs are more valuable than their constituents.

Your ridiculous assertions that businesses should be able to do whatever they want is a Libertarian pipe dream. You are simply transferring political power from the Government, which the U.S. public can vote on, to a corporation that are only held accountable by their shareholders.

An unregulated free market system creates monopolies and moves power and money out of the hands of the vast and into the hands of the fews. This idea that there can not be a capitalist market system with regulation by elected officials is ridiculous and one of the reasons why Libertarians always fail to gain momentum. Their economic policies are too extreme.



You still fail to prove your own points!!!!!!!!!!

What you just described is exactly how the internet works today. If you want more bandwidth you pay for it but you still get the same exact content.

That is exactly what you described. Netflix is not denying you different content for price. It is the exact same content. The only difference is how it is delivered to you.

What you described has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality wants to make sure that each bit is treated the same. An ISP can not charge you more for Netflix than Hulu or their own streaming service.

This is what you fail to grasp in each of your arguments. You go on rants about big Government and then make points that have nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Your Netflix analogy has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality at all.



I agree and most Americans want Net Neutrality. Why are you so bent on denying their voice in the favor of corporations?



This is nonsense. You are using the phrase fear mongering to discredit something that has already happened and has already been pointed out to you time after time. Companies have been fined and caught breaking Net Neutrality. Now they have nothing to fear. It certainly will get worse because you can look at the past and see how bold they were while breaking regulations and understand how bold they will be with non to face.

You fail to prove your own points because they're based on theory and fear, not facts. Companies do operate within the law. You just don't want to pay more for premium content, so you cry foul and ask for a law to be written, yet treat the issue like it's the end of the internet unless we do something to stop it now! Yes, that's fear mongering and the only argument you have.

I have no problem with how my cable is structured. If I want to watch Game of Thrones, I'll shell out the few extra bucks a month for HBO. I don't think the government should be able to step in and tell a company to give HBO for free when it's clearly a premium channel. It's my choice based upon my wants at the time. I can decide to skip Game of Thrones and save some money. It's not the end of the world if I don't get to watch it. It's not a "need" that the government has to step in and control.

 

[Brent W]

You fail to prove your own points because they're based on theory and fear, not facts.

These are companies that have broken Net Neutrality since 2005. Please, continue to tell me I am the one creating the false statements here.

You are the one predicting the future

Net neutrality will never impact CF.

So please, tell me how I am the one stating things based on theory and fear, not facts.


MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan.

ISPs will work against consumer interests if let be. Net Neutrality needs to be renewed!

 

[iluvatar5150]

I know the left loves to try and invalidate our thoughts and opinions on issues, such as suggesting we only support (or don't support) things that make liberals go crazy. That's not true at all.

Most of us are for free market. When the government sticks its hands in to try and force businesses to change, that's not free market. That's government control and it's rarely done for the good of the people.

In fact, the government tends to screw up just about everything it sticks its fingers in.

We don't have to invalidate your thoughts and opinions when your explanations do the heavy lifting for us. Blind fear that the government is going to screw something up is nothing more than shallow, simple-mindedness fed by partisan dogma. Has government oversight screwed up the safety of air travel? The safety of automobiles? The efficacy of medicine? The efficiency of the stock market? No. Government oversight is crucial to the proper function of any system, lest bad actors run it into the ground.

You say you support the free market, but most regions have only a handful of options for broadband internet. Many regions have just one (and this is not exclusive to under-served rural areas). Monopolies and oligopolies are not conducive to efficient markets.

Because it's their company. If I was the CEO of a company, I'd want the freedom to offer whatever services I wanted, at whatever prices I wanted.

You'd want a lot of things. That doesn't mean you should get them.

Shouldn't you have the right to have control in your own business without the government interfering?

Not necessarily, no.

No one ISP owns or controls the internet.

But only a few control access to it.

Even in areas where there are monopolies, there are options. I only get Spectrum here, but there are smaller internet/satellite internet companies. Most phone providers have options, as a larger chunk of all internet traffic comes from mobile with each passing year.

And mobile providers have a host of other issues including low speeds and bandwidth caps. Many don't allow you to tether devices off of the phone. They're not currently a viable solution for home service.

I'm not FOR the cable companies. I think they suck and charge way too much money as it is, so this isn't about being their supporter.

It's like Netflix. There are payment tiers. If you want to use normal Netflix, it's one price. If you want premium HD streaming, it's a higher price. If you want DVDs, it's another. I don't see anything wrong with structuring things that way. If the government steps in and says Netflix can't charge more for HD premium streaming, than HD premium streaming might not exist.

That's not what net neutrality is.

Let the people decide what they want and what they don't want. If businesses decide to sell out to companies or join them to force monopolies, that's their business. They should be able to run things as they see fit. It opens the door for better innovations.

No, monopolies don't open the door for better innovations. They stifle innovation. That's why we don't allow them to exist.

If the government can control who can do what and how much they can charge for it, that not only stifles innovation, but it handcuffs businesses.

So do monopolies.

Again, I'm not for monopolies either.

And yet you're proposing them as a preferred option.

Just because you fight for the rights of others to freely run their business according to their own models doesn't mean your pro-monopoly.

If you say that you're not "pro-murder", but you advocate removing all laws prohibiting murder, does it really matter if you're not "pro-murder"? Because what you're advocating opens the door to more murder.

Fear mongering about what companies 'might' do isn't a valid reason to create a law that handcuffs companies.

We already know what companies "might" do. Large corporations are not a new phenomenon. There are financial incentives for companies to grow larger and restrict outsiders' access to their customer base.

If it's something like health regulations that involves the safety of others, that's one thing. But spreading fear that the internet companies *might* charge you more for a premium service isn't that.

The mobile providers already do some of the things folks fear might be implemented on wired internet.

 

[St. Helens]

The concept sounds good. I do not know enough about how the law works on this to really make an informed opinion on it.

 

[Richard T]

I am against net nuetrality. It's moniker is like the "Affordable Care Act" very misleading. Net nuetrality favors the biggest tech corporations. About half the traffic of U.S. use is Netflix and Youtube. If you consume bandwidth, you shoud pay extra or be throttled back on speed. There should be no free lunch for big consumers of bandwidth. Currently, you are subsiziding the biggest users, including porn I might add which is another huge bandwidth recipient. It is too bad that the Christian forum has the large banner for being against this issue with all the most liberal companies that exist.

 

[Brent W]

I am against net nuetrality. It's moniker is like the "Affordable Care Act" very misleading. Net nuetrality favors the biggest tech corporations. About half the traffic of U.S. use is Netflix and Youtube. If you consume bandwidth, you shoud pay extra or be throttled back on speed. There should be no free lunch for big consumers of bandwidth. Currently, you are subsiziding the biggest users, including porn I might add which is another huge bandwidth recipient. It is too bad that the Christian forum has the large banner for being against this issue with all the most liberal companies that exist.

This is, again, ridiculous. Net Neutrality enforces 1 bit of data is the same as another bit of data and it should not be discriminated against.

The fact that consumers are demanding content from Netflix more than other companies is no reason to throw everything out and then put the entire internet at the hands of large ISPs so that they can now restrict internet traffic at their discretion.

But again, because you used the word liberal you now are trying to make this something that it isn't. Your own personal political distaste for a political party rather than a single issue, which is whether or not an ISP can censor content.

What is disappointing is that people like you have been politicizing this instead of debating the issue.

Our goal with Net Neutrality has been stated on this thread and others and will continue to be stated, no matter how many people try to turn this into a 2 party system hate fest.

We support Net Neutrality because 1 bit of data from Christian Forums is the same as 1 bit of data from Netflix. Neither service should be discriminated against based on their content.

 

[drjean]

I am not for it the way it was written and used by the deep state. (That's why dems are for it and repubs are against it).

Republican Views on Net Neutrality | Republican Views

 

[Richard T]

OK, so what is your oonership so we can decide if there are conflicts of interest? Also, did you receive payment for the banner. Google, Verizon, Netflix, Amazon, and porn sites will be the most affected by new rules as they consume the bandwidth. By the way, I do not approach this debate on political grounds. I approach it on moral grounds. The above companies above are immoral, they stand for many things the fundamental believer does not. This is a chance to clip their wings. No free lunch for those that consume most of the bandwidth.

 

[1000Flames]

I am not for it the way it was written and used by the deep state. (That's why dems are for it and repubs are against it).

Republican Views on Net Neutrality | Republican Views

 

[GoldenBoy89]

This thread is a perfect example of why I've lost all faith in the political future of the United States.

 

[Brent W]

OK, so what is your oonership so we can decide if there are conflicts of interest?

Ownership of what?

Also, did you receive payment for the banner.

No.

Google, Verizon, Netflix, Amazon, and porn sites will be the most affected by new rules as they consume the bandwidth.

This isn't a bandwidth issue. ISPs are very capable of serving the bandwidth.

By the way, I do not approach this debate on political grounds.

Yes you do. You couldn't even argue your opinion on Net Neutrality without taking a shot at liberals.

I approach it on moral grounds.

No you don't. See above.

The above companies above are immoral, they stand for many things the fundamental believer does not.

And ISPs aren't? What makes you think that ISPs, which repealing Net Neutrality would favor, are on some kind of higher moral high ground than Google?

Furthermore, within the laws of the United States, since when did morality censorship become a welcome thing with people in this country? That is a very dangerous line you are walking down if you are indeed saying you are ok with censorship of data from Google and other companies you listed based on morals.

This is a chance to clip their wings. No free lunch for those that consume most of the bandwidth.

There is no free lunch. Those companies pay for the infrastructure and content and ISPs get plenty of Federal funds to support their networks.