Net Neutrality

[trunks2k]

All kinds of people. The middle and upper middle are responsible for the carrying out of policies.

People at the bottom are like myself and my wife. We do the actual implementation.

We get our jobs by applying for them. Job listings are at USAJobs.gov

Yes, but the people at the top have a LOT of influence on who the people in bottom and middle are, and how they do their jobs. Just look at how the EPA has changed under the Trump admin.

 

[Dave-W]

Just look at how the EPA has changed under the Trump admin.

eh - only partly. The litigators still have the same cases on their desks; but the funding cuts slowed them down. The only thing that REALLY changed was the "official statements" and the speed with which those people hired under previous administrations get to do their jobs.

 

[jardiniere]

People don't care about "Net Neutrality": they care about "internet freedom" which is the same as "freedom"

...what 87% of Americans now understand in their bones -- is that internet freedom matters because that's where human freedom comes from in a society wired together by the internet. Everything we do today involves the internet. Everything we do tomorrow will require it. If we don't have a free, fair and open internet infrastructure, we're screwed. People care about internet access for the same reason they care about shelter, and water, and heat, and food: not because they're architecture fanciers or gourmands -- because human flourishing requires these things....
Because we rely on these private providers to make our businesses function, our speech flow, and our new enterprises take flight, these companies have to be burdened with public obligations. We've got a perfectly good law on the books—the one the Obama administration used as the source of its power to issue its rules. Now all we have to do is resolve to use it....

If it's not clear yet, the lack of net neutrality will negatively impact innovation and entrepreneurship, because these two things depend on an internet infrastructure that creates the level playing field where these two things thrive. Lacking net neutrality will allow established internet dependent companies to retard new ideas that could harm them economically. With net neutrality, the small companies have a fighting chance to establish their ideas alongside the giants of the industry.

Net Neutrality Is Just a Gateway to the Real Issue: Internet Freedom

 

[USincognito]

Good article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

Awesome. An opinion piece in Town Hall from a lawyer. And the title assures me it's a sober, cogent discussion of the issue.

 

[USincognito]

They're still subject to the usual monopoly rules, aren't they? AT&T was already broken up before the net became an issue, and then they clawed their way back for some reason I do not get.

That's not quite what happened. RBOC (regional bell operating company) Southwestern Bell grew into quite a powerhouse, changed it's name to SBC Communications and eventually bought it's former parent company. The cachet of the AT&T brand name was so valuable that SBC became AT&T after the acquisition.

 

[MrSpikey]

But I am genuinely alarmed about these private companies censoring the socio-political contributions of private individuals as they have begun to do. This is a formula for controlling the outcome of elections.

You'll be glad to learn that if a private company is violating the terms of the contract you entered into with them, by censoring your contributions in violation of the contract terms, you can pursue them for damages.

Of course, if you haven't entered into a contract with them - for example, by using a service which is offered online for free - then that company can conduct their business as they like, and decide what content is or is not acceptable. To pick an example at random, websites that are centered around a particular religious belief can set their own standards of conduct that posters must adhere to based on those principles.

Obviously, if you find such things genuinely alarming, then lobby your government to prevent private companies censoring the free services they choose to provide to individuals - with all the consequences that entails.

 

[MrSpikey]

Good article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

Are there any depths these Socialists won't stoop to? They will be demanding a Socialist police force and military next!

 

[USincognito]

I can believe that, but as I said before, I can stomach that. It is not a new phenomenon. But I am genuinely alarmed about these private companies censoring the socio-political contributions of private individuals as they have begun to do. This is a formula for controlling the outcome of elections.

O.k. Just one question though. What the heck does that have to do with Net Neutrality which is not about speech but about ISP's throttling content from other providers as a way to make you use their provider or pay more for the other provider's content?

 

[Albion]

You'll be glad to learn that if a private company is violating the terms of the contract you entered into with them, by censoring your contributions in violation of the contract terms, you can pursue them for damages.

Of course, if you haven't entered into a contract with them - for example, by using a service which is offered online for free - then that company can conduct their business as they like, and decide what content is or is not acceptable. To pick an example at random, websites that are centered around a particular religious belief can set their own standards of conduct that posters must adhere to based on those principles.

Obviously, if you find such things genuinely alarming, then lobby your government to prevent private companies censoring the free services they choose to provide to individuals - with all the consequences that entails.

It's interesting how many times posters say "then the voters can change things" or "lobby the government for a change later" as an argument in favor of doing the wrong thing in the first place!

Yet I never hear anyone say "Let them double the taxes (or ban all Muslim immigrants or move the embassy to Jerusalem, etc.) There's no reason not to do it since the voters can always change that decision in the next election if they don't like it"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If it's so great, why are only the Democrats for it?
What makes it bad for Republicans?

That's an easy one...

As the old saying goes "follow the money".

Many republicans in congress have financial ties with, or receive campaign funding from, some of the major players in the industry who have every interest in squashing NN for profit-driven reasons.

Of course, they use their usual selling point of "any/all forms of regulation = socialism" to get their ardent supporters to blindly support their decision without actually researching it.

 

[MrSpikey]

It's interesting how many times posters say "then the voters can change things" or "lobby the government for a change later" as an argument in favor of doing the wrong thing in the first place!

Do you think this forum has a right to decide which forums users can post in, based on their beliefs, and to censor content that doesn't meet their guidelines? Or is that another example of "doing the wrong thing in the first place"? If you think private companies should not be able to apply guidelines to the content they accept in a free online service, that would apply here as much as anywhere else.

 

[Albion]

Do you think this forum has a right to decide which forums users can post in, based on their beliefs, and to censor content that doesn't meet their guidelines? Or is that another example of "doing the wrong thing in the first place"? If you think private companies should not be able to apply guidelines to the content they accept in a free online service, that would apply here as much as anywhere else.

I don't think that Christian Forums and Google are comparable.

 

[jardiniere]

Does anyone here have a better understanding of what the term "net neutrality" means than before this thread? Or has anyone changed their minds about whether or not net neutrality is a positive stance to take in a capitalistic society?

 

[Brent W]

Does anyone here have a better understanding of what the term "net neutrality" means than before this thread? Or has anyone changed their minds about whether or not net neutrality is a positive stance to take in a capitalistic society?

and if they don't, please ask questions. It is very encouraging to see this poll come out the way it has. 75 percent of our members here who have an interest in Net Neutrality say that they support it. That is fantastic.