Internet Neutrality

[HeavyGunner]

Not very well versed on the issue. I have only read the article that I am posting on this thread. From what I gather if net neutrality ends it will make the internet less individual. By that I mean since companies can slow down the streaming of competing content, block it and put their content at an advantage as far as advertising we will have less choice in what we see. From what little I know about this my opinion is this could really change the way the internet is used. 

https://apple.news/AbaP0xm5dRRuOA6awHOBqOA

[Keith Pommerening]

Do you want the goverment to have control of the internet.  Check their track record. For example:  Obamacare, immigration, gun control, electronic logs, climate change regulation, coal usage..... 

 

[HeavyGunner]

The way I read the article this new law will not allow the government to regulate the Internet (which they have been since its inception) in any way shape or form. From what I can understand different companies can now get into bed with each other for the sole purpose of keeping the public from being able to choose what they see.  To me that hypothetically could mean Paccar and Volvo could get together with Google and bury bmt, Mack trucks and anything else realated to Mack on the net. I know that was an extreme example but I don't necessarily want the success of business on the internet solely based on who has enough money i.e. Lobbyist and other types of backers want me to see. If this is the case seems like warren buffet and George soros and other uber rich people could control a lot of what we see, hear and buy on the net. Generally I'm against government interfering with much of anything because they have a track record of spending recklessly, not treating the government like a business so they don't care how inefficient they do things since they go right back to the tax payers to make up for their poor math skills. In all honesty I'm not well versed at all on this topic but am very interested since I heard about it today. 

[Keith Pommerening]

The first thing one notices is that the video is a product of CNN.  They are no longer a trusted source of information.  As I understand the growth and freedom of the net is because the govenment has not controled it.  Want the goverment to decide what you see?

[HeavyGunner]

According to the article I posted there have been “fair play” regulations which kept phone, internet companies from unfairly and purposely burying advertisers or competitors. So it seems to me that now without that regulation a cable company or internet provider can legally take money from anyone and make sure it’s harder to find or see the said competitor. Like I said before nearly every time it comes up I’m adamantly against more government but I’m not sure about that on this issue yet. 

[DailyDiesel]

HeavyGunner your assessment on the matter is correct. Without net neutrality telecoms like Verizon or AT&T can limit where and how you go on the web. For instance, Verizon owns Yahoo. If you have internet or mobile service through Verizon they could in theory block you from accessing any Google products as Google is a major competitor to Yahoo.

Or maybe they don't block you but charge you more for certain parts of the web. Splitting the internet into packages similar for cable. Just 19.99 for email! LIke facebook? Add that package for 9.99 more! Nextflix? Just another 10.99 extra a month. General web browsing? Only 29.99! It will be like cable all over again.

[DailyDiesel]

1 hour ago, Keith Pommerening said:

The first thing one notices is that the video is a product of CNN.  They are no longer a trusted source of information.  As I understand the growth and freedom of the net is because the govenment has not controled it.  Want the goverment to decide what you see?

So instead you'll allow corporate America to manage it?

Please realize the internet we have today was built around the premise of net neutrality. Under the guise of "reducing government" regulations we have essentially allowed more regulations to come into effect....except they would come from telecom monopolies of which you have little to zero control over.

Don't forget, the current FCC chair once worked Verizon and used to lobby against net neutrality on their behalf. This whole deal stinks to high heaven.

[HeavyGunner]

Thanks for the clarification Dailydeisel, this could fundamentally change and or ruin the internet. Hopefully this gets repealed. I have noticed recently lots of YouTube channels and podcasts now require a paid subscription to watch/listen to them. I don’t think they will be able to make simply because they already had advertisers and sponsors and the biggest reason people tuned in was because it’s decent material that’s free. I don’t think people will go for paying $3-$10/month per show because most shows are short and if I’m going to be paying $100/month for online subscriptions I might as well break down and get satellite tv. 

[DailyDiesel]

I hope so too. The internet and all the associated businesses that rely on it are a major part of the economy now.  Billions, if not trillions of dollars of year. Without net neutrality you allow the big players to carve up the web to suit their needs will stifling or keeping out small or new ventures.

[ranchhopper]

Any way you look at it the government will get its hands on the internet its a vast uncharted territory ripe for taxation as with everything else follow the money.

[41chevy]

15 minutes ago, ranchhopper said:

Any way you look at it the government will get its hands on the internet its a vast uncharted territory ripe for taxation as with everything else follow the money.

Look at your cable of satellite bill, we are already paying Federal and State taxes on it. But by making is private, they get top add local taxes and all kinds of fees and surcharges to your bill.

One other issue with this deal is, it turns control over to a Global control by  companies. Your next provider could be based in any country world wide.

Edited December 15, 2017 by 41chevy

[ff6cav]

Net Neutrality wasn't a thing until 2015, how did we possibly use the internet in the years before that?  I'm still not quite sure how I feel about the whole issue, on one hand, I like that this will now be one less thing that the Government can micromanage, but I'm also afraid that the ISP's will try to screw their customers.  Although in our free market, consumers have the right to shop around for the best bang for their buck.  I don't see where so many people are getting the "sky is falling" mentality, but I do agree that there is potential for abuse of the system.

[carlotpilot]

in a nutshell  what this means is that any body can do anything on the net as long as you can foot the bill

[willeo6709]

 The internet without conflict would be like  bacon cheesebuurger without bacon....and we all know we love bacon....wrapped in bacon,,,,,, on yet more bacon..... where was I? oh yes, net neutrality is a big ol box  of stuff noone needs.

[Keith Pommerening]

The gooberment will do a better job of deciding what you should watch then you do!  If a business screws you over, don't do business with them again.  If the gooberment screws you over, tough shit.  Wake up sheeple.  We can not continue to turn everything over to our goverment handlers.

[HeavyGunner]

I’m with you on less government interference but I also think your point is not well thought out and coming from an emotional reaction instead of a point based on deductive reasoning. I know things can be taken out of context when reading it so I want to make it crystal clear I am not belittling you in any way this is just an opinion based on our conversation.  I think it’s short sighted to always decide one way even if it isn’t the best thing simply because you don’t like (insert any group here).  I don’t like nearly everything the government does but that does not mean that I’ll always be against everything they do simply because of my dislike of them. 

[41chevy]

The Restoring Internet Freedom Order reverses a decision made by the Obama administration to regulate internet service providers (ISPs) under the Telecommunications Act of 1934 – a law intended to establish rules for phone and local electric companies enacted decades before development of the internet.Although the internet operated effectively and efficiently without net neutrality, Obama’s FCC in 2015 suddenly and inexplicably determined a radical transformation was required to “save” it.

When information technology experts speak of “net neutrality,” they usually mean consumers should be able to access the legal content they want using the legal applications and devices they want. For example, Verizon’s network should not block data going to and from an AT&T customer’s computer.

However, under the Obama administration, liberal activists took a concept everyone agreed on and warped its definition to satisfy their goal to expand government’s power over the internet.

Obama’s net neutrality rule – officially called the Open Internet Order – prohibited a practice called “paid prioritization.” This is a  contractual agreement between a content provider like Netflix and a network owner like Verizon.Those agreements allow data to travel on less-congested networks when main routes are clogged up, and there are very good reasons why paid prioritization should be allowed. When it comes to getting data to your computer or TV, different kinds of data have different requirements. The bytes comprising an email don’t need to arrive at your computer all in the same order they were sent, but the bytes in streaming video or audio do. Receiving the data bits in the wrong order or at the wrong time can cause video distortions, stutters and other playback problems.

Companies like Netflix and YouTube – may wish to pay a little bit extra to a network company to guarantee better quality for its customers. Further, because YouTube, Netflix and other internet video streaming businesses consume lots of data compared to almost all others going online, it might make sense for Verizon and other ISPs to ask such businesses to pay a little more for their services. In the same way, the government requires 18-wheeler trucks to pay more in tolls on congested roads than people driving cars.

Supporters of net neutrality say that it protected everyday Americans from having their internet slowed down or their favorite websites blocked by a greedy, evil internet service provider well here is the deal... No internet service provider wants to be known for having “slow service" ,they will lose customers.

Now one question, if net neutrality is so important, why is it that the internet was able to grow and operate so successfully from its creation all the way until 2015 without any of these dire problems that Obama said he was saving us from? Well make no mistake about it, net neutrality wasn’t about  ensuring internet “fairness.” The truth is that net neutrality was passed by the  Obama administration to give them power over the internet to the Federal Government for censorship, blocking unfavorable content and the ability to "mold our minds" and finally the power to shut down the net if they felt it was "needed". Bottom line is Trump is undoing more of Obama's federal controls.

Edited December 17, 2017 by 41chevy

[Keith Pommerening]

You presented this much more eloquent than I, thanks.  Offering different service to different customers also is outlawed by monopoly laws already written in the law books.  Trump did us a favor correcting this one.  The real purpose of Obummer's law was to regulate the number of conservative leaning sites and boost the liberal ones to make neutrality in the eyes of liberal goverment administrators.

[DailyDiesel]

22 hours ago, Keith Pommerening said:

You presented this much more eloquent than I, thanks.  Offering different service to different customers also is outlawed by monopoly laws already written in the law books.  Trump did us a favor correcting this one.  The real purpose of Obummer's law was to regulate the number of conservative leaning sites and boost the liberal ones to make neutrality in the eyes of liberal goverment administrators.

41Chevy copied that from FoxNews which is just as biased as CNN. BUT, if that fits your wold view than so be it.

 

But anway, the exact situation you fear can now occur but at the hands of your ISP. If they happen to lean left or right they can in turn limit your access to certain media.

I guess we'll find out if this really is the end of the world as we know it. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by DailyDiesel

[Keith Pommerening]

Represent.Us, yet another goofy liberal site, claims the internet industry paid lobbyist 61 million.  If it is worth that much to keep unnecessary goverment  medding out of a business, how much is it costing us for all the other unnecessary goverment meddling in business?

[41chevy]

17 hours ago, DailyDiesel said:

41Chevy copied that from FoxNews which is just as biased as CNN. BUT, if that fits your wold view than so be it.

 

But anway, the exact situation you fear can now occur but at the hands of your ISP. If they happen to lean left or right they can in turn limit your access to certain media.

I guess we'll find out if this really is the end of the world as we know it. 

Actually Fox and CNN took it from Wired Magazine who ran it 2 months ago, who editorialized it with Gates.

Either way nothing that Trump or his"minions" is good for the people and the country and according to Mr Schummer is a Republican plan to destroy the internet after Obama saved it.

Edited December 18, 2017 by 41chevy

[TS7]

Did you forget ?  Al Gore invented the internet.

[other dog]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 12:49 AM, HeavyGunner said:

The way I read the article this new law will not allow the government to regulate the Internet (which they have been since its inception) in any way shape or form. From what I can understand different companies can now get into bed with each other for the sole purpose of keeping the public from being able to choose what they see.  To me that hypothetically could mean Paccar and Volvo could get together with Google and bury bmt, Mack trucks and anything else realated to Mack on the net. I know that was an extreme example but I don't necessarily want the success of business on the internet solely based on who has enough money i.e. Lobbyist and other types of backers want me to see. If this is the case seems like warren buffet and George soros and other uber rich people could control a lot of what we see, hear and buy on the net. Generally I'm against government interfering with much of anything because they have a track record of spending recklessly, not treating the government like a business so they don't care how inefficient they do things since they go right back to the tax payers to make up for their poor math skills. In all honesty I'm not well versed at all on this topic but am very interested since I heard about it today. 

I'm far from being the smartest person here, as most of you already know, but I looked at something on Amazon.com a few days ago. I don't even remember what it was, I order a lot of stuff from Amazon. Then the very next day I'm on facebook, and there's an ad for whatever it was I was just looking at on Amazon. Coincidence? No way, every single thing you do is monitored by somebody, i'm sure.

[Hobert62]

4 hours ago, other dog said:

I'm far from being the smartest person here, as most of you already know, but I looked at something on Amazon.com a few days ago. I don't even remember what it was, I order a lot of stuff from Amazon. Then the very next day I'm on facebook, and there's an ad for whatever it was I was just looking at on Amazon. Coincidence? No way, every single thing you do is monitored by somebody, i'm sure.

Same here.   I was looking at let's say some "informative sights" and next thing ya know they are advertising on the bottom of the BMT page.