Net Neutrality and Comcast/Netflix agreement

[Zontar]

snip

And I personally don't think we should do anything. People being upset doesn't mean the government has to do something. Hell, the "do something" mentality creates more problems than it solves.

Really? So letting an unchecked monopoly continue is better then setting up reasonable regulations that are in the interests of both customers and businesses?

 

[Zontar]

Really? So letting an unchecked monopoly continue is better then setting up reasonable regulations that are in the interests of both customers and businesses?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I'd rather the government kept its hand completely out of the Internet. I live in America and we don't do that. And I like that. And I want to keep it that way.

You can't prove your solution would be effective without disrupting my Internet access and speed. So I don't trust it. Call it the "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet" promise that won't be kept.

The FCCs stance is, amazingly, just that. The only problem is that as it stands there is no ways for: companies to keep their promise of the advertised level of download speed or not interfering with the connection to websites intentionally with the intent of making said websites pay them money to get a better connection.

Simply put, with the exception of broadband service providers it is in everyone's interest to keep net neutrality alive, and no, net neutrality is NOT the government keeping away from the internet, it's broadband providers not being allowed to abuse their position of monopoly.

 

[Zontar]

Simply put, with the exception of broadband service providers it is in everyone's interest to keep net neutrality alive, and no, net neutrality is NOT the government keeping away from the internet, it's broadband providers not being allowed to abuse their position of monopoly.

Because the FCC will just do that if granted the power to regulate the Internet. I don't trust them. And they've given me no evidence they'd act well. They're one of the only bureaucratic offices known for censorship abuses in the United States. Why do you trust them?

Because the court case wasn't even about content on the internet but the regulations they put in place for internet service providers. You know, like the fact that if you advertise that your package comes with 5GPS download speed, you actually have to provide 5GPS download speed for people who buy said package? That's the type of thing that the FCC was doing, upholding existing laws in a field which is new, and only because it is new are there no laws technically in place to govern it (though at the same time they also are technically under the FCCs mandate given the wording of the laws are open to interpretation). Net Neutrality, and it being eliminated in a lower federal court, was never about the content of the internet nor the threat or possibility of it being censored, it was and is about the laws and ethics around the service being provided.

 

[Zontar]

Because the court case wasn't even about content on the internet but the regulations they put in place for internet service providers. You know, like the fact that if you advertise that your package comes with 5GPS download speed, you actually have to provide 5GPS download speed for people who buy said package? That's the type of thing that the FCC was doing, upholding existing laws in a field which is new, and only because it is new are there no laws technically in place to govern it (though at the same time they also are technically under the FCCs mandate given the wording of the laws are open to interpretation). Net Neutrality, and it being eliminated in a lower federal court, was never about the content of the internet nor the threat or possibility of it being censored, it was and is about the laws and ethics around the service being provided.

No, the argument was whether the FCC had the statutory authority to even create these regulations. Which the judge ruled they lacked the statutory authority to do.

The FCC wants to do more than what net neutrality proponents want. And I don't want to give them that foot in the door. I'd rather keep the door shut in their face and locked, triply.

I'd need to see the details of the case, since that isn't what I've seen, however if that is the case then we still have the problem of the corporate monopolies operating without regulations over what is now in many ways an essential service because when the judge shot them down they took their ability to do anything that had anything to do with the internet with them. No regulation of content is one thing, it's what everyone wants (and so far no one has stated otherwise), not having ant regulation on the service, however, is the real issue here and is also the one thing that can not be allowed to continue.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Because the FCC will just do that if granted the power to regulate the Internet. I don't trust them. And they've given me no evidence they'd act well. They're one of the only bureaucratic offices known for censorship abuses in the United States. Why do you trust them?

Strictly speaking on Net Neutrality, has there been any evidence of abuse in the past? On the flip side, ISPs almost immediately abuse their powers when they were given the chance.

Like I stated before. When Net Neutrality is compromised, it ceases to be Net Neutrality. That's the objective truth you seem to be conveniently ignoring.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Can you really use the word "abuse" in this context in a way that's objective?
Given the nature of politics, something I may support could easily seem abusive to someone else and vice-versa.

So I guess in a way, you're correct. But I would argue that regardless of what side they're on, that's what their job is, it's just how you word it.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/time-warner-and-embarq-cant-compete-with-city-owned-isp-trying/

I'm going to leave this here for people banging on how ISP's have a "hard time". Instead of trying to compete they just want to outlaw, and only because they don't want someone else in their sand box. So excuse me if I don't feel bad for a ISP right away when they whine it's not fair.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Can you really use the word "abuse" in this context in a way that's objective?
Given the nature of politics, something I may support could easily seem abusive to someone else and vice-versa.

So I guess in a way, you're correct. But I would argue that regardless of what side they're on, that's what their job is, it's just how you word it.

Doing something outside of the bounds of ethics or the law. That's a really easy definition.

... not really.

"Not outside the Law" is fine ... until you realize some laws are just bullshit. I think everyone can think of a few that they would like to see just go away. So by your definition, operating outside those laws, even if it was perfectly justifiable, would qualify as abuse. However, to some, it may come off as doing the right thing, or even just pointless and not worth arguing about.

Ethics are subjective and based on culture, among other things.