We're in the battle for the net

[Mr_Mr_Mr]

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

"Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.
Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.
Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.
It also causes tremendous economic harm. If ISPs can speed up favored services and slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field. When ISPs can slow your site and destroy your business at will, how can any startup attract investors?
My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.
ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it."

TL;DR: Major cable companies are trying to slow down every website that doesn't pay them money.

[SalsaInABowl]

Loadout:

RYNO V
The Fatboy
Golden M1911

For Internetia!

[OzzyKP]

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

"Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.
Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.
Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.
It also causes tremendous economic harm. If ISPs can speed up favored services and slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field. When ISPs can slow your site and destroy your business at will, how can any startup attract investors?
My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.
ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it."

TL;DR: Major cable companies are trying to slow down every website that doesn't pay them money.

Hmm, I'm not sure where I stand on "net neutrality", but if it is to happen it should happen through the legislative process.  We shouldn't let such a massive and far reaching rule affecting the whole of the Internet be crafted by a five person communications commission. 

Whether it is done by legislation or regulatory fiat the issue is quite a bit more complicated than your TL;DR summary.  Making this change would result in a very big change in how the Internet is looked at and regulated by the government.  It could have sweeping effects on many other areas that would be far more damaging than paying an extra $2 a month for Netflix. 

I think we are better off without trying to regulate the Internet.  But if we were going to try, at least pass a law through the democratic process. 

[Nick3306]

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

"Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data equally. As an Internet user, net neutrality is vitally important to me. The FCC should use its Title II authority to protect it.
Most Americans have only one choice for truly high speed Internet: their local cable company. This is a political failure, and it is an embarrassment. America deserves competition and choice.
Without net neutrality, a bad situation gets even worse. These ISPs will now be able to manipulate our Internet experience by speeding up some services and slowing down others. That kills choice, diversity, and quality.
It also causes tremendous economic harm. If ISPs can speed up favored services and slow others, new businesses will no longer be able to rely on a level playing field. When ISPs can slow your site and destroy your business at will, how can any startup attract investors?
My friends, family, and I use the Internet for conversation and fun, but also for work and business. When you let ISPs mess with our Internet experience, you are attacking our social lives, our entertainment, and our economic well being. We won't stand for it.
ISPs are opposing Title II so that they can destroy the FCC's net neutrality rules in court. This is the same trick they pulled last time. Please, let's not be fooled again. Title II is the strong, legally sound way to enforce net neutrality. Use it."

TL;DR: Major cable companies are trying to slow down every website that doesn't pay them money.

Hmm, I'm not sure where I stand on "net neutrality", but if it is to happen it should happen through the legislative process.  We shouldn't let such a massive and far reaching rule affecting the whole of the Internet be crafted by a five person communications commission. 

Whether it is done by legislation or regulatory fiat the issue is quite a bit more complicated than your TL;DR summary.  Making this change would result in a very big change in how the Internet is looked at and regulated by the government.  It could have sweeping effects on many other areas that would be far more damaging than paying an extra $2 a month for Netflix. 

I think we are better off without trying to regulate the Internet.  But if we were going to try, at least pass a law through the democratic process. 

I don't think you understand exactly what is going on. We do need them to regulate the internet, especially in this case. While Mr's TL;DR is not exactly what is happening with net neutrality, it is basically what will happen if it goes away.

In simple terms, net neutrality says that everyone has the right to the internet equally. An ISP has to provide the same speed to a low end site like this one as a high end one like netflix. Cable companies would love to get rid of net neutrality because then they could basically blackmail sites like netflix and say if you dont pay us money, we will slow down our users connection speeds to your site resulting in a loss of customers.

Net neutrality is essential to every person who uses the net, most people just don't realize it. So yes, we do need it regulated.

[OzzyKP]

I don't think you understand exactly what is going on. We do need them to regulate the internet, especially in this case. While Mr's TL;DR is not exactly what is happening with net neutrality, it is basically what will happen if it goes away.

In simple terms, net neutrality says that everyone has the right to the internet equally. An ISP has to provide the same speed to a low end site like this one as a high end one like netflix. Cable companies would love to get rid of net neutrality because then they could basically blackmail sites like netflix and say if you dont pay us money, we will slow down our users connection speeds to your site resulting in a loss of customers.

Net neutrality is essential to every person who uses the net, most people just don't realize it. So yes, we do need it regulated.

I understand the issue. 

Is it a deep injustice that my cable provider charges more for HBO than for the other channels?  Should the government force cable providers to provide all channels for the same price?  Should the government force phone companies to charge the same for local and international calls?  That doesn't make any sense, but that is what net neutrality is arguing for.

Companies like Netflix are making money hand over fist by using the physical network built and maintained by ISPs, and those ISPs have to incur additional costs to support the large bandwidth taken up by those other companies.  It is only fair that ISPs try to recoup some of those costs.  Now, would I prefer they didn't?  Sure.  I don't want to pay extra for anything, whatever it is.  But these kinds of regulations have massive unintended consequences, most likely this kind of extra red tape will result in all of us paying more for Internet access.  It'll probably result in reducing choice as well.

The Internet as we know it has thrived in a low regulation environment, once we start choking it with federal regulations it is going to destroy the free, innovative environment we know and love.  Cable companies may be the bad guys now, but I assure you once this Pandora's box is opened there will be plenty of new bad guys who need the government to kick to the curb. 

This isn't some crusade against big business, this is picking winners and losers between big businesses.  Netflix, Google, and others are huge, massive corporations.  They don't need the help of government to make money, they are pretty good at it.  Helping out their bottom line at the expense of other companies is not a proper role for government. 

And again, if you are going to use the government to pick winners and losers, is it really too much to ask that a law be passed?  Isn't that how things are done in democratic societies?  Rule of law and all?

[Nick3306]

I don't think you understand exactly what is going on. We do need them to regulate the internet, especially in this case. While Mr's TL;DR is not exactly what is happening with net neutrality, it is basically what will happen if it goes away.

In simple terms, net neutrality says that everyone has the right to the internet equally. An ISP has to provide the same speed to a low end site like this one as a high end one like netflix. Cable companies would love to get rid of net neutrality because then they could basically blackmail sites like netflix and say if you dont pay us money, we will slow down our users connection speeds to your site resulting in a loss of customers.

Net neutrality is essential to every person who uses the net, most people just don't realize it. So yes, we do need it regulated.

I understand the issue.  

Is it a deep injustice that my cable provider charges more for HBO than for the other channels?  Should the government force cable providers to provide all channels for the same price?  Should the government force phone companies to charge the same for local and international calls?  That doesn't make any sense, but that is what net neutrality is arguing for.

Companies like Netflix are making money hand over fist by using the physical network built and maintained by ISPs, and those ISPs have to incur additional costs to support the large bandwidth taken up by those other companies.  It is only fair that ISPs try to recoup some of those costs.  Now, would I prefer they didn't?  Sure.  I don't want to pay extra for anything, whatever it is.  But these kinds of regulations have massive unintended consequences, most likely this kind of extra red tape will result in all of us paying more for Internet access.  It'll probably result in reducing choice as well.

The Internet as we know it has thrived in a low regulation environment, once we start choking it with federal regulations it is going to destroy the free, innovative environment we know and love.  Cable companies may be the bad guys now, but I assure you once this Pandora's box is opened there will be plenty of new bad guys who need the government to kick to the curb.  

This isn't some crusade against big business, this is picking winners and losers between big businesses.  Netflix, Google, and others are huge, massive corporations.  They don't need the help of government to make money, they are pretty good at it.  Helping out their bottom line at the expense of other companies is not a proper role for government.  

And again, if you are going to use the government to pick winners and losers, is it really too much to ask that a law be passed?  Isn't that how things are done in democratic societies?  Rule of law and all?

You seem to not realize that net neutrality has been a thing for a long time. The net has thrived under net neutrality, so you need to re think your argument.

And ISP's make millions by vastly overcharging for the services they provide by holding a near monopoly in certain areas since they can make deals with cities to only use their services.

[OzzyKP]

You seem to not realize that all this time when there has been 'net neutrality' no regulation forced it to happen.  So what are you so worried about that such a radical step needs to be taken now? 

If anything, regulating the Internet will make ISPs even more like monopolies than they are now. 

[Nick3306]

You seem to not realize that all this time when there has been 'net neutrality' no regulation forced it to happen.  So what are you so worried about that such a radical step needs to be taken now?  

If anything, regulating the Internet will make ISPs even more like monopolies than they are now.  

Um yes, it was regulated the whole time......That's why this is a big deal. Not a radical step, this is to hold up net neutrality as it has been for a long time.

Also I would love to see your reasoning behind how regulating the internet would make ISP's even more of a monopoly.

[OzzyKP]

Wait, you think net neutrality was already the law? And then something changed? What is that based on?

As for regulation, in most cases regulations end up supporting big businesses at the expense of small ones, this impedes competition. Regulations always impose additional costs on companies, the big ones can afford to deal with the extra expenses, small ones can't. They also make it costlier and more complicated for new companies to enter a market. 

Look at deregulation of the airline industry. When it was heavily regulated there were few airlines and they charged high prices. Once the industry was deregulated prices dropped significantly, competition increased and everyone benefited.

[Nick3306]

Wait, you think net neutrality was already the law? And then something changed? What is that based on?

As for regulation, in most cases regulations end up supporting big businesses at the expense of small ones, this impedes competition. Regulations always impose additional costs on companies, the big ones can afford to deal with the extra expenses, small ones can't. They also make it costlier and more complicated for new companies to enter a market.  

Look at deregulation of the airline industry. When it was heavily regulated there were few airlines and they charged high prices. Once the industry was deregulated prices dropped significantly, competition increased and everyone benefited.

no, it's not a law, it's a practice that has been going on for years. It has also been enforced by the fcc a times.  If it becomes a law it will be the exact same thing as we have it now. Youre using  a broad generalization about regulations that didn't apply here. If they regulate net neutrality,it won't cost companies more.

[OzzyKP]

Ah, so you are saying companies are voluntarily abiding by net neutrality ideas. If that's the case, then what is the need for this regulation? Why force companies to do what they are already doing?

[Nick3306]

Ah, so you are saying companies are voluntarily abiding by net neutrality ideas. If that's the case, then what is the need for this regulation? Why force companies to do what they are already doing?

It has also been enforced by the fcc at times.

ISP's dont always folow this though, there have been a few times companies were caught slowing down the speeds of certain things for certain people.

The thing is that ISP's would rather not challenge the FCC on this even if they could possibly win. However, if the FCC were to try to get this in law and fail, that gives these companies the go ahead to carry out these practices without the possible threat of anyone interfering.