Net Neutrality Rules Expire Monday, as Lawmakers Push for Paid Data Prioritization

[Exavior]

There is an informal logical fallacy: misuse of analogy. Online security in 1945 has absolutely no relevance today. An area that is not flooded today may never flood in the future or it could flood tomorrow. If there is no history of flooding it would be absurd to invest significantly in anti-flood prevention.If monopolistic abuses by internet corporations is a concern why did the Obama administration only focus on ISP's? Why did they not address internet media monopoly's? Was the net really neutral when internet media companies promote a progressive agenda while suppressing and disparaging discussions on traditional American polices and politics?

No... Net Neutrality was "never" neutral and eliminating the Federal Governments role will only return power to State and Local control and by consequence return power to the people.

There is no misuse of an analogy. Before people were streaming there was nothing to worry about. When Netflix was DVD only ISPs didn't have to try to stop them from using their bandwidth as you weren't using much. Before everyone was streaming on Twitch you didn't need to stop them from streaming because they weren't. Before YouTube you didn't need to stop people from uploading vlogs every day. Things change. Different things use more and more of your bandwidth if you are an ISP. The rate at which bandwidth usage raises isn't a even raise. 15 years ago it might have taken 4 years to see it double, then it was 3 years, then 2. There used to be something called a maintenance window where you knew that you could work on stuff and not have anyone be bothered. Now, there is no time of day where there is no bandwidth being used. 2AM you still see traffic for gaming and video streams. Just because the internet wasn't some certain way back in 2000 or even 2010 doesn't mean that it can't be that way in 2018 or 2025. Everyone tried to compare how the internet was in 2000 and state that since it wasn't some say in 2000 it can't be that way today. My analogy simply shows that if you go back far enough sure something isn't a problem because you haven't reached that point yet, that doesn't mean that it can't change or can't become an issue in time.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to ask in regards to media monopolies. The attempts of the rules however good or bad they might have been designed and what extra crap they had with them (which is everything the government does, they can't pass paying teachers that month without tacking on something unrelated) where to ensure that ISPs kept offering a neutral network just like they had been doing since the start. It did not change anything, it prevented the changing of anything. The internet had been neutral all this time. You were able to use your Internet connection to surf facebook or youtube or Netflix all without problems due to not having paid your ISP more for access to any of those sites. The companies on the other side only had to worry about paying their ISP for bandwidth and didn't have to worry about paying somebody else also because they were going over their data connection. This is no difference than long distance. There are rules and regulations in place to make things neutral. As a Telco I can't decide that I don't want my customers calling any other telco and block calling those people. When you make a long distance call, your carrier pays who ever they hand the call off to, they in turn pay for who they hand the call off to and so on till the call reaches the end. The company at the end can't decide that even though they got paid from the person ahead of them this number calls their customers a lot so they are going to start giving them a separate bill asking for more money because they are tired of this company using their phone lines without paying a premium. This has nothing to do with content, it is simply an idea of access. When you pay for internet access what should you be able to access and where should you be able to access? Should your ISP paying for interconnections and bandwidth be enough to cover your access, or should these companies be able to bill you directly because your traffic is going across the interconnect so you need to pay per Mbps that you sent from your ISP to some other ISP on top of what you pay your ISP? That is that was trying to be avoided. A point where if you want to access HardOCP. You pay your ISP your monthly bill plus access to certain categories of data, you then pay whoever they hand off to for data you use on their network, then pay the ISP of hardocp since you are using their data. What the actual end data was trying to do or brainwash you of isn't part of that and is a whole different thing.

 

[thejokker]

The Internet has been run via Net Neutrality for the majority of its life. It was run off of NN during DARPA days, and during the early commercial years, and the mid commercials years through the DSL boom.

If your problem is with content providers like google, twitter, and facebook, then your only real option is reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine though you probably don't REALLY want the fairness doctrine. Mind you, that would basically kill all of conservative media, but I'm not sure that will be much loss.

Nor does NN allow the government to control what we see or how we think.

So it seems as though you agree with me that Net Neutrality has been and can still be achieved without the participation of the Federal Government. Internet companies responding to the wants and needs of their customers do not need the federal government to control the growth of internet. I don't really think the federal government should regulate content providers only pointing out the hypocrisy of Federal Net Neutrality. We already have the Sherman anti-trust act...

 

[thejokker]

There is no misuse of an analogy. Before people were streaming there was nothing to worry about. When Netflix was DVD only ISPs didn't have to try to stop them from using their bandwidth as you weren't using much. Before everyone was streaming on Twitch you didn't need to stop them from streaming because they weren't. Before YouTube you didn't need to stop people from uploading vlogs every day. Things change. Different things use more and more of your bandwidth if you are an ISP. The rate at which bandwidth usage raises isn't a even raise. 15 years ago it might have taken 4 years to see it double, then it was 3 years, then 2. There used to be something called a maintenance window where you knew that you could work on stuff and not have anyone be bothered. Now, there is no time of day where there is no bandwidth being used. 2AM you still see traffic for gaming and video streams. Just because the internet wasn't some certain way back in 2000 or even 2010 doesn't mean that it can't be that way in 2018 or 2025. Everyone tried to compare how the internet was in 2000 and state that since it wasn't some say in 2000 it can't be that way today. My analogy simply shows that if you go back far enough sure something isn't a problem because you haven't reached that point yet, that doesn't mean that it can't change or can't become an issue in time.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to ask in regards to media monopolies. The attempts of the rules however good or bad they might have been designed and what extra crap they had with them (which is everything the government does, they can't pass paying teachers that month without tacking on something unrelated) where to ensure that ISPs kept offering a neutral network just like they had been doing since the start. It did not change anything, it prevented the changing of anything. The internet had been neutral all this time. You were able to use your Internet connection to surf facebook or youtube or Netflix all without problems due to not having paid your ISP more for access to any of those sites. The companies on the other side only had to worry about paying their ISP for bandwidth and didn't have to worry about paying somebody else also because they were going over their data connection. This is no difference than long distance. There are rules and regulations in place to make things neutral. As a Telco I can't decide that I don't want my customers calling any other telco and block calling those people. When you make a long distance call, your carrier pays who ever they hand the call off to, they in turn pay for who they hand the call off to and so on till the call reaches the end. The company at the end can't decide that even though they got paid from the person ahead of them this number calls their customers a lot so they are going to start giving them a separate bill asking for more money because they are tired of this company using their phone lines without paying a premium. This has nothing to do with content, it is simply an idea of access. When you pay for internet access what should you be able to access and where should you be able to access? Should your ISP paying for interconnections and bandwidth be enough to cover your access, or should these companies be able to bill you directly because your traffic is going across the interconnect so you need to pay per Mbps that you sent from your ISP to some other ISP on top of what you pay your ISP? That is that was trying to be avoided. A point where if you want to access HardOCP. You pay your ISP your monthly bill plus access to certain categories of data, you then pay whoever they hand off to for data you use on their network, then pay the ISP of hardocp since you are using their data. What the actual end data was trying to do or brainwash you of isn't part of that and is a whole different thing.

You are missing my point. We do not need the Federal Government to enforce Net Neutrality. Local and State Governments are more responsive to the needs of their citizens. Considering how the internet has grown and thrived there is no reason to believe internet companies will not continue to tailor their products towards consumer needs and wants. It is hypocritical for the Federal Government to enforce NN for ISP's while ignoring internet content providers.

Yes; corporations are greedy scumbags but politicians are way, way worse. We cannot trust politicians to manage the internet...

 

[Biznatch]

So it seems as though you agree with me that Net Neutrality has been and can still be achieved without the participation of the Federal Government. Internet companies responding to the wants and needs of their customers do not need the federal government to control the growth of internet. I don't really think the federal government should regulate content providers only pointing out the hypocrisy of Federal Net Neutrality. We already have the Sherman anti-trust act...

Uh because the ONLY thing the 'Internet Companies' care about is more money for themselves/share holders. They do NOT give a shit about the customers, and that should be pretty apparent since they are rated some of the worst companies in the nation. But sure, it's all these regulations hurting the poor poor ISPs barely making more insane profits each year. I'm sure once they are gone, the 'Internet Companies' won't abuse their freedom to fuck us customers over, and will suddenly start splurging on infrastructure spending to fix congestion. They definitely won't try and fix it with throttling or data caps......

Yes, the true fix is to remove these bullshit local laws lobbied for by the ISPs preventing other companies from rolling out infrastructure. But when the local politicians are in the pockets of these big corporations, and the districts so heavily gerrymandered with like minded idiots (on both sides), making that change is going to be glacially slow (decades) without help from the federal government. But then we get into the issue of states vs feds rights.... And now we're back to why we should have some sort of framework at the federal level when regarding something as critical as the internet. Maybe a regulatory body designed to regulate communications, I dunno, like the FCC??.... Just like they did with TV, phones etc as the new technologies became more important/common place in everyone's lives.

And you bring up the anti-trust act. How well is that working out for everyone? How many times has that been used against the ISPs when people report them violating different laws? Because I haven't heard any case of the FTC getting involved or doing a god damn thing in regards to ISPs or the internet.



And no, corporations are the most corrupt, and the ones using their influence/money to make political corruption far worse. They will NEVER self regulate in a way that benefits consumers, only share holders. Without regulation, corporations will just get bigger and bigger, consuming all the competition, and then we end up where we are today. 3 mega ISPs running most of the internet, all in their own geographic locations so they have no competition. Go capitalism.....