Senate Vote Passes to Save Net Neutrality

[NoOther]

Not to the point where it needs to be. If there are still congestion issues (and ISPs claim there are) then the networks are not up to the demands of customers and the ISPs continue to fail to provide the service they promise.

Where does it need to be? Who defines that? How will we know when it finally is where it needs to be, and how often do they need to keep upgrading to keep it there?

According to the current US definitions they are all well above where they need to be...

 

[NoOther]

Nope all you can provide is traffic stats. That still doesnt make Netflix or any content provider responsible for the traffic because consumers request data. Do you tax Disney because all the roads into Disney are clogged with people getting into there? No you build a toll road and tax the people using the road...

Somehow you think its different for Netflix et al.

Okay, you provided nothing. So where does that leave us? Me with actual statistics on how networks work and how it affects people. And you with...nothing. Okay, I think we are done here.

 

[fuzzylogik]

But all the arguments you make favor the view that repealing NN is the wrong path, since this is the path desired by huge corporations.. they are not, ' imperfect' isp, nor are they weak or small... Ma bell and Am radio back then was probably the size of a months profit of these corporations. Well exaggerating for effect.

Sorry, which of my "arguments" do that?

Much of what was mentioned are historical descriptions where corporations used the government to specifically help themselves to the detriment of their competitors (with government approval enforcement and regulation - including the very same regulation that NN would fall under). And the government themselves can regulate in a way that they deem to be best (without our input)... sometimes failing spectacularly to the detriment of everybody. These are examples of what has already happened. Where does Google fit in here, since I believe that's a huge corporation, right? (They weren't possibly looking at ...sharing... utility poles, right?) And almost everything else I mentioned about current events (not the past) appears to have been ignored.

That's okay - folks who already have a side on this very likely won't budge regardless.

For those that don't have a side, I'd suggest looking at the regulation itself (if possible - the simple regulation is a light read at some 400 pages long. Those in power only decided to release it to the public two weeks after it passed. I'm sure that's how all great regulation starts). And then look at the people who were involved with writing NN - look at what they themselves say to see what it means - some of them were quite open to what they believe it means (just like the architect of the ACA - he was quite open as to what he thought about the American people). Or heck, look at where the former FEC chairwoman went to work last year after leaving her position - might help with seeing how the FEC themselves thought. And then maybe finally - look at the folks financially behind this piece of regulation - and also notice if there are any connections. And then make a decision.

Again, this has nothing to do with "Net Neutrality" and everything to do with control, power and money.

 

[Derangel]

Where does it need to be? Who defines that? How will we know when it finally is where it needs to be, and how often do they need to keep upgrading to keep it there?

According to the current US definitions they are all well above where they need to be...

If customers are not able to access the full rated speeds for their connections at ALL times then, no, it is not where it needs to be. I'd also argue that until every household in the US has the ability to get broadband (which is currently defined as at least 25Mbs) then it is not enough, though there are issues related to doing that.

Note: This only applies to wired broadband connections, not mobile or wireless. Mobile and wireless are different issues.

 

[NoOther]

If customers are not able to access the full rated speeds for their connections at ALL times then, no, it is not where it needs to be.

But they are, have you read what the rated speeds are? If you want regulation to control the language of how carriers list their speeds to include guaranteed speeds, that is a different discussion and is not anywhere in Title II.

 

[TordanGow]

The only group that generally appears to be doing fearmongering is the group proclaiming that without it is the "end of the internet as we know it" ...and as I believe was previously mentioned, that same group is using "slippery slope" arguments for possible future events while themselves ignoring history.

Why would ISPs spend a *LOT* of money lobbying to change a regulations if they definitely weren't going to do what the regulations prevented? Corporations love spending tens of millions of dollars "just because", right?


Ie. If I spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying to be able to sell tobacco to minors... then I probably want to sell tobacco to minors.

 

[NoOther]

Why would ISPs spend a *LOT* of money lobbying to change a regulations if they definitely weren't going to do what the regulations prevented? Corporations love spending tens of millions of dollars "just because", right?


Ie. If I spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying to be able to sell tobacco to minors... then I probably want to sell tobacco to minors.

Actually, generally these companies are lobbying for local governments and even in certain cases federal government to give them money to increase infrastructure.

 

[tetris42]

Obviously you failed Civics class. The President HAS to sign it or veto it. A president can only not sign when the legislative session is coming to a close, then it'll be a pocket veto.

Well like NoOther said, no, you're wrong. The president doesn't have to sign or veto any bill at all if he doesn't want to. If it's any solace, I find many of the people who vehemently disagree with me often have a different perception of reality also.

 

[kju1]

Plus Amazon does pay fees for special shipping services. Amazon also invested in using their own delivery services as well. In addition Amazon pays corporate taxes, these taxes go to the infrastructure provided.

Amazon gets discounts for the postal service and pays less. They also dont pay a dime towards using extra road capacity. No shipping companies do.

Again it all goes back to how ISPs are butthurt they because their peering agreements are actually costing them money. Cry me a river. I dont give a shit which "service" uses the majority of bandwidth. As a service provider you sell me access to the internet. That means you agree to carry the traffic I request. Dont put this on the companies I request it from, put it on the consumer where it belongs.

This is just an attempt to shift blame so they can get even bigger profits as if a net income of almost 20 billion dollars wasnt enough already...

 

[NoOther]

Amazon gets discounts for the postal service and pays less. They also dont pay a dime towards using extra road capacity. No shipping companies do.

First, Amazon pays less how? They actually paid extra to have the service deliver on Sunday. Overall now they pay less, but it didn't necessarily start that way. Also Amazon supplements it with their own delivery that they finance themselves. As for them not paying for roads/infrastructure, where do you think corporate taxes go to?

Again it all goes back to how ISPs are butthurt they because their peering agreements are actually costing them money. Cry me a river. I dont give a shit which "service" uses the majority of bandwidth. As a service provider you sell me access to the internet. That means you agree to carry the traffic I request. Dont put this on the companies I request it from, put it on the consumer where it belongs.

I don't think you understand how peering agreements work... They aren't crying about peering agreements, they are the ones that set those up themselves. Netflix is not involved in the peering agreements, but they are the biggest burden of traffic on networks. It does cause strife between companies at times, but that is a tertiary issue. The main problem is still that Netflix is the cause of most of the congestion. Netflix then takes no ownership of that. Originally, a system was setup where Netflix would build out a CDN and put it at strategic locations, and they would pay to have it located at these locations. Then they wanted to balk at that. Netflix was the one that cried a river about the costs of these agreements, even though they were cause of the traffic congestion.

This is just an attempt to shift blame so they can get even bigger profits as if a net income of almost 20 billion dollars wasnt enough already...

Bigger profits? Do you know how much it cost to build out a lot of the infrastructure that is out there? Verizon's first investment in FIOS, before they ever made a dime of it was to the tune of 24 Billion dollars. That doesn't include a lot of the upgrades they have done since. So they paid a massive upfront cost. That is what all these companies do when they upgrade, they pay massive upfront costs that they then try recoop over a decade after. So the profits can be a little misleading sometimes. But yes, they do make a lot of money, as they should for providing a service that everyone wants. That doesn't mean they shouldn't also expect companies that provide the greatest burdens also pay to maintain some of the infrastructure needed to keep it up. In your example of Amazon, this is exactly why there are corporate taxes, for the infrastructure companies use.

You know who also makes huge profits, Netflix.

 

[Biznatch]

I am not defending the broadband companies, I am giving actual real world experience for the history of actual network usage and the causes for detrimental performances on networks. Streaming is a huge burden on the network that takes away from ALL the other services on the network. It is dis-proportionally used. Basically the only reason to upgrade, is to cover streaming. So why should a company that causes 40% of the traffic not be responsible at all for helping increase the networks it resides on? Why are broadband companies responsible to cover the usage of that singular application? Why are consumers responsible for covering that single usage, especially if those consumers are not using it?

Except that argument doesn't really matter. They are selling, and we are paying for an INTERnet connection. Meaning we area paying them to access content from networks outside their own. They don't get to charge me for that service, then throttle my connection or try and get money from the service I'm requesting data from. Them oversubscribing their network is NOT my problem. If they oversubscribed and are having bandwidth issues, it's up to them to upgrade their network, not reducing my service to 'fix' their problem. And it shouldn't matter if it's 'streaming' data. It's still data I'm requesting over my paid for INTERnet connection.

I don't think you understand how peering agreements work... They aren't crying about peering agreements, they are the ones that set those up themselves. Netflix is not involved in the peering agreements, but they are the biggest burden of traffic on networks. It does cause strife between companies at times, but that is a tertiary issue. The main problem is still that Netflix is the cause of most of the congestion. Netflix then takes no ownership of that. Originally, a system was setup where Netflix would build out a CDN and put it at strategic locations, and they would pay to have it located at these locations. Then they wanted to balk at that. Netflix was the one that cried a river about the costs of these agreements, even though they were cause of the traffic congestion.

Except they did take responsibility..... When the whole comcast/L3 peering bullshit was going on, they offered to give comcast their caching hardware to run locally and reduce the peering costs. Comcast wanted their 'protection' money instead, then magically the throttling stopped.

 

[NoOther]

Except that argument doesn't really matter. They are selling, and we are paying for an INTERnet connection. Meaning we area paying them to access content from networks outside their own. They don't get to charge me for that service, then throttle my connection or try and get money from the service I'm requesting data from. Them oversubscribing their network is NOT my problem. If they oversubscribed and are having bandwidth issues, it's up to them to upgrade their network, not reducing my service to 'fix' their problem. And it shouldn't matter if it's 'streaming' data. It's still data I'm requesting over my paid for INTERnet connection.

Actually they do. Even under Title II they are entitled to throttle you if it is deemed to be a detrimental impact to their network. And no, you are not actually guaranteed a right to stream whatever you want across their network, or even guaranteed a right to access other networks through theirs.

This is all part of the crux of my argument, what people are arguing for in Title II is not actually net neutrality. If you want net neutrality than there are a lot of vast changes that need to be made.

 

[tetris42]

Except that argument doesn't really matter. They are selling, and we are paying for an INTERnet connection. Meaning we area paying them to access content from networks outside their own. They don't get to charge me for that service, then throttle my connection or try and get money from the service I'm requesting data from. Them oversubscribing their network is NOT my problem. If they oversubscribed and are having bandwidth issues, it's up to them to upgrade their network, not reducing my service to 'fix' their problem. And it shouldn't matter if it's 'streaming' data. It's still data I'm requesting over my paid for INTERnet connection.

You say all this "they don't get to" and "not my problem", and "up to them" as though they are under any obligation to do these things. I'm pretty sure their usage contracts cover them 6 ways to Sunday and everything is "best effort" as defined by them, meaning they can do whatever they want.

 

[5150Joker]

First, Amazon pays less how? They actually paid extra to have the service deliver on Sunday. Overall now they pay less, but it didn't necessarily start that way. Also Amazon supplements it with their own delivery that they finance themselves. As for them not paying for roads/infrastructure, where do you think corporate taxes go to?



I don't think you understand how peering agreements work... They aren't crying about peering agreements, they are the ones that set those up themselves. Netflix is not involved in the peering agreements, but they are the biggest burden of traffic on networks. It does cause strife between companies at times, but that is a tertiary issue. The main problem is still that Netflix is the cause of most of the congestion. Netflix then takes no ownership of that. Originally, a system was setup where Netflix would build out a CDN and put it at strategic locations, and they would pay to have it located at these locations. Then they wanted to balk at that. Netflix was the one that cried a river about the costs of these agreements, even though they were cause of the traffic congestion.



Bigger profits? Do you know how much it cost to build out a lot of the infrastructure that is out there? Verizon's first investment in FIOS, before they ever made a dime of it was to the tune of 24 Billion dollars. That doesn't include a lot of the upgrades they have done since. So they paid a massive upfront cost. That is what all these companies do when they upgrade, they pay massive upfront costs that they then try recoop over a decade after. So the profits can be a little misleading sometimes. But yes, they do make a lot of money, as they should for providing a service that everyone wants. That doesn't mean they shouldn't also expect companies that provide the greatest burdens also pay to maintain some of the infrastructure needed to keep it up. In your example of Amazon, this is exactly why there are corporate taxes, for the infrastructure companies use.

You know who also makes huge profits, Netflix.

I don’t have an issue with Netflix etc getting charged for the bulk of congestion but at the same time these mega ISPs should let local govt and new players use their poles for added competition and noncompete agreements between cable companies should be illegal.

 

[Mut1ny]

You were the one that started with the snarky, and I continue to provide facts and examples and you continue to provide....vapor.

Keep digging that hole. I already smashed your argument and you keep going. Netflix pays for their traffic, I pay for my traffic, ISP's keep complaining. They either need to improve their network or stop bitching. Period. You act like the internet is some finite thing and that once we run out we're out. The only thing hold the internet back are ISP's because, ya know, they're the ones that build and maintain it.

If their systems and infrastructure can't handle it then make it better. Period. I mean, it's not like they don't have the fucking money or resources. They don't want to...defending it and arguing against that just makes you look like an ass, along with your comments.

 

[NoOther]

Keep digging that hole. I already smashed your argument and you keep going. Netflix pays for their traffic, I pay for my traffic, ISP's keep complaining. They either need to improve their network or stop bitching. Period. You act like the internet is some finite thing and that once we run out we're out. The only thing hold the internet back are ISP's because, ya know, they're the ones that build and maintain it.

If their systems and infrastructure can't handle it then make it better. Period. I mean, it's not like they don't have the fucking money or resources. They don't want to...defending it and arguing against that just makes you look like an ass, along with your comments.

Lol, you smashed what argument? Netflix does not pay for all their traffic. There is a lot of history behind this, and I think you need to read the history of Netflix, carriers and CDNs. It was Netflix that complained specifically about having to pay for bandwidth that the whole argument started. You even contradict yourself here a bit, where you say the ISPs build and maintain the internet, which actually is not true. ISPs provide last mile service, Tier 1 providers build and maintain the majority of the internet. Also you act like it is only the ISPs that bitched, which is also not true. Title II actually helps many ISPs, what you mean to say is broadband carriers. Also, you act like Netflix has never complained about having to pay to provide service, that is actually part of the problem that started this whole mess. Seriously, go back and do some research.

As for them making their infrastructure better, they have been. So I fail to see any point there. You also have no clue what you are talking about with money and resources. The upfront costs to increase bandwidth is enormous, they then have to recoop those costs over many periods or years depending on the upgrades.

I also have no idea what you think I am defending. That is what makes your arguments fall flat other than you don't understand how the infrastructure and system works. My argument is that Title II is not net neutrality and that it is shit legislation. If we really want net neutrality than the entire system and regulations need to be redone.

 

[NoOther]

I don’t have an issue with Netflix etc getting charged for the bulk of congestion but at the same time these mega ISPs should let local govt and new players use their poles for added competition and noncompete agreements between cable companies should be illegal.

The whole system needs to be revamped. The current structure and associations are not really designed for a free and open internet. We would probably have to do something like Sweden did a long time ago and have one company supported by the government maintain all the backbone connections and then have ISPs and services pay for access and resell it to consumers. That isn't likely to happen anytime soon because of the whole Ma Bell debacle.

 

[Mut1ny]

Lol, you smashed what argument?

Yours. I knew you'd respond, you can't stop with the hole digging. Does it get warmer or colder the further down you go?

 

[NoOther]

Yours. I knew you'd respond, you can't stop with the hole digging. Does it get warmer or colder the further down you go?

I don't know, it looks good up here on top, I am not sure what you are doing down in the ditch with no facts, information or even a semblance of an argument. You have failed over and over again to provide any information, any facts, anything at all. All you keep doing is providing conjecture.

 

[5150Joker]

The whole system needs to be revamped. The current structure and associations are not really designed for a free and open internet. We would probably have to do something like Sweden did a long time ago and have one company supported by the government maintain all the backbone connections and then have ISPs and services pay for access and resell it to consumers. That isn't likely to happen anytime soon because of the whole Ma Bell debacle.

Yes from my understanding of how things work, the system doesn't function with the intended idea of a free market but instead with a couple key players controlling the vast majority of the market and then collaborating on exclusive territories and not competing with each other. How this isn't viewed as blatantly illegal is really surprising to me because if you look at any other industry (e.g. the memory industry), they get hit with huge fines for collusion yet these huge cable companies like Cox, Comcast, Spectrum etc all get away with it. In addition to that, they complain about having laid down the poles to neighborhoods and that competition shouldn't be able to use it (e.g. Google fiber) and when that doesn't work out, they start lawsuits against local municipalities to prevent any new competition from coming in. So Net Neutrality is not going to solve any of these long standing issues, it never has and never will. What needs to be done is an act of Congress from both parties (and a willing President) to introduce provisions that force competition in the market and make these collusions between cable companies highly illegal and hit them with huge fines. Let the free market be forced on them and then things will naturally fall into place.

 

[tetris42]

Yes from my understanding of how things work, the system doesn't function with the intended idea of a free market but instead with a couple key players controlling the vast majority of the market and then collaborating on exclusive territories and not competing with each other. How this isn't viewed as blatantly illegal is really surprising to me because if you look at any other industry (e.g. the memory industry), they get hit with huge fines for collusion yet these huge cable companies like Cox, Comcast, Spectrum etc all get away with it. In addition to that, they complain about having laid down the poles to neighborhoods and that competition shouldn't be able to use it (e.g. Google fiber) and when that doesn't work out, they start lawsuits against local municipalities to prevent any new competition from coming in. So Net Neutrality is not going to solve any of these long standing issues, it never has and never will. What needs to be done is an act of Congress from both parties (and a willing President) to introduce provisions that force competition in the market and make these collusions between cable companies highly illegal and hit them with huge fines. Let the free market be forced on them and then things will naturally fall into place.

Your understanding is accurate. The reason they get away with it is because they lobby our politicians, who do want they want so they have enough money to get re-elected. This is essentially the foundation of our modern political system.

 

[rgMekanic]

Your understanding is accurate. The reason they get away with it is because they lobby our politicians, who do want they want so they have enough money to get re-elected. This is essentially the foundation of our modern political system.

So the answer is clearly more government involvement...

 

[tetris42]

So the answer is clearly more government involvement...

Well, depends on how you look at it. If "enforcing the law" is considered more involvement, then sure. Otherwise it's a no-win comparison. Corporate forces doing what they want without the government standing in their way v. corporate forces doing what they want using the government as a tool. Either of those scenarios, we lose, regardless of the level of government involvement.

 

[5150Joker]

Until people view a free and open internet as vital to their lives as they do other utilities like electric and water, they won't rise up and demand change. For most, the internet is just a tool used for emails/media consumption and some use it for productivity but if I had to pull a number out of my ass, I'd say 70-80% of america uses the internet mainly for media consumption and it isn't viewed as something vital to their livelihood. After all, you can still get work done with a capped connection and limited speed so really the only people up in arms about this are internet nerds like us or certain companies with an agenda (e.g. Google/Netflix).

 

[Mut1ny]

So the answer is clearly more government involvement...

It's been shown, by their own actions, that if left to their own devices the internet would be a VERY different place, a much more expensive place, and a much more restrictive place.

I'm not for government involvement in everything but in this case I am. Most ISP's are already monopolies in their areas that they operate in so could you imagine if they had the power to do as the pleased towards Netflix and Hulu? Download services?

Nah, in this instance, with something like internet, we need it to be protected and the ISP's sure as fucking shit aren't going to do that themselves. They seek to destroy and conquer.

 

[knowom]

It's bit

So streaming services increased with no cause? Not more smart TV's, more smartphones, more tablets, MORE TECHNOLOGY?? Also, again, streaming services are paying their bills... The ISP's need to take responsibility and increase their fucking network because it's the fucking future and not 2002. Why are you defending such obvious laziness and cheapness? Could you imagine if roads never got wider and more common as cars became more and more popular? Congestion exists because ISP's aren't holding up their end of the bargain. Derp.

I was under the impression it was mostly a byproduct of piracy both the clamping down on it and not having to deal with the inconvienances associated with not having a streaming service.

I am not defending the broadband companies, I am giving actual real world experience for the history of actual network usage and the causes for detrimental performances on networks. Streaming is a huge burden on the network that takes away from ALL the other services on the network. It is dis-proportionally used. Basically the only reason to upgrade, is to cover streaming. So why should a company that causes 40% of the traffic not be responsible at all for helping increase the networks it resides on? Why are broadband companies responsible to cover the usage of that singular application? Why are consumers responsible for covering that single usage, especially if those consumers are not using it?

They clamped down on piracy and replaced it with streaming services and now those services don't want to pay their cut to the ISP who got screwed in both cases.

 

[Mut1ny]

ISP who got screwed in both cases.

You need to explain this.

 

[knowom]

You need to explain this.

It's pretty simple ISP's were hawking their own services that did a lot of what services like Amazon/Netflix do today just not as elegantly or conveniently with the cable TV packages and pay on demand movies, but were cut out of that equation so to speak. You could say they had the rug pulled right out from under them basically. They both want a piece of the same pie.

 

[Mut1ny]

not as elegantly or conveniently with the cable TV packages and pay on demand movies

So Netflix and Hulu did it better and that's unfair to the ISP's that tried starting similar services...after Netflix and Hulu?

What are you even trying to say? How is Netflix and Hulu making services that work well and don't require you to spend a TON more money a bad thing and "screwed" ISP's? You goddamn straight they had the rug pulled out from under them like any badly executed idea does.

Wow...I don't know what to really say about this post other than do you work for a major ISP?

 

[knowom]

They had services long prior to Netflix and Hulu and Comcast are under the same umbrella of NBC regardless granted Hulu is controlled by NBC and other media companies as well that all scrambled together to jump into streaming services. I know you might be to young to remember it, but Cable TV was a thing at one point in time. I didn't wasn't unfair that they did it, but it doesn't mean the ISP's have to sit by idly and let them pull the rug out either and enable them to mandate how they operate their service in order to better the one they invented to circumvent the one they pretty much previously controlled prior. The consumers themselves don't care much either way they just want cheaper and better regardless of who is screwing who over. Nice conclusion to draw that I must work for a ISP. Do you work for Netflix or own stocks of it I don't know what to say really.

 

[jiminator]

Not sure why trump world is complaining about net neutrality, this is the guy you voted for, doing what the businesses that pay him the most money want him to do.

 

[Mut1ny]

They had services long prior to Netflix and Hulu

What? Pay-Per-View? Because that was a good deal.

and Comcast are under the same umbrella of NBC regardless granted Hulu is controlled by NBC and other media companies as well that all scrambled together to jump into streaming services.

Exactly, they tried copying, sucked at it, and it's lead to where their services are now.

I know you might be to young to remember it, but Cable TV was a thing at one point in time.

I'm 31 and definitely remember, I also don't remember them having streaming services at the time but do remember how much cable costs and the ton of commercials it had!

I didn't wasn't unfair that they did it, but it doesn't mean the ISP's have to sit by idly and let them pull the rug out either and enable them to mandate how they operate their service

They offer access to the internet...something Net Neutrality is trying to protect so ISP's CAN'T destroy services from other companies just cause "they don't like them!"

in order to better the one they invented

They didn't invent it though? And again, even IF they did it first, they obviously didn't do it well enough, STILL AREN'T DOING IT WELL ENOUGH, and haven't CHANGED shit to be more enticing. They're fucking up.

to circumvent the one they pretty much previously controlled prior.

You mean "had a monopoly over"?

The consumers themselves don't care much either way they just want cheaper and better

That's how the market works. ISP's need to get their services in line with others if they want to compete. Isn't that the point of free market? Isn't that how business works? Your product sucks it fails, theirs is better they win out?

regardless of who is screwing who over.

No one seems to be screwing anyone other than ISP's screwing over streaming services and their OWN fucking paying customers whenever they get a chance.

Nice conclusion to draw that I must work for a ISP.

You're acting like a white knight to them which makes no sense...hence the conclusion.

Do you work for Netflix or own stocks of it I don't know what to say really.

Be more original and if you're going to throw a joke back at someone make sure it's sensible first.

 

[knowom]

I'm not going to argue with you over it for hours. You're right the ISP's are terrible and evil kill them all and replace them with our lord and savior Netflix.

 

[fuzzylogik]

Why would ISPs spend a *LOT* of money lobbying to change a regulations if they definitely weren't going to do what the regulations prevented? Corporations love spending tens of millions of dollars "just because", right?


Ie. If I spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying to be able to sell tobacco to minors... then I probably want to sell tobacco to minors.

Companies lobby for things that are in their own best interest - nothing new there as that's the whole point. (I certainly disagree with how lobbing works nowadays as compared to what it was supposed to be :/ )
But anyways - Sure, looks like all the ISPs did what, 25+ Million in lobbying on this combined? If we use the amount spent to somehow show motive...what about the 50+ Million just from Google/Amazon/Facebook spent on the other side of the debate? Or should we also forget that Google met at the White House over 420 times during the last presidency - an average of once a week? That wasn't for their own best interest, right? Did all the ISPs also do the same? (Or should we forget that last year alone the Unions spent almost 2 Billion dollars on lobbying? Kinda makes the amount spent on this a bit... small.)

The issue here though is what people think these companies are lobbing for or against... isn't what it really is. Again, look at the regulation. Look at who is referenced constantly within it's 400+ pages. Look at what the folks who wrote it believe themselves - including the past chairwoman of the FEC and what she believes/works for now. Look at the money behind the regulation itself (not just lobbyist)... and then see if you find any connections.

 

[thejokker]

If some internet companies have gotten too big, if they have become monopolies, than they need to be hit with a Sherman Anti-Trust suit. Imposing NN (socialism) on the internet is not the answer. We do not need to be abused by big companies but we also do not want to be abused by big government. Who in politics has the balls to bust up internet monopolies and restore competition to the markets? I can only think of one person...

 

[Biznatch]

If some internet companies have gotten too big, if they have become monopolies, than they need to be hit with a Sherman Anti-Trust suit. Imposing NN (socialism) on the internet is not the answer. We do not need to be abused by big companies but we also do not want to be abused by big government. Who in politics has the balls to bust up internet monopolies and restore competition to the markets? I can only think of one person...

Except they don't have a monopoly, so good luck with that sherman act. And you really think that 'one person' who is extremely pro business / anti-regulations is going to break up the giant corporations? You aren't really that naive right?

And this is a state/local goverment issue anyway (the fix you proposed at least), so not much he can do. It's the local goverments that were lobbied to put restrictions in place to prevent future competition. Another reason the party of supposed 'states rights over feds' is not going to fix anything. This is the problem that needs to be fixed, but we shouldn't get rid the little protection we had just because it has issues. It's better than getting proper fucked by the ISPs (which we will start seeing in the next couple weeks/months) while waiting for years/decades for the states to fix their shit.

 

[Armenius]

So has anyone here arguing for the Net Neutrality regulations actually read what is in them? Because I think you'll find that calling these regs "Net Neutrality" is a big misnomer.

 

[knowom]

Google met at the White House over 420 times during the last presidency

but did they inhale or not?