Net Neutrality

[Timmy Fox]

LOOK! Already! Why!

[link]

Looks more like that was pulled due to piracy than lack of net neutrality. It appears this site was sharing copyrighted music without permission and thus got flagged as illegal music piracy.

[MrRazot]

I see merit in removing net neutrality, but this isn't the way to do it.
In theory, it's paying less for what you want and that having priority (e.g. the gaming package would have faster connections to steam and other similar services).
It would be really cool to be able to browse the "regular" internet at 4Mb/s and use Steam at 40Mb/s at the price of having access to everything at the speed of 10Mb/s.


The way it's going though, is that ISPs in 'murica will be able to more intricately control where the traffic goes faster. This would mean Facebook could pay an ISP to favour them over Twitter (as an example) and another ISP could do the opposite.
To make a more scary comparison, imagine if Square Space paid an ISP to favour their websites over all other small domain names, meaning that people would be more likely to use them in website creation over going DIY.


Basically, Net Neutrality is the way to go for now.

[Emtile]

Well it's completely dead now. Thanks fcc for taking more money out of our pockets.

[Vosur Aekira]

It's not dead until Congress, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court says it is.

[Rob_Silvermyst]

Indeed. I do find there is a bit of irony in all of this. The Net Neutrality regulations were passed by Obama. Obama was the one who brought Ajit into the FCC. And now Ajit, after his promotion, turns to try and destroy net neutrality. So Obama sabotaged his own regulations in the end, more than likely unknowingly.

[Athlaros]

I'm in favor of Net Neutrality as I believe it allows everyone to pay one price as opposed to many prices for the same material. I understand that N.N is not yet 'dead' as it has to hold it's own in court - but the vote still has me worried over the future of the Internet.


I worry also, on a side note, about minority voices. I believe this was mentioned in the livestream of the FCC but basically, I worry that companies would slow down blogs, posts, websites and other things ran by POC, religious minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ community and effectively silence them due to a difference of opinion. I hope this isn't the case but still, worrying nonetheless.

[Bricket]

I worry also, on a side note, about minority voices. I believe this was mentioned in the livestream of the FCC but basically, I worry that companies would slow down blogs, posts, websites and other things ran by POC, religious minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ community and effectively silence them due to a difference of opinion. I hope this isn't the case but still, worrying nonetheless.

No company cares about the colour of someone, it's odd that there is this idea that coloured people get "repressed" wherever they come.
This is not true, it's even illegal to do so.

When N-N is gone you can finally pay for whatever you want. Why pay €50 a month for a complete package when you could pay for the gamer and social media package that might cost less?

[Timmy Fox]

When N-N is gone you can finally pay for whatever you want. Why pay €50 a month for a complete package when you could pay for the gamer and social media package that might cost less?

That's not entirely fair. More than likely you'll only be given the option to pay MORE not LESS.

It doesn't cost the provider any different regardless what you use the internet for so these "packages" would be artificially imposed and would more than likely be added as a fee on top of what you're already paying, effectively making things more expensive.

[Brisky]

Plus, personally I don't believe that, at this point, it's still just about net neutrality.

If a "democracy"  can get away with something that almost everybody fundamentally disagrees with, then what's left of it? What's more to come?

[anoni]

So just clearing up some misconceptions

It's not dead until Congress, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court says it is.

As Vosur stated there's many avenues that can reverse this decision, currently more than a dozen states are suing the FCC.

Indeed. I do find there is a bit of irony in all of this. The Net Neutrality regulations were passed by Obama. Obama was the one who brought Ajit into the FCC. And now Ajit, after his promotion, turns to try and destroy net neutrality. So Obama sabotaged his own regulations in the end, more than likely unknowingly.

Ajit was nominated for the republican position of the FCC, but he wasn't nominated chairman by Obama, he was promoted to Chairman under the trump administration so it's more fair to say he got as much power as he got via Trump, rather than Obama.

I worry also, on a side note, about minority voices. I believe this was mentioned in the livestream of the FCC but basically, I worry that companies would slow down blogs, posts, websites and other things ran by POC, religious minorities or members of the LGBTQ+ community and effectively silence them due to a difference of opinion. I hope this isn't the case but still, worrying nonetheless.

No company cares about the colour of someone, it's odd that there is this idea that coloured people get "repressed" wherever they come.
This is not true, it's even illegal to do so.

When N-N is gone you can finally pay for whatever you want. Why pay €50 a month for a complete package when you could pay for the gamer and social media package that might cost less?

Two things: While I do agree that it's doubtful companies would slow down POC sites, they HAVE slowed down and blocked political sites in the past, an ISP blocked the website of a pro-reproductive group and in 2007 AT&T censored Pearl Jam because the lead singer criticized President Bush

And the "Pay for what you want means you will pay less", is not necessarily true, as others have stated. Considering ISPs have a monopoly and it's harder for consumers to calculate total cost when they're getting things in packages, an ISP may end up getting consumers to pay more without them really noticing.



A history of Net Neutrality violations paints a good picture of where things could go. This includes

Comcast Blocking Peer-to-peer technologies, AT&T forcing apple to block Skype from Iphones, MetroPCS (top 5 wireless provider) blocked all videos over 4G except for youtube, AT&T SPRINT & Verizon blocking google wallet because it competed with Isis (a program all three companies had stake in), Verizon blocked tethering applications that were free because it competed with their $20 tethering application, AT&T attempted to block users from using FaceTime unless they paid an additional fee (because FaceTime competed with their app), Verizon openly admits that if Net Neutrality was entirely repealed than they would favor preferred services, content and sites over others.