Net Neutrality

A while ago, I posted a link to a video of FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn speaking out in favour of NN, and assumed (admittedly) that this was an indicator of a wider trend. I initially assumed the video posted just now was the same, but it seems to be a different person, which just makes my initial assumption even stronger to me. I know I shouldn't assume, but even so.

I would not at all be surprised if half the FCC - who no doubt have more experience with how the Internet works than Pai does - are collectively losing their shit over the fact that they've been taken over by a mole from the big cable companies for the purpose of surrendering their own ability to regulate.

Incidentally, I'm also still skeptical of the ISPs' ability to effectively block sites. I say 'effectively' because I highly doubt that blocking news sites, for example, will accomplish much more than get everyone talking and sharing info via word-of-mouth about how they're trying to censor public opinion at a rate far faster than they can counteract it - not to mention that the whole issue will cross party lines, since practically everyone uses the Internet nowadays, regardless of political allegiance.

Call me naive, but I think getting Net Neutrality repealed will do nothing for them in the long run except shoot themselves in the foot. Classic short-sightedness.

edited 5th Dec '17 5:13:36 PM by PresidentStalkeyes

It's less of an issue of blocking sites entirely, and more one of ISPs blackmailing those sites into paying the ISPs to avoid throttling. This is especially bad for streaming sites, where a certain minimum base level of bandwidth is absolutely required for their business model to function. If Netflix can't stream a movie in real time, then you won't subscribe to Netflix. Netflix spends a lot of money making sure you can stream a movie in real time (and an HD movie, and a 4K movie...), but the ISPs can hold the last mile of the connection — to the actual consumers — hostage. They stay to Netflix "pay up, or your available bandwidth plummets".

This isn't theoretical. In 2013, Comcast throttled Netflix, lowering speeds to their customers. Netflix entered into a "direct agreement" (read, paid Comcast a lot of money) and speeds returned to normal.

In an actual competitive market, this would be self-defeating for ISPs because customers would just jump ship to another ISP that didn't throttle their connections. Lucky for ISPs, they all effectively have local monopolies, so people can't switch to a competitor. Their aren't any. You're stuck with whoever services your area, and there are no alternatives.

Sadly, GOP support of net neutrality is a pipe dream. Net Neutrality has hit the three strikes of being 1) government regulation of markets, 2) an Obama era policy, and 3) opposed by lobbyists that make generous donations to political campaigns. Between those, most GOP politicians are willing to oppose it, despite it being both good policy in general and popular among their constituents.

Well, when I said it crosses party lines, I spoke less of actual party members and more members of the general public - i.e., voters - who nominally support the GOP. As I said, everyone^note Not literally everyone, but you get the idea. uses the Internet, including those who, say, voted for Trump, who undoubtedly owes much of his success in the 2016 election to social media. Repealing NN benefits nobody except the ISPs, and everyone will realise that once the effects become apparent; then they won't have any excuse not to support bringing back NN - and I'm not suggesting that die-hard GOP supporters will be the ones who speak out the most (for the reasons you've put forward), it'll be the massive amounts of otherwise-apolitical moderates, vaguely kinda-sorta in support of the GOP/Dems, whose first exposure to the whole NN business is the fact that their internet isn't as good as it used to be since the gov't held that vote.

Incidentally, I've heard that in heavily-populated urban areas, there actually are multiple options for most users, and it'd stand to reason that the ISPs would base their actions on the assumption that their users are urban-based, since cities have a lot of money in them. Of course, I don't live in America so I can't say whether this is true or not.

But yeah; I'm not doubting that they'll try and extort all their users. I'm doubting that they give much of a toss about their users' political views - and if they did, trying to censor views they disagree with won't end well for them. Either word will inevitably get out anyway because prying eyes always have a way, or they'll botch it up out of sheer ineptitude - probably both at once.

edited 5th Dec '17 6:50:12 PM by PresidentStalkeyes

Comcast is threatening to run internet fast lanes.

And we don't have any choice but to deal with these bastards.

Given the amount of libertarian types who genuinely believe that market forces are relevant in the US context...

...HA HA HA—No.

There is no imminent epiphany. I will admit that it is oddly entertaining watching Hope Spot after Hope Spot...

For what it's worth, DeviantArt has joined the fight once again.

At the least that'll get the word out.

Shower thought: Would it help to assert that loss of net neutrality will hurt smaller businesses? I think that'd make a good Xanatos Gambit- either the Republicans would have to oppose the bill, or they're implicitly admitting they don't give a shit about small businesses.

edited 6th Dec '17 10:09:10 PM by TroperOnAStickV2

It won't help, because Pai isn't doing this for the supposed "greater-good". He knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care. It stands to benefit the corporations he advocates for, and that's all he cares about.

I'm aware Pai is too far gone, I meant it might be possible to make him poison in the minds of free-market extremist types too.

They'll still keep chugging down the Flavor-aid and scream about how all the stuff about the Teapublicans NOT having their best interests at heart is FAKE NEWS!!!!!!11

... I doubt all of them are THAT stupid. The vast mass of them, yes. But on this specific point you might be able to turn some, maybe enough, against this.

edited 7th Dec '17 4:10:23 PM by TroperOnAStickV2

Pai is basically mocking us at this point,

Pai's hiding behind an old British rule.

I'm going to be completely honest. I'm fully aware there are people in the government who are more evil and capable of more damage, but I honestly find Pai to be the most hateable by a large margin. He comes off as so fucking smug and callous.

edited 7th Dec '17 6:01:38 PM by TroperOnAStickV2

So he's basically ignoring all debates about this thing?

It sure seems that way.

I just spent $125.99 to type this very post. Each character of text costing an extra $0.50.

...Wait, what?

An exage|This post is flagged by the FCC|.

edited 7th Dec '17 9:57:55 PM by Albino_Axolotl

...I see what you did there.

... that is beyond depressing. RIP internet...

A bit old, but seriously, this guy is lower than shit.

Seriously. Claiming net neutrality hurts the elderly and disabled and holds back medicine. He's sailed waaaaay past Insane Troll Logic.

I dont mind all the doom a d gloom, as long as it motivates you all to contribute to the movement in some way.

Old news, but several musicians are joining the fight and arguing to keep everything free and open.

The FCC is hiding behind "privacy" and "security" concerns to avoid turning over details on their proceedings.

The second link should send up red flags for anyone with a brain.

edited 9th Dec '17 5:58:05 PM by TroperOnAStickV2

The irony is palpable.

FCC president "jokes" about being verizon puppet.

Alright now that slimy son-of-a-bitch is just taunting us.