Hey everyone, So moments ago it was announced that Net Neutrality was passed, meaning that the internet is now classed as a basic utility and should be free for all to use however and whenever. I've been following this for the duration of the fight, so it's something that I've had a keen eye on. So I have some questions for EMC, what do you think of it? Do you agree with it? Do you think the internet should be classed as a basic utility? Discuss below! Thanks, Sam
I think it'd be better if I linked you to somewhere else, they'd explain better than I could http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
I think I'll just wait for the discussion to start and see if I get what it's about then, because I can't really get myself the concentration to read all of that
From what I understand its to keep the internet free to use. So, large corporations can't regulate its use and what is shared on the web.
Oooh, at first I thought it meant the opposite, in that every large corporation could do what they want with it
I think there are pros and cons of this move which are very debatable. What I strongly disagree with is the fact that the entire process has not been vetted and completed essentially in secrecy. The FCC Chair refused to meet with Congress to discuss the matter and none of the 300+ pages of regulations which will go into effect have been released for public review. I guess we have to "pass the rules first to find out what's in them." Sound familiar? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html This was a 3-2 vote with the 3 voting in the affirmative all being appointees of the current president. For an administration which claims to be the "most transparent in history" it sure leaves a lot to be desire in that regard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs This is not how lawmaking is supposed to happen in the United States. The power grabs and the level of continued executive overreach demonstrated by both President Obama and President Bush before him are extremely troubling.
I'll make it more clear. Voting for "Yes" means that you agree with the internet should be a free place, voting for "No" means that you think the internet should be controlled by cable companies and shouldn't be a free place
This statement could cause confusion. Because it is a utility, it is free for all to be able to use, but it is not cost free. Overall I think this is good. I believe that since it is considered a public utility, internet provides that previously did not have access to existing transmission infrastructure now do have access. This should only increase competition, which is good.
I think that this issue is a little more nuanced than "cable companies are bad." Hundreds of millions of dollars have been showered by net neutrality lobbyists on the politicians in Washington, D.C. so there are clearly heavily moneyed interests fighting for both sides. http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/
Money and secrecy aside, what do you dislike about the rules? The ends should never be used to justify the means, I agree with you there. But in this case, congress would not have been helpful. They don't understand the internet, and their advisers are just as lobbied as the FCC was. If congress had been given a say, it would have been more likely that nothing would have gotten done due to the partisanship of our government.
I think that net neutrality as a "safety" from corporations through government intervention is more of a dog chasing its tail. The governments of the world are ran by money, money that comes from the banks, through the corporations so handing control, assigning control or mediating use through any of those parties would essentially mean the same thing. If the goal is to keep hands out of the cookie jar then hands should stay out of the cookie jar. To try to say it is as cut and dry as yes means this and no means that is saying that you can predict the future, have read through what I am sure is a ridiculous amount of legalese and that predestiny is a fact. At the moment I get internet to my house through a cable company. Really bad internet in my happy opinion but really good internet compared to probably about 60% of the world or more. With net neutrality passed what does that mean for me? Does that mean I have to find another provider? I know it doesn't mean that magically the internet is just going to be routed to my house now. Someone has to pay for everything that goes into laying the lines, maintaining the infrastructure and housing nodes and servers. Google handles most of this in the US. My city tried to get Google to set up a "node" of sorts so we could get 1000mbs of speed but google wouldn't foot the bill for the infrastructure so third parties have been hired to install it. By making it a utility will these third parties now be federal funded parties to which are subject to federal oversight, regulations and other interventions? I'm not sure how this is all supposed to work but if it means more third parties, more contracts, more regulations and more laws then it is not a good thing and will not be cheaper or secure from being taken advantage of. The way I see it my internet works fine and is and was set to work much better without LEGAL intervention. Intervention which without fail complicates and costs(monetarily, in resources, time and headache) more than when it is left up to the market and creativity.
The problem with trying to "label" something, or in this case trying to regulate something by law, is automatically that you also give people a leverage to abuse things. For example; the definition of Net Neutrality? (source Wikipedia, I'm lazy and this is only meant as an example anyway) "the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.". So all data should be treated equally. Ergo: your Internet provider has no business setting up a spam filter which allows you to filter my spam messages. After all; they're now singling out my spam company and under this definition I have the right to expect my data to be treated in the same manner as any other incoming (e-mail related) data. The moment something becomes an official law then the gloves come off and both ends (the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys) can now benefit from it. I know the intent is much different, sure, but the moment something passes as the law then people can fall back to the literal meaning and definition ("letter of the law"). And that can sometimes really cause issues, especially if the politicians who passed the law turned out to be a bunch of slops (I'm not insinuating that this is the case here, but I've seen / read too many examples where bad guys could walk away due to a mishap in the law itself). And when looking at some other regulations (this time basing myself on the official FCC proposal (link to article on fcc.gov website)): "broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates." What about connection speed? A cheap(er) subscription gets you lower connectivity speeds whereas a more expensive subscription obviously gets you a faster one. But doesn't that automatically prioritize one connection over the other? Wouldn't it be fair to say that for an ISP to steer clear of any trouble they could simply opt to dump all cheap connectivity subscriptions and only provide one (way more expensive) subscription plan? Once again: not saying that this is going to happen, but I do think its food for thought... SO yah, I'm a little in between. The intent seems good to me, no doubts there on my end, but I do wonder how the final rules (and their definitions) will end up.
[quote="jkjkjk182, post: 890189" If congress had been given a say, it would have been more likely that nothing would have gotten done due to the partisanship of our government.[/quote] Which would have been better for everyone: nothing having gotten done. Keep the lawyers away from anything you hold dear.
I am always very hesitant to grant powers to the government which are not absolutely necessary. Concerns about potential escalating costs from internet providers are valid but so are concerns about confiscatory taxation and regulatory interference in an environment where heretofore they have not existed. The U.S. government does not exactly have a good reputation for efficiency or even handedness.
For years Verizon and others have been using Title II for the perks and making landline subscribers pay for the expansion of broadband all the while not having to adhere to the rules of Title II. So I am glad that it passed because now they can not abuse the system like that anymore. Here is a link to one of several articles on it. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-from-government-while-avoiding-regulations/
And it begins.... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-broadband-fees-20150409-story.html#page=1 FCC's net neutrality rules open door to new fee on Internet service. "Every month, consumers pay a small fee on their phone bills for a federal program that uses the money — a total of $8.8 billion raised nationwide last year — to provide affordable access to telecommunications services in rural areas, underserved inner cities and schools. Now the fee could start appearing on broadband bills too, in a major expansion of the nearly two-decade-old Universal Service Fund program." Let this be a lesson to you, kiddos. The government always gets its pound of flesh.
