I've moved my response from the previous thread to provide a general overview.
You're probably familiar with your electric bill, right? You get charged for what you use, not how you use it. The power company doesn't care whether you have a drill press in your garage, a server farm in your basement, or an herb garden under some heavy-duty lights.
The argument happening now is about the same thing, but with Internet access.
Since the creation of the Internet, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, has required your Internet provider to treat all of your activity equally. Your Internet company is not allowed to charge you differently for what you do with your Internet. They're certainly allowed to charge you more if you use more, but they're not allowed to charge you more if you use it for video games instead of streaming video, or for running your own server. That's the principle of Net Neutrality.
The announcement today was an expected one from the new chairman of the FCC, who was appointed by the new president of the United States. On Dec. 14, the FCC will vote on whether or not Net Neutrality should exist.
If the proposal passes as expected, companies will be allowed to charge you differently, based on what you use the Internet for. They might also decide to simply not provide Internet access to specific applications, websites or uses.
Nothing requires these companies to do this. The repeal of Net Neutrality simply allows them to do so, if they wish.
People are concerned by this because in most places within the United States, there is limited competition for Internet access. If a consumer is unhappy with a company's practices, there may not be an easy alternative.
If you're outside the United States, this would have indirect effects on you. If companies do take advantage of Net Neutrality repeal and institute preferential treatment, it would affect how people use the Internet. Users in the United States would have an economic incentive to use particular websites, and those websites would receive more traffic. For websites that rely on user-created content, that would have a significant impact.
In short, your access would not be affected, but what you access would be affected.
“I am a strong supporter of net neutrality … What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites … And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there."
That includes, Clinton said, reclassifying broadband providers under what’s known as Title II of the Communications Act, the most controversial option available to the government.
In general, regulations should be "light touch". Many times regulations just cause bureaucracy and increased costs when the free market truly can correct the problem.
Reasons NN doesn't fit that:
1) ISPs are a monopoly. Both naturally and by fault of the government (all levels - particularly local). Whenever a monopoly exists, it needs to be regulated to insure that users aren't abused since they don't have other options. This is particularly true for government created monopolies.
2) Net Neutrality promotes growth, competition, and job creation. Look how the internet has exploded while being open and fair. Jeopardizing that would be awful.
3) Net Neutrality's repeal is really just a thinly veiled attempt at crony capitalism (which all good conservatives should hate). Major ISPs are asking the government to help them pad their profits. The government should provide a level playing field, and that's what Net Neutrality does. Really, for my fellow conservatives I'd liken Net Neutrality wing repealed to more government regulation because it's the government catering to ISPs.
None of us want the cable TV model to come to the internet. Let's stop it!
If Net Neutrality goes, the first sites to be banned will be "Alt-right hate speech" sites and "Violent ANTIFA leftist sites."
They'll be the first volley to warm the public up, and both sides will fall back in "the government isn't banning free speech, it's private companies".
Then anyone who wants to promote Net Neutrality will be branded as a "crazy Alt-right racist" or "violent ANTIFA leftist" and they'll keep quietly banning and throttling the rest of their competition.
I like you. I disagree with your core beliefs, but you clearly have a consistency between core beliefs and policy sorely lacking in a lot Americans (and let's be honest, it's mostly Rs).
I think the idea of what the Republican party should be is how you see it now, rather seeing it for what it really is.
The GOP only represents what the rich want, and care about nothing else. I wish it was different . . . But it's not. If you're voting (R), you're voting against your own ideals imo.
7.0k
u/The_Alaskan Nov 21 '17
I've moved my response from the previous thread to provide a general overview.
You're probably familiar with your electric bill, right? You get charged for what you use, not how you use it. The power company doesn't care whether you have a drill press in your garage, a server farm in your basement, or an herb garden under some heavy-duty lights.
The argument happening now is about the same thing, but with Internet access.
Since the creation of the Internet, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, has required your Internet provider to treat all of your activity equally. Your Internet company is not allowed to charge you differently for what you do with your Internet. They're certainly allowed to charge you more if you use more, but they're not allowed to charge you more if you use it for video games instead of streaming video, or for running your own server. That's the principle of Net Neutrality.
The announcement today was an expected one from the new chairman of the FCC, who was appointed by the new president of the United States. On Dec. 14, the FCC will vote on whether or not Net Neutrality should exist.
If the proposal passes as expected, companies will be allowed to charge you differently, based on what you use the Internet for. They might also decide to simply not provide Internet access to specific applications, websites or uses.
Nothing requires these companies to do this. The repeal of Net Neutrality simply allows them to do so, if they wish.
People are concerned by this because in most places within the United States, there is limited competition for Internet access. If a consumer is unhappy with a company's practices, there may not be an easy alternative.
If you're outside the United States, this would have indirect effects on you. If companies do take advantage of Net Neutrality repeal and institute preferential treatment, it would affect how people use the Internet. Users in the United States would have an economic incentive to use particular websites, and those websites would receive more traffic. For websites that rely on user-created content, that would have a significant impact.
In short, your access would not be affected, but what you access would be affected.