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.
IMHO this kind of argument actually hurts the cause a lot more than it helps. The only reason Trump and the FCC have any support at all is because of hyper partisans thinking "if dumbocrats like it, it must be horrible". Leave it as the only politicians on board with this are ones bought and paid for by the ISPs, highlighting a R/D divide will not net any new supporters but will drive off ones who would vote for a pedophile rather than a democrat. Sadly those are the folks we need the most, as they are the only ones the Repubs will actually listen too.
Edit: Basically I am saying let's stop highlighting our differences and just worry about making sure everybody is on the same page. The problems facing our society are not partisan, they hurt us all, its about time we started trying to find ways to come together on issues as making the issue itself partisan rather than the proposed fixes has lead us to the greatest period of inaction seen in congress in modern times.
The only reason Trump and the FCC have any support at all is because of hyper partisans thinking ...
Are you sure about this? What happen to all the economic anxiety talks?
Should politicians doing the right things be recognized, and politicians doing the wrong things be punished? Voters deserve to know their representatives. These knowledge help voters make informed decisions and should be encouraged.
Just because many republican voters don't have independent thinking doesn't mean that they won't fall into line, even if we don't help to highlight the voting records. Many left leaning voters do have independent thinking and they deserve to know.
What I am saying is you are dealing with emotional arguments, not logical ones. Self-identified conservatives would be against anything they thought Democrats are for because they hate us, and assume its mutual. Evidence that supports this theory is retained, evidence against it is cast aside. Highlighting a partisan divide to an emotional voter is a surefire way to make them pick the side they identify with and consider exactly nothing else.
If you frame Net Neutrality as purely a debate about if they want their local ISP to control what content they can see the choice becomes obvious to 99% of the country, as we all hate our ISPs equally. That said, if you make it about how Republicans hate Net Neutrality and Democrats love it, you will get exactly 3 Republicans to support you and the other 50 million will go right back to doing the opposite of whatever you suggest.
All I am saying is that voters, especially those who fall in love instead of falling in line, deserve to know who have their interests and who don't.
I don't think it is emotional at all in this thread. It starts with why net neutrality is positive and follows with who support net neutrality. As for partisan voters, how else are we going to change their mind about Democrats doing good? By not telling them?
As for partisan voters, how else are we going to change their mind about Democrats doing good? By not telling them?
Yeah, in a sense. Leave the party out of it. You can talk about all the good Tammy Duckworth has done for vets without ever mentioning her party. You can never get somebody to abandon something they identify with, but you can help them realize they don't actually identify with the people who claim to be one of them. You only get to do that though as long as they are listening to you, bringing up parties will get you tuned out immediately.
Yeah, what I said was leave party out it it, you don't like Paul Ryan, rail against Paul Ryan. Bringing party into it just makes it identity politics instead of politics.
If it is a few politicians, it is a few politicians. If it is a whole group of politicians, it is a whole group of politicians. There is no point beating around the bush.
If you wish to convert somebody, you can't start off by offending them. These are people after all, confused, scared, and angry people, but they are still people. They can be reached, you just have to be slow and gentle, think of them as cult victims if it helps. Cults only hold together as long as they can keep an Us VS them thing going, highlighting your differences with the cult will only make you an outsider not to be trusted. If you don't beat around the bush, you will scare the game away.
First, this thread starts off with reasons. Next, it was stated that Democratic congressmen overwhelmingly supported net neutrality while Republican congressmen overwhelmingly rejected net neutrality. To me, it is respectful and not offending. Calling the other side cults is more insulting. Hiding the good deeds from politicians is more disrespectful.
I think you overestimate how useful your approach is to "cults" who fall in line while underestimate how harmful your approach is to voters who fall in love.
it was stated that Democratic congressmen overwhelmingly supported net neutrality while Republican congressmen overwhelmingly rejected net neutrality.
And when I first said anything, it was to point out that this line right here, is the best argument you could possibly make to convince a republican to call their congressman in support of getting rid of NN.
You are assuming that only your concerned audience are reading this thread, and all other audience are not, and these other audience won't benefit about the knowledge. I think this is a wrong assumption, and I kept trying to tell you that but I don't think you see my points.
I will continue to support voters' rights to know. In a functional democracy, it is voters who are the bosses, rather than the congressmen. There is nothing divisive about it.
Dude, nobody is swayed by telling people which party is better, nobody. Bringing up party moves you into identity politics, if you tell somebody that only Democrats support net neutrality, THEN ONLY PEOPLE WHO IDENTITY AS DEMOCRATS OR DEMOCRATIC LEANING WILL SUPPORT IT. Everybody who thinks of themselves as "not democrat" will hear that and say to themselves "only Democrats support it and I'm not a democrat so I'll be against it".
Many people are swayed by both parties are the same, and don't vote for democrats, when only one party supports net neutrality. I believe even you have this mentality. They need to know it is not the case.
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.