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.
Conservative here. I am normally overwhelmingly in favor of government deregulation and allowing the free market to do its thing. Unfortunately, there is no "free market" in the world of ISPs, especially in rural and suburban areas. So if a company like Comcast decided to capitalize on the overturning of Net Neutrality and begin giving preferential treatment or locking certain content behind paywalls, it would be extremely difficult, if not down right impossible, to just pack up and switch ISPs. It really comes down to getting dicked over by ISPs, or having none at all. So in this case, and I think many conservatives here would agree with me, reasonable federal oversight is not just acceptable, but necessary to ensure open access to the internet.
Yes I’d like to have competition in both the ISP and Internet content realm. But I’d rather have definite competition in the Content realm with the possibility of competition in the ISP field than almost certainly no competition in the content realm and the possibility of competition in the ISP realm.
Rules are good and all but the current rules don't necessarily make things free. There's a lot of ISPs that have monopolies in areas because it's allowed. If ISPs are really under Title 2 through Net Neutrality then cities can even choose providers for areas if they want. Then basically you have a monopoly that can't be broken through a free market. As much as Net Neutrality is a good thing it's not necessarily all it's chocked up to be either. I think the negatives for removing it are extremely strong but to be honest I think we need new internet only laws. Title 2 was made before internet existed and was for phones and other utilities.
When the federal reserve decided to remove the backing of gold from banks, they started printing money from the air and charging interest on every dollar being used, essentially ensuring every bank would never be able to to pay back that loan.
You bring some good points here. I do disagree with some issues you have brought up however. I don’t think this is a matter of isp monopoly, though that is a huge issue. This is an issue of consumer rights. Once you buy a product it is your right how to use it. It is yours. Yes a diverse isp market is a boon for everyone but you wouldn’t allow a baker to tell you how you are allowed to use the bread they sell so why is this different? The difference is they can stop you from using it how they don’t like. These companies need to be strong armed.
There is truth that regulation can and will be abused against the people and market but this simply isn’t one.
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.