There it goes:
US weakens net neutrality protections
US weakens net neutrality protections
no more open internet :'( sad day in history
- Thread starter InGearX
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Your comparison is inaccurate. Net neutrality rules are about ensuring ISPs treat all content the same. Applying the same rules to shipping would be like requiring that all packages of equal size and weight (and travelling the same route) are charged the same for shipping, regardless of what the boxes contain. (Assuming the content doesn't present any hazards.)
Eliminating the net neutrality rules would be like allowing the post office to charge more for a letter if the post office didn't like the content of the letter. It would effectively allow the post office, or other shipping service, to censor our communication... content that the shipping service didn't agree with could be charged an exorbitant rate.
You might think "well, we can use a different shipping service!" True... which is the second reason why your comparison is inaccurate. When I want to ship a package, I can choose from several different competing services. But if my ISP is allowed to effectively censor the content I want to receive through my internet connection, I can't simply flip a switch and use a different ISP. Most people enter a contract, whether for home or mobile, for their internet service. And even if they're not in a contract, switching ISPs is not as simple as going to FedEx instead of UPS to ship a package.
It is true that advocates of both sides of a debate will use any argument, regardless of validity, to support their case, with the hope that enough weak-minded people will be unable to understand the flaws in their argument. You, sir, are to be commended for creating a truly flawed, but believable to weak-minded people, argument.
You're conflating two issues here: censorship of content by the government, and net neutrality. They are completely separate.
China's government determines what content is allowed. And then the ISPs in China treat that allowed content equally, in so far as it does not discriminate how quickly it is delivered.
But you imply there is a cause and effect at work: that because the government requires all content to be treated equally, the government must censor what content can be delivered.
Unfortunately for your argument, the latter simply doesn't follow from the former. The US government can (and currently does!) require ISPs to treat all content equally... and the US government does not censor what ISPs are allowed to deliver.
Requiring ISPs to deliver content "neutrally" does not lead to government censorship of the content. But claiming that it does is an interesting scare tactic...
Maverick17
Contributor
No, this is what antitrust laws are preventing.
Net neutrality was not a problem before 2015, was it? ISP's do not have economic incentive to alienate their customers. They have huge fixed costs and are afraid of broken contracts, lost subscribers, and the scrutiny of the press. Antitrust laws and the FTC, which will still have power here to regulate instead of the FCC, are sufficient and were sufficient for 20 years of development. Facebook and Google are much bigger threats to "neutrality" than any ISP with an increasing unwillingness to be neutral and no real competition.
drrich2
Contributor
Different Internet content is not the same size and 'weight' (bandwidth burden) on the system; an HD Netflix or Amazon Prime movie vs. a few e-mails for example. And physical package delivery services have long offered varied service tiers; regular mail, 2nd day, overnight, etc... USPS, UPS and FedEx...you walk in with 'content' to deliver to someone, you get a choice of whether to pay more to do it faster.
Netflix walks in the door to Verizon, says it wants to stream large data usage movies to customers, Verizon might likewise say 'Okay, what service level do you want to pay for?'
Richard.
This move by Trump's FCC is about as popular as flaming bags filled with doggie droppings, and between lawsuits to hold it up, probable congressional action to change the law, and Trump's current popularity, I doubt this will stay the law for long.
No... I'm not.
Net neutrality, as I said before has to do with two issues:
1) who does the consumer pay (ie.... who PROFITS) from the delivery of content to the end user? Content providers lobbied successfully that THEY own the content and THEY should be the sole recipients of the funds spent to view that content.
If you EVER had any confusion about why net neutrality was a "thing" then this is it. When in doubt... follow the money. The content providers are behind this. They do not want to share their profits with ISP's. End of discussion. In the view of content providers the ISP's are like internet Umpah-Lumpahs that, like any good slave, just do what they are told.... namely... deliver data to the end user.
There has been a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of really convincing sounding rhetoric about net neutrality but when you follow the money, THIS .. AND THIS ALONE is the main issue at play. It's about who gets the consumer's money.
That's it. That's ALL of it. Behind all the smoke an mirrors... this is the ONLY issue at play.... ok... not the only issue but the main one.
The other issue is this:
2) policy makers have a big issue to deal with right now and that is the issue of who OWNS the content. In some cases it's very clear. Ever wonder why Netflix makes its own content? It's because of copyright. Nobody can sue Netflix if they make their own content. Why is Star Trek available in Europe but not in the USA (as a hypothetical example)? Because of licencing. Who is responsible if someone can see Capt. Picard without a licence? That's the issue. Who can be sued for copyright violations.
If you allow the ISP's to be a stakeholder in this then you cannot compartmentalize that issue. I've said it before but people didn't seem to understand it. The SOURCE content producers.. the producers.... don't know who to sue for copyright infringement when both the content provider AND the ISP are "partially" guilty of making it possible for the consumer to break the law.
I know people have a hard time understanding this issue but it's really a "thing" in policy circles. Who is legally responsible for illegal content? It's a thing. I don't think most people really "get" this but it is a very complex legal minefield that policy makers try to simplify by reducing the number of players. Net neutrality gives policy makers such a mechanism. They can take ISP's out of the legal loop by defining them as a "utility".
Yes... stuff really does work like this in the real world at the policy level.... and THIS is one of the major forces driving net neutrality.
R..
I understand your argument: shippers need to charge for actual delivery costs (and make a reasonable profit.) Shippers of physical products (UPS etc) can charge the customers those costs. For some reason ISPs have all gone to the "one price for unlimited delivery" model... which means they have trouble charging the customers (i.e. the recipients of the delivery.)
The problem with allowing service providers to charge content creators is that the ISPs are effectively given the power to censor what they deliver. That was my point: the appropriate analogy between shippers of packages and ISPs would be if shippers charged different prices for the content of what was being shipped.
ISPs already charge different prices for different delivery modes: cellular, home, island (Dr Bill chimed in earlier about internet service on Catalina.) That is, charging customers for making delivery of internet content based on the actual cost of delivering the content. This is analogous to the delivery charge for expedited shipping, or shipping a long distance.
The simple fact is that while the killing of net neutrality rules might be done with the intent of allowing ISPs to recoup what it actually costs them to deliver the content, the consequence is that the ISPs will then have the power to censor content. The debate seems to rest on whether or not the ISPs will use that power.
The simple fact is that the ISPs are American businesses: if there is a profit to be made from using their power of censorship, they will use it.
Similar threads
