clemynx

kerpow said:

georgie01 said:

kerpow said:

I think its going to be fine and look forward to watching the companies who try the things you've described fail.

I’m all for small and limited government, and there are elements of net neutrality I don’t like, but in the absence of a replacement it needs to stay. We cannot have content in the hands of ISPs unless we also want the content to become profit driven.

Changes to the Internet, based on profit motivation, will likely be brought about in small doses, things that don’t seem too bad, or are at least tolerably bad. Then there will be another step. Rinse and repeat. And like any clever business tactic, by the time the changes have reached a level of ‘Oh wait, this sucks’, things will have already reached a level of near irreversibility. And the average person won’t really care anyway because they’ve become accustomed to it.

This approach happens endlessly in business, and government, and politics, and it happens because people are selfish and most people do things for themselves and will happily exploit others if they can. Very few people are there to serve others and do what’s best for them when it means a pay check is at stake.

So for something that is a national and even global service, to have decisions in hands of people who will take advantage of customers at every opportunity is a disastrous idea. The internet will change, guaranteed. If you’re saying you want these changes then fine, but it’s naive to think everything’s going to stay the same.

You act like customers have no power to sway the direction ISPs go on this topic, when in fact they (we) have all of the power. Yes, things will change but it doesn't mean its all doom and gloom. Imagine the public outrage  and boycotting that will come if any ISP tries the stuff you all are worried about. I guess I'm just not a hand wringer.

SpamSandwich said:

georgie01 said:

SpamSandwich said:

Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.

I’m always sad when I read someone say this because it is incredibly naive. Yes, in theory, the power of the market could be in consumer’s hands. But the reality is that most consumers are too lazy and are unwilling to accept sacrifice in order to produce change.

Business, politicians, leaders, groups, etc. take advantage of this as a matter of policy. The most effective attempts at change take the form of gradual changes people don’t want but can more or less tolerate. These smaller changes combined with what amounts to propaganda convince people they actually want these things they never wanted.

The internet is bigger than a simple commercial venture. I want a smaller government but some things should not be left to the market. 

Other than national defense and a very short list of other functions allowed the Federal government, minding the Internet is not one of those functions. There's almost nothing the market can do which can be done better by government. This should give Americans hope.

SpamSandwich said:

connectedliving said:

As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower. Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.

Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.

Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.

There's no proof US citizens will be "hurt by this". I'd simply argue that consumers are more "harmed" by regulations which protect local markets FROM competition instead. Let anyone and everyone enter the cable/satellite/Internet service provider/wireless services race and see who comes out on top.

SpamSandwich said:

gatorguy said:

SpamSandwich said:

melgross said:

Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?

How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.

There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?

You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.