Trump's Opposition to Net Neutrality

[georgephillip]

If you believe the following is an accurate description of net neutrality...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[1][2][3][4]"

does Trump's recent appointments to his transition team represent a threat to a free internet?
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307460-trump-picks-strike-fear-into-net-neutrality-backers
"Trump has tapped tech experts Jeff Eisenach and Mark Jamison, two critics of net neutrality, to head his transition team for the Federal Communications Commission.

"The rule, which requires internet service providers to treat all traffic equally, has been one of the most contentious issued under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

"Republicans have long blasted the rule. But Democrats have rallied behind net neutrality, which is a centerpiece of President Obama's tech legacy and survived a fierce court challenge.

"Trump has vowed to push a sweeping antiregulatory agenda across the board, and both sides in the net neutrality debate say his transition team picks signal trouble for the internet rules."

 

[Lukey]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

 

[worldlymrb]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

For the same reason @georgephillip supported Obama mandating every American buy overpriced health insurance from Mega-Conglomerate Insurance Corporations.

@georgephillip is a big supporter of fascism as long as it comes from the fascist democrat party.

 

[georgephillip]

Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

I had not thought of this question in that manner. It has often occurred to me today's big media monopolies like those you mention are at least as big a threat to society as the big industrial monopolies were a hundred years ago.

 

[georgephillip]

For the same reason @georgephillip supported Obama mandating every American buy overpriced health insurance from Mega-Conglomerate Insurance Corporations.

@georgephillip is a big supporter of fascism as long as it comes from the fascist democrat party.

Except even georgephillip was smart enough to recognize Obamacare as a corporate Trojan horse:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

 

[Spamature]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

Bullsh*t. They already get paid on both ends by both providers and users. Also it's those very content provider that make the internet something people want to use. Now you want public to pay providers extra for ability to Google and Netflix ? Should we also have to pay them to post on this forum ? Talk about rent seeking.

 

[ObamacareForever]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

I support net neutrality because i support netflix and google over ISP like Time Warner or Comcast. They are terrible at customer service and i hope they fail.

 

[georgephillip]

I support net neutrality because i support netflix and google over ISP like Time Warner or Comcast. They are terrible at customer service and i hope they fail.

I've seen claims alleging US consumers pay twice as much for internet speeds one-tenth as fast as consumers in markets where the private, for-profit sector is not responsible for providing ISP services.

 

[RickWA]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

What we need to do (presuming we're good stewards and vigilant citizens) is to DISREGARD the relative beneficiaries (ISPs versus actual content providers or host corporations) and maintain LASER-SHARP FOCUS on the fact that the sanitized term "net neutrality" in fact creates a NEW mandate and ADDITIONAL regulatory powers for government.

Drones argue back and forth about the denomination of bills in the wallet...oblivious to the wallet itself.

No. More. State. Scope. No more.

 

[georgephillip]

Drones argue back and forth about the denomination of bills in the wallet...oblivious to the wallet itself.

No. More. State. Scope. No more.

Doesn't that guarantee private for-profit corporations will fill the regulatory void left by government?

 

[justoffal]

Bullsh*t. They already get paid on both ends by both providers and users. Also it's those very content provider that make the internet something people want to use. Now you want public to pay providers extra for ability to Google and Netflix ? Should we also have to pay them to post on this forum ? Talk about rent seeking.

Look...Bandwith isn't free....if you want to use boatloads of it....then guess what.

JO

 

[justoffal]

What we need to do (presuming we're good stewards and vigilant citizens) is to DISREGARD the relative beneficiaries (ISPs versus actual content providers or host corporations) and maintain LASER-SHARP FOCUS on the fact that the sanitized term "net neutrality" in fact creates a NEW mandate and ADDITIONAL regulatory powers for government.

Drones argue back and forth about the denomination of bills in the wallet...oblivious to the wallet itself.

No. More. State. Scope. No more.

As with every other law...the name is a lie...

If it has to be enforced then its never going to be real neutrality.

More competition is the only way to ensure a fair spread.

This is indeed the government looking for censorship powers as they will become the Ultimate arbiter of what is fair coverage and what is not.

JO

 

[resident_evil]

As with most of these issues, the meme isn't the truth. Regarding "net neutrality" What it really is is a subsidy for Netflix, Google and Apple (and Microsoft) at the expense of the network owners (communications companies). They'd like to be able to charge more for heavy users of these high volume internet services - either at the wellhead (the company) or the users, by tiering their charges based on how much you download. Why are you taking sides in this corporate rentier activity of battling over this regulation of the internet???

I pay for and get a 1 gigabit figer optic internet connection. I don't want any of my traffic shaped by my ISP. I pay for the speed and it is not their prerogative to manage it in a manner inconsistent with our contractual agreement. Google, Netflix, and Apple already pay for internet access. Fact is they contribute a lot to the hardware infrastructure of the internet.

So I pay for access and Microsoft pays for access wtf more does ATT want?

 

[Lukey]

I pay for and get a 1 gigabit optical internet connection. I don't want any of my traffic shaped by my ISP. I pay for the speed and it is not their prerogative to manage it in a manner inconsistent with our contractual agreement. Google, Netflix, and Apple already pay for internet access. Fact is they contribute a lot to the hardware infrastructure of the internet.

So I pay for access and Microsoft pays for access wtf more does ATT want?

http://time.com/3901378/netflix-internet-traffic/

Net neutrality means they (and their customers) don't have to pay their fair share of the costs of the internet network. It's socialism for Netflix, Google, Apple and Microsoft. And it guarantees the telcos won't invest in additional capacity when it is needed. If Netflix uses 1/3 of the internet, do you really believe they (and their users) pay 1/3 of the cost? Not happening. It's bandwidth socialism, where everyone pays more so the small number of high bandwidth users can pay less than their share.

 

[Spamature]

Look...Bandwith isn't free....if you want to use boatloads of it....then guess what.

JO

Then let them charge you up front. Why should they be able to charge me for someone else's content when I have paid what they asked for the connection. I guess you think it should be like this. Because they'll do it in a heartbeat if they can get away with it.

 

[resident_evil]

http://time.com/3901378/netflix-internet-traffic/

Net neutrality means they (and their customers) don't have to pay their fair share of the costs of the internet network.

Yes, they do pay their fair share. They get an internet access bill regularly. I do too monthly.

This is about traffic shaping an experience and using it to get ATT content ahead of Netflix or Google content. ATT is trying to own not just the infrastructure but also a huge content portion too.

http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_time_warner.html

It's socialism for Netflix, Google, Apple and Microsoft. And it guarantees the telcos won't invest in additional capacity when it is needed. If Netflix uses 1/3 of the internet, do you really believe they (and their users) pay 1/3 of the cost? Not happening. It's bandwidth socialism, where everyone pays more so the small number of high bandwidth users can pay less than their share.

My telco invested in additional capacity. I have a 1Gb fiber optic connection straight to the house wall and to be honest I never expected it anytime soon. And that w/o traffic shaping for ATT. Fiber optic is now cheaper and easier to deal with than copper for a myriad of reasons.

ATT wants content control and it has nothing to do with socialism. Again, Netflix pays for the bandwidth it uses period. I pay for that bandwidth too when I watch Netflix. Both with my monthly bill and with my bill to Netflix.

Stop the bullshiting already. The problem with Net Neutrality is the other crap liberals pumped into it.

 

[RickWA]

Doesn't that guarantee private for-profit corporations will fill the regulatory void left by government?

What "void" are we talking about here?

Suppose I propose a new regulatory standard for existent infrastructure. Does my proposal indicate a "void"? Are we allowing partisans to invent crises and stir up urgencies where they don't truly exist? Do we just presume prescriptive need by its mere offering?

 

[georgephillip]

What "void" are we talking about here?

Suppose I propose a new regulatory standard for existent infrastructure. Does my proposal indicate a "void"? Are we allowing partisans to invent crises and stir up urgencies where they don't truly exist? Do we just presume prescriptive need by its mere offering?

Is this an accurate description of "net neutrality?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[1][2][3][4]"

 

[RickWA]

Is this an accurate description of "net neutrality?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[1][2][3][4]"

That is a sanitized/euphemised description of the proposition that state entities should be MORE heavy-handed and activist in assessment and regulation of day-to-day internet activities. Therein lies the problem. We simply look past the presumption that "governments should treat all data the same". Our eyes follow the descriptive equality of "the same" and are distracted away from "governments should TREAT..."

Do I want an activist government filtering, mining, and assessing relative content and blessing materials on an ogoing basis? Is that the default mechanism of go/no-go that we all want to sign up to moving forward? Look how it is summarily PRESUMED. The blatant assumption that this assessment body and mechanism should even exist at all is never, ever addressed. It's presented as some sort of cosmic certitude.

I think we have enough big brother. No mas, por favor.

 

[justoffal]

Then let them charge you up front. Why should they be able to charge me for someone else's content when I have paid what they asked for the connection. I guess you think it should be like this. Because they'll do it in a heartbeat if they can get away with it.

Yeah well....I think we're actually saying the same thing.... Just from two different angles.