Yeah. it is, again.

Not to be "that guy" but a lot of people are freaking out like they don't quite realize the net neutrality act wasn't in play until only a couple years ago and everything was fine. Along with the fact that anyone who knows anything about the FCC should actually be terrified of them being in control of it thanks TO net neutrality--ironically removing the net neutrality bill will take away control from the FCC-- and at the same time since net neutrality was put in the internet has gotten more and more regulated which... don't know if you've seen half of whats going on, that isn't exactly good... Some journals I've seen have been people claiming without NN then they'll be able to sanitize it of all porn... While on a site which is attempting to sanatize their site of conflicting political opinions... Currently NN just gives more rights to the site owners over the people who use the site in question, while the site owners shout that removing NN will make it so ISPs get to decide what they are allowed to post. So why is it that said ISPs are already doing that even though NN is in place? in America? NN isn't stopping it. the name is a ruse to fool people.

I take it you don't actually know what Net Neutrality is or what was going on, do you?

Here is what Net Neutrality is: ISPs and NAPs treat all traffic coming into and across their networks the same, ignoring things like source and high-level protocol, (e.g. HTTP v. FTP v. SMTP). It means to treat a packet as a packet as a packet, (with a minimal exception carved out for actual network abuse, such as DOS attacks).

That's it, nothing more.

As for everything being fine: No, it wasn't. ISPs and NAPs were starting to shake down content providers who had their access through different companies with the threat of throttling the traffic from them if payments weren't made. What's more, net neutrality _had_ been enforced in the US until 2010.


With net neutrality, you access whatever site you want with you paying your ISP for the download bandwidth and the site paying theirs for the upload bandwidth. Without net neutrality, all of those payments are still there while your ISP can decide to do things like deciding that certain video services will load at half speed, (or not at all), unless extra payments, (either from you or the service), are made.

You are also confusing enforcing rules on a particular site, (e.g. saying "you can't post Nazi propaganda on the 'Jewish Kids Forum'"), with trying to enforce your rules on systems that aren't using your services, (e.g. a US ISP demanding that a site in Israel not include content opposing settlements in the West Bank).

Exactly. People who keep spreading this idea that "We have to free Corporations from the supervisions of Big Government" forget that unregulated Big Business used to employ child labor. Corporations are NOT inherently good.

I direct you to Google. a company who benefits from the ISPs being limited. While actively throttling on every platform they own. Individuals have actually tested and proven that channels on youtube who report on news get lower upload speeds, we then have search results being hidden or stricken unless people pay google more money for them, along with their google store removing some apps even though they don't break their TOS. Yet you want to hold the ISP to a different standard while saying "it's okay for sites to do whatever they want" have fun hypocrite.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Net neutrality is _NOT_ about what sites do internally. It is _NOT_ about what services or products a site provides. It is _ONLY_ about traffic between sites.

What you are doing is excusing one for throttling in another way while attacking ANOTHER for throttling. both are private corporations, infact the fact that ISPs are limited as they are now will stifle new ISPs from showing up, ensuring that the ones that exist now hold power. Moreso while you hold one private corporation--the ISPs-- to the set of rules the other private corporation --websites in general, especially social media-- are left alone to do the very same thing. Removing net neutrality will help the consumer for a number of reasons where as the current net neutrality is not helpful at all. Moreso you may wish to look into it more because the "current" net neutrality bill that is in place makes ISPs count closer to a governmental service, which leaves them at the mercy of the FCC which guess what. anyone with half a brain cell knows the FCC is a problem.

There really is a difference. Net neutrality is about sending data packets between people, _NOT_ about what the people sending or receiving those packets end up doing with them.

Net neutrality is applying the same rule that applies to things like telephones, (and in the US, it literally is the same rule): You call whoever and the telephone company has to treat the call the same no matter who you call, be that your brother, a pizza place, a different pizza place or a porn video store. The nature of who you call and the nature of your business with them is irrelevant to the service being provided.

Do you think that the phone company should be able to say: "You aren't allowed to call Pizza Nova for delivery, you can only call Pizza Pizza." Net neutrality is that exact issue.

I don't think that and you are trivializing the issue as though that is "all" it does. it also closer regulates the internet and adds a way in for governmental control over what is ON said internet. If you want to know where this ends look at mainstream television where that good ol' "violence is fine but show some sex and shut it down!" Some people have already flipped shit that NN revocation is going to lead to sites like pornhub and FA here are going to be shut down by ISPs without realizing that the more regulations that get into place the easier it will be for the FCC to do what they want which is get their hands into the internet like they did television and radio in the past.

What you can expect to happen is, as net neutrality is treated as a permanent thing you will see sites being labeled as important. there have already been people trying to say social media sites like facebook and twitter should be regulated, with how they are treating these things it will eventually be added TO the stuff and, to use your analogy you won't be able to call pizza nova because pizza nova will be regulated out of business, where as pizza pizza will be the one around because they were able to hit all of the regulations of governmental adherence. Then the very reason everyone wants this NN in place is going to be happening anyway.

I don't think that and you are trivializing the issue as though that is "all" it does.

The way net neutrality is enacted in the US makes it work _exactly_ the same way telephone service is similarly regulated because it is the exact same regulation. I don't mean the regulations were copied, I mean that network services were placed in the same category and thus have to follow the exact same sections of law.

You are obsessing about the ends, the part net neutrality specifically _IGNORES_, (it's about the communication step, not how the communication is generated or what the recipient does with it). Your fear of regulations applied to content providers is an entirely different issue.


You also don't seem to understand that over-the-air broadcasting both requires different regulation for physical reasons, (there is a limit imposed by signal interference), and because it is not the same kind of service as telephony or data networking, (i.e. it is a continuous unidirectional one-to-many rather than an on-demand bidirectional one-to-one).

I think at this point it's just going to be an impasse.

Here is something for you to think about: What makes you think that regulations requiring minimal interference on the transmission of data over the internet would either inherently lead to restrictions being placed on content or that the regulations would be necessary for such restrictions to come into being?

I have already pondered that. and the answer is the fact I did more than simply look at what is happening, and instead looked at what has happened throughout the past.

If you had, you would have seen that what you fear has, historically, not been a result of Title II common carrier status.

In fact, what you fear has, historically, been done completely on its own without the need to include rules on data transmission. (JSYK: I was around for the Communications Decency Act, back when the backbone providers considered themselves common carriers¹ and ISPs had to toe the line that the NAPs set.)


1: If they weren't a step beyond as state actors.

I don't why they keep trying. Nobody is going to let it happen.

Idjit Pai (yes, that is misspelled intentionally) doesn't realize that if he weakens the Net Neutrality rules enough the ISP's will slit their own throats. The tech exists right now to set up networks without them. The only reason we don't is because it would be a ton of work and for a while it wouldn't work as well. But if it becomes more economical and reliable than the original, a new network can be cobbled together against any regulations to prevent it.

I'm making popcorn. This is going to be an amazing trainwreck, and the ISP's won't gain as much as they might think.