Net Neutrality voted down - breaking

Seeing as how it's a scathing explanation of the deneutralization of the internet, and not net neutrality itself, they're emphatically stating that they're against its deneutralization. It's publicity for being in support of a popular cause.

Senate rebukes Trump administration, votes to reinstate net neutrality

https://thinkprogress.org/senate-rebukes-trump-administration-votes-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-f00160515007/

I just hope it goes somewhere beyond mere posturing. Sadly it probably won't.

The house won’t even bring it up for a vote.

This is why it’s important to elect people with a D next to their name (even if they are evil “moderates). They need control of the legislative agenda.

At the least it gives an issue the average person can grab onto, regardless of being liberal or conservative, if the persons running for office latch onto it.

There is a very strange contradiction in this fight.

Net neutrality posits that all content on the internet should be treated equally. The people who are arguing strongly for "Net Neutrality" are the same people who are arguing that Facebook and Twitter should be forced to remove alternative facts and "hate speech" from their commercial services.

I think the liberals are making a much bigger deal over this than warranted. The main impact of this argument is whether my cable company can make a business deal with HBO to offer me better quality movies for less money.

But the political contradiction here is fascinating.

Sure Max, this is the marketing spin being spit out by Comcast.

What is more likely to happen (because it already has) is that Netflix is slowed down to an unusable bandwidth (despite the customer purchasing a speed of internet that would be sufficient) because they were unwilling to pay Comcast's ransom.

I, as a customer, am purchasing 75mbps of bandwidth. I expect all of my internet traffic to come in at those levels, not reduced by my internet provider. THAT is net neutrality.

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/


And you should be aware (if you aren't) that despite living in the 4th largest city in the USA (Chicago), I have the option to choose from only 1 high speed internet provider. One. I can't simply switch to another competitor (or, trust me, I would).

Sure MaPorsche, you can make the argument that this will make your internet a little slower. And you can make a point about the ISP monopoly in many places (although here in the Boston area I have several options). I have price tiers on my current internet service, I pay more for faster service but I don't pay for the fastest.

But nothing here rises to the level of a threat to democracy on the internet.

I am on the fence on the issue of business deals providing faster service for certain partners. I just don't think the hysteria is warranted.

Free speech is very important to me, I don't want ideas or perspectives to be stifled )whether it is from feminists or neo-nazis). But business practices and free speech issues aren't directly related. It seems to me that political movements to force companies to stifle speech that liberals consider offensive is the biggest real danger to free speech on the internet.

Hence the political contradiction.

We agree on that, but that's not why I support net neutrality (at least not the primary reason). I think it's possible that these monopolies sometime in the future could do something rising to a theat to democracy, but I think we deal with that when the time comes (although, I would like rules in place today that make things like blocking ISPs or throttling or pay-for-faster-service public knowledge and transparent so we can judge what is in our best interests).

I'm even ok with business providing faster service for certain providers. If HBO wants to pay for me to have 1GB downloads for their programs, then I'll happily accept that.

What I'm not ok with are certain providers being throttled to a speed LOWER than the baseline that I'm paying for. If I purchase 155mbps downloads, all my traffic should be coming in at that speed. And despite the best marketing spin Comcast can pump out (and people can gobble down), what we have IN FACT seen are sites speed being throttled DOWN if ransoms aren't paid (despite the customer having the expected purchase speed).


ETA: I'm against slowing down or blocking sites (that aren't linked to criminal activity) in general.

Maybe this one can be challenged in the courts and brought eventually to the Supreme Court.

That is an accurate assessment. We have indeed seen ISP's do exactly that. And I share your concerns.

Without Net Neutrality, ISP's are free to control throughput to/from any sites they choose. And while they may start with billing large providers like NetFlix a premium for throughput, there is nothing to stop them from controlling access speeds to any source/target they choose, for any reason. As we move into the future of the Internet, it's going to become more and more critical that freedom of information flow will need to protected.

The writing is on the wall for where this can go, and we ignore the warnings at our peril.

You are conflating to very different issues.

1) Can companies sell you an Internet contract that provides different speeds for different services?

2) Can companies stop unpopular information from being promoted on the internet?

The speed at which I download a movie from NetFlix vs HBO may be important to some people, it isn't that important to me. There are issues involving small companies and emerging technologies that may be more important to me (particularly the ability to large companies to muscle them out).

The second issue, which I think you mean by "freedom of information flow" is the ability of companies, governments or political interest groups to stifle ideas, hide websites, or promote one political viewpoint over another.

How many people here think that the political movement to pressure Facebook or Twitter to block, or hide Men's Rights Activist groups is a bad thing? It seems like the principle of Net Neutrality protects unpopular groups from public pressure. Currently the groups that need this protection are anti-LGBT groups and conservative religious groups. All the people on your Facebook feed who want to do something about what they see as rising fascism online should not be a fan of Net Neutrality.

Don't confuse the two. Business policies have little substantial to do with the broader question of the ability of unpopular groups to promote their message online.