Net Neutrality: A Loss Set In Stone

Post Reply New Topic

With only until midnight to go until the FCC comments close does everyone have to let their opinions be heard about net neutrality. We need to face some facts.

Most comments both for and against net neutrality are bots, duplicates, and unreliable sources, but only the ones for are reported most.

The debate so far has been about keeping ISPs from discriminating vs government regulated internet.

It doesn't matter how much you protest, beg, scream, or cry, Ajit Pai will dismantle Net Neutrality for good.

With Verizon's inside man on the job, they've already prepared crappy services for the occasion and they all throttle speeds and videos.

The plan is to let the FTC handle NN instead of the FCC, but the FTC doesn't have much authority to go after NN violators.

They believe anti-trust laws will protect NN, but we haven't enforced any anti-trust laws in years and if we weren't going to, we're not going to.

When the throttling begins, mainstream won't report it right away because they can afford to keep the throttling at bay, but the rest of us will struggle depending on income minus cost of living. Why do you think Mainstream didn't cover NN much? If they did, how much was for vs against?

For me, NN was all about trust. It was there because we couldn't trust our ISPs to keep their hands off and I still don't trust ISPs to keep their hands off without NN. I have T-Mobile and Antietam Cable. Can I trust them? Can you trust your ISP?

I have a very deathly negative view on things so if anyone would like to discredit any of the above and/or reassure a positive outlook, PLEASE.

"Throttling" already happens per your ISP.

Let's say you buy a cheap internet package, then they just mark your packets with a "low priority" code.

Then your traffic goes slower than someone, say your neighbor, who uses the same ISP lines, and who pays for a nicer package, and whose packets get marked "high priority".

The difference is now they will engage in selective throttling in order to expand their monopoly status into the internet. Comcast might decide to "speed up" mainstream media sites they have ownership over at the expense of independent content on youtube or other video streaming sites. I can't believe how you see this as a good thing. People who are against NN are corporate tools / useful idiots for the elite. My god this is such a joke from a guy who campaigned against the supposed "elite". I just can't believe he still has support. It's just completely irrational given his constant ranting against the MSM.

We're doomed.

getting rid of NN will just make the place more like pay-tv.
on the upside, the whole free information/video/porn/music thing was ruining journalism/the film industry/the porn industry/the music industry anyway.

It will mean the introduction of more corporate authoritarianism, intended to prevent the little guy from being able to compete.

If this anti-net neutrality situation gets bad enough, maybe the courts will combat it using anti-trust laws or other pro-competition legislation. Until then, the issue is too abstract for most people to care. People care when they see how politics affects their everyday lives.

US congress is full of old dinosaurs who don't understand the internet.