Net Neutrality Issue

But everything still has to survive the courts. The whole "We got to Pass the bill to see what is in it" mentality that the democrats have with everything is hurting everyone but them [The Congressmen]. First it was with Obamacare, all but destroying the middle class and the medical industries as a whole, and now this? This has all but destroyed the last bastion of free speech that we have in the world.
 
Basically, I don't see what's wrong with the NSA spying on our internet usage. If we're not committing any crimes or doing anything illegal or that would cause any suspicion, then what's wrong with that?

Also, if the NSA is reading this, hi there.
How can you say you have nothing to hide if you don't know what they're looking for? Say some day you have a change of heart and go to a protest against government surveillance. How are you going to organize it? Online? Now they have your information and you're a political dissident.

What if you're an American citizen with family from Pakistan, and you go home to visit your family some day? Now you're on a list, and so is everyone you hang out with. What if you fall in love with a Chinese exchange student, get married, and then 20 years from now there's a crisis in US-Chinese relations?

You haven't done anything illegal, but some nice men from a 3 letter agency would start asking you some "simple" questions pretty quickly. What happens if they go through your internet history and find you defending China after your experiences there were different from the stereotypes? Now you're an American with an American passport, married to a Chinese woman, with a record of being a Chinese sympathiser. Do you trust your government with that information? After all, you've done nothing illegal, nothing to hide, right?

This isn't paranoid conspiracy stuff. This is what happened during the civil rights movement and the red scare. During WWII they put Japanese Americans and Canadians in internment camps for nothing more than being Japanese.
 
Last edited:
How can you say you have nothing to hide if you don't know what they're looking for? Say some day you have a change of heart and go to a protest against government surveillance. How are you going to organize it? Online? Now they have your information and you're a political dissident.

What if you're an American citizen with family from Pakistan, and you go home to visit your family some day? Now you're on a list, and so is everyone you hang out with. What if you fall in love with a Chinese exchange student, get married, and then 20 years from now there's a crisis in US-Chinese relations?

You haven't done anything illegal, but some nice men from a 3 letter agency would start asking you some "simple" questions pretty quickly. What happens if they go through your internet history and find you defending China after your experiences there were different from the stereotypes? Now you're an American with an American passport, married to a Chinese woman, with a record of being a Chinese sympathiser. Do you trust your government with that information? After all, you've done nothing illegal, nothing to hide, right?

This isn't paranoid conspiracy stuff. This is what happened during the civil rights movement and the red scare. During WWII they put Japanese Americans and Canadians in internment camps for nothing more than being Japanese.

Same here in UK / Wales we rounded up all Germans and Italians put them in a camp around the corner from me it's been gone for over 50/60 years but people still remember the camp.
 
If we're not committing any crimes or doing anything illegal or that would cause any suspicion, then what's wrong with that?
If you really believe that please send me your login information for all your email accounts. And when I say all of them I mean all of them, including the one you use that no one actually knows about.

I mean, you have nothing to hide, right?


It should also be noted that this argument has been used by every rising dictatorship in history, including the Nazis.


But if you want an actual real-world case of how this can go terribly bad I present to you the terrifying surveillance case of Brandon Mayfield.
Article
On March 11, 2004, Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists coordinated a massive bombing of the Madrid commuter train system during the morning rush hour, killing 193 people and wounding approximately 1,800. Two latent fingerprints recovered during the investigation on a bag of detonators by the Spanish National Police (SNP) were shared with the FBI through Interpol. When the prints were run through the bureau’s database, it returned 20 possible matches for one of the fingerprints, one of whom was Brandon Mayfield. A former U.S. Army platoon leader, Mayfield was now an attorney specializing in child custody, divorce and immigration law in Portland, Ore. His prints were in the FBI system because of Mayfield’s military service as well as an arrest two decades earlier because of a misunderstanding. The charges were later dropped.
Despite finding that Mayfield’s print was not an identical match to the print left on the bag of detonators, FBI fingerprint examiners rationalized away the differences, according to a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Under the one discrepancy rule, the FBI lab should have concluded Mayfield did not leave the print found in Madrid — a conclusion the SNP reached and repeatedly communicated to the FBI. The FBI’s Portland field office, however, used that fingerprint match to begin digging into Mayfield’s background. Certain details of the attorney’s life convinced the agents that they had their man. Mayfield had converted to Islam after meeting his wife, an Egyptian. He had represented one of the Portland Seven, a group of men who tried to travel to Afghanistan to fight for al Qaeda and the Taliban against U.S. and coalition forces in a child custody case. He also worshipped at the same mosque as the militants. In the aftermath of 9/11, these innocent associations and relationships, however tangential, were transformed by investigators into evidence that Mayfield wasn’t a civic-minded American, but a bloodthirsty terrorist intent on destroying the West.
Mayfield’s biographical details, particularly his religion and representation of an alleged terrorist, contributed to the FBI lab’s reluctance to re-examine the mistaken identification. According to the OIG, “One of the examiners candidly admitted that if the person identified had been someone without these characteristics, like the Maytag repairman, the laboratory might have revisited the identification with more skepticism and caught the error.”
Because the FBI agents had no concrete evidence that Mayfield was linked to the Madrid train bombings, they decided not to apply for a criminal wiretap, which requires probable cause to believe there is criminal activity or intent. Rather, they applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant, asserting they had probable cause to believe Mayfield was acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist group. This allowed the FBI to circumvent the Fourth Amendment because evidence of criminal activity incidentally discovered in the course of its intelligence activities could be shared with prosecutors and criminal investigators. The secret FISA court approved the request, as it almost always does, and the FBI began its surreptitious and incredibly intrusive blanket surveillance of Mayfield and his family.
Concocted theories
FBI agents broke into Mayfield’s home and law office. They rifled through documents protected by attorney-client privilege, wiretapped his phones, analyzed his financial records and web browsing history, and went through his garbage. They followed him wherever he went. Despite all this, the FBI never found a smoking gun connecting him to Madrid. They did, however, find Internet searches of flights to Spain and learned that he once took flying lessons. To FBI agents already convinced of his guilt, this was all evidence of Mayfield’s terrorist heart. The Web searches, however, were mundane. His daughter had to plan a fictional vacation for a school project. Flight lessons were indicative of nothing more than Mayfield’s interest in flying.
While it may seem like there were a freakish number of coincidences here, when the FBI was confronted with evidence that demonstrated Mayfield’s innocence, they twisted it to support their original theory of his guilt. With no evidence that Mayfield had traveled internationally for years — his passport had expired, and the last record of foreign travel was during his military service in 1994 — the FBI simply concocted the theory that he must have traveled overseas as part of this terrorist conspiracy under a false identity.
Because of mistakes made by the FBI — they left shoe prints in the carpet of the Mayfields’ home and broke in one time when Mayfield’s son was home alone — Mayfield concluded he was under surveillance by federal authorities. Paranoia set in. When driving, he would look to see if someone was following him home or to the office. The FBI took his skittishness as more evidence of his guilt. Believing their cover blown, FBI agents detained Mayfield as a material witness to the Madrid bombing because they feared he was a flight risk. They couldn’t arrest him because their intrusive surveillance still could not find any evidence of any crime. He spent two weeks in jail, petrified that fellow inmates would learn he was somehow involved in the Madrid bombing and hurt him.
During the OIG’s review of the handling of the Mayfield case, it found that the FBI’s requests for material witness and criminal search warrants “contained several inaccuracies that reflected a regrettable lack of attention to detail.” The FBI’s belief that it had their man, despite all contrary evidence, was so strong that it provided misleading sworn statements to a judge. The only reason Mayfield is a free man today is that the Spanish police repeatedly told the FBI that the print recovered from the bag of detonators didn’t match Mayfield’s fingerprints. The FBI, however, continued to stand by its lab’s findings until Spanish authorities conclusively matched the print to the real culprit, Algerian national Ouhane Daoud. Only then did Mayfield’s traumatic journey into the stomach of the national security state end.
In a world where intelligence and security services might be pressured to find their man, confirmation bias can lead to a lot of mistaken arrests and destroy lives.



But everything still has to survive the courts. The whole "We got to Pass the bill to see what is in it" mentality that the democrats have with everything is hurting everyone but them [The Congressmen]. First it was with Obamacare, all but destroying the middle class and the medical industries as a whole, and now this? This has all but destroyed the last bastion of free speech that we have in the world.
This wasn't even a bill or any form of legislation. This is just a rule made by the FCC to give themselves more power. Five people in a room took a vote to give themselves more power, which will in turn allow them to ask for a bigger chunk of money in their future budgets.
 
This wasn't even a bill or any form of legislation. This is just a rule made by the FCC to give themselves more power. Five people in a room took a vote to give themselves more power, which will in turn allow them to ask for a bigger chunk of money in their future budgets.
But my point remains that by classifying the internet as a Class II utility under the Communications Act of 1934, the door is open for legal challenges. That is something that, if ISPs were smart about, would immediately file suit to get an injunction to stop it in its tracks.
 
If you really believe that please send me your login information for all your email accounts. And when I say all of them I mean all of them, including the one you use that no one actually knows about.

I mean, you have nothing to hide, right?


It should also be noted that this argument has been used by every rising dictatorship in history, including the Nazis.


But if you want an actual real-world case of how this can go terribly bad I present to you the terrifying surveillance case of Brandon Mayfield.

In a world where intelligence and security services might be pressured to find their man, confirmation bias can lead to a lot of mistaken arrests and destroy lives.




This wasn't even a bill or any form of legislation. This is just a rule made by the FCC to give themselves more power. Five people in a room took a vote to give themselves more power, which will in turn allow them to ask for a bigger chunk of money in their future budgets.
You're different from a government agency. I'm not saying I'd let someone who I don't know have the ability to post, but I really wouldn't care if you saw my emails.
 
You're different from a government agency. I'm not saying I'd let someone who I don't know have the ability to post, but I really wouldn't care if you saw my emails.
So, there is nothing in your life that you would be kind of embarrassed for others to know about or see you do? Nothing someone could use against you if they decided that you were a threat, whether you meant to be or not. Nothing that could be used against you just because someone decided that they didn't like you?


And the case I posted for you, of an innocent man falsely accused based on the monitoring of men rushing to solve a case, does not scare you in the least?

People have been investigated by police because one person searched for a pressure cooker while the other was looking at backpacks for their kids.

Have you ever seen a politician have some incident from when they were barely old enough to have pubes drug out during an election? Imagine if someone who didn't like them merely had to push a button to find out every embarrassing detail.


All of that is OK to you?
 
So, there is nothing in your life that you would be kind of embarrassed for others to know about or see you do? Nothing someone could use against you if they decided that you were a threat, whether you meant to be or not. Nothing that could be used against you just because someone decided that they didn't like you?


And the case I posted for you, of an innocent man falsely accused based on the monitoring of men rushing to solve a case, does not scare you in the least?

People have been investigated by police because one person searched for a pressure cooker while the other was looking at backpacks for their kids.

Have you ever seen a politician have some incident from when they were barely old enough to have pubes drug out during an election? Imagine if someone who didn't like them merely had to push a button to find out every embarrassing detail.


All of that is OK to you?
Not you people; but a government agency who isn't going to release this info, I guess so then.
Look, I'd rather have Internet that is private, but would it really bother me? I guess not. I like the Internet the way it is though.


Why do I even post in the rumble strip it's all just arguments
 
What if GTPlanet is just a scam by the US government?

/consipiracy theorist

Ask yourself, where are they going to store most of the information and how are they going to watch it all when they suddenly decide that you're a threat for their power. E-mails and the things posted on social-media will obviously stay, but if webcams are filming us all the time and GPS is checking our location every second, it'd be more than hard to find anything that could interest anyone from more than 2 years of video and even more location history. What will happen when is someone checking millions of profiles with a very slim chance of stopping at your profile and deciding that you're a threat, if that happens all of this may lead to an arrest, but first you'd have to fit the profile of the suspect. I'd say that unless people are getting arrested for speeding by this, any webcam videos get on YouTube without the device owner's permission or a war occurs this won't affect most people's lives.
 
Perhaps I'm a bit old fashion and I can't claim to know the details of how this regulation is going to work but where is the crime with a company controlling what they're providing or the speeds/cost in which they provide it? Why is the internet now labeled a necessity by many and why should we be entitled a certain quality of it?

It's crazy, I've seen so many people who generally seem to oppose government regulation jumping about in support for net neutrality purely out of their own self interest or because they for some reason feel entitled to the internet. 👎
 
Perhaps I'm a bit old fashion and I can't claim to know the details of how this regulation is going to work but where is the crime with a company controlling what they're providing or the speeds/cost in which they provide it? Why is the internet now labeled a necessity by many and why should we be entitled a certain quality of it?

It's crazy, I've seen so many people who generally seem to oppose government regulation jumping about in support for net neutrality purely out of their own self interest or because they for some reason feel entitled to the internet. 👎
It's because Net Neutrality to the government IS regulation. The Communications Act of 1934 was the justification that the FCC used after World War II to regulate the telecom industry. If you lived at any period of time between 1945 and roughly 1996, there was little to no innovation with the telephone because of Government interference.

By declaring the internet as a Class II utility under that law, the FCC has the power to kill the free market in ways that can make Lenin blush. Because to them, restriction to the providers is freedom when the converse is actually true. That is why when you see ads for ISPs, you see them at roughly every two years, advertise greater and greater speeds.

I think that it has now gone like the dodo.
 
Ask yourself, where are they going to store most of the information and how are they going to watch it all when they suddenly decide that you're a threat for their power. E-mails and the things posted on social-media will obviously stay, but if webcams are filming us all the time and GPS is checking our location every second, it'd be more than hard to find anything that could interest anyone from more than 2 years of video and even more location history. What will happen when is someone checking millions of profiles with a very slim chance of stopping at your profile and deciding that you're a threat, if that happens all of this may lead to an arrest, but first you'd have to fit the profile of the suspect. I'd say that unless people are getting arrested for speeding by this, any webcam videos get on YouTube without the device owner's permission or a war occurs this won't affect most people's lives.

You underestimate data analysis software and how fast it progresses.

Of course there's not going to be some guy in a booth watching his way through all the videos, that would be impossible. The point is that they store everything, and that computers are getting better and better at being able to find what you want. Maybe they can't identify the incriminating pattern now, but what about in ten years? Twenty?

It's the informational equivalent of teens putting nudie pictures of themselves on the internet. Sure, it doesn't really matter now, it's just another pair of breasts in the giant sea of breasts that is the interweb. Until in twenty years someone matches it to them and now they're being blackmailed.

Who's to say that in twenty years you won't be able to search by face for all Youtube videos containing a person? Wouldn't surprise me at all, and that sort of tech (which already exists to some extent) can be very powerful. And that's only one example.
 
Not you people; but a government agency who isn't going to release this info, I guess so then.
I guess you think that what the FBI did to MLK is impossible today? You trust your government too much. They see a security threat as anything that challenges their current system. You want change and can get people to agree with you? Threat.

Also keep in mind that those who work for these government agencies are just people, like you or me, who have been exposed to abuse their powers to monitor significant others and exes. Imagine you start dating some jealous NSA tech's ex. Suddenly they get an anonymous email with your entire Internet search history or things you would never reveal about yourself early in a relationship.

Why do I even post in the rumble strip it's all just arguments
This isn't the Rumble Strip.
 
You underestimate data analysis software and how fast it progresses.

Of course there's not going to be some guy in a booth watching his way through all the videos, that would be impossible. The point is that they store everything, and that computers are getting better and better at being able to find what you want. Maybe they can't identify the incriminating pattern now, but what about in ten years? Twenty?
Okay, yes it's getting easier to find data from archives, but you still have to be able maintain such an archive and I don't believe that even the technology governments have is ready to save every internet activity there is. It might get there in the future, but I don't want to predict the future of computer technology.

It's the informational equivalent of teens putting nudie pictures of themselves on the internet. Sure, it doesn't really matter now, it's just another pair of breasts in the giant sea of breasts that is the interweb. Until in twenty years someone matches it to them and now they're being blackmailed.
That's an issue, but there are multiple ways to do it. Not being able to be watched by some government agency won't make you anymore safe from hackers and other individuals who can also find something to blackmail for, if determined enough. I'd be far more concerned if I found out that some source with less resources to find only few people's personal information has found my webcam video for the last two years than a computer with millions of other exactly same type of videos.

Who's to say that in twenty years you won't be able to search by face for all Youtube videos containing a person? Wouldn't surprise me at all, and that sort of tech (which already exists to some extent) can be very powerful. And that's only one example.
Okay that's something I agree, mostly because it's already there. I don't think it'll make much of a difference for me, though, because as far as I know my face hasn't been on a YouTube video yet. Not to mention the fact we don't even know if YouTube is any good as a source for videos in 20 years to the future.

I never said that I'm happy about being watched, but it still doesn't make any changes to most people's lives and therefore I don't see that people would really care whether it happens or not.
 
I guess you think that what the FBI did to MLK is impossible today? You trust your government too much. They see a security threat as anything that challenges their current system. You want change and can get people to agree with you? Threat.
I'm just spitballing off the top of my head and I can immediately think of reasons why I'd have "something to hide" even though I've done nothing illegal. There's going to be a federal election in Canada some time in October, imagine that along with that there's a resurgence in the Quebec separatist movement. By October, I'll have lived in France for 10 months, have made tons of posts and messaged people online talking about how great French food and culture is, and learned to speak French at a reasonable level. I'm also a fan of the Montreal hockey team, and I'll probably spend time in Quebec over the summer.

It sounds like a stretch comparing Quebec and France but that's a huge part of the Quebec separatism thing, some Quebecers and particularly separatists feel closer ties to France than Canada (eg. they felt more emotion for the Charlie Hebdo shootings than the shootings in Ottawa). I could very easily be on a list for studying abroad and liking baguettes, croissants, butter, wine, and camembert. It's a trivial example and sounds silly but it's so easy for completely normal and lawful things to become "suspicious" when societal stability is threatened.

Okay, yes it's getting easier to find data from archives, but you still have to be able maintain such an archive and I don't believe that even the technology governments have is ready to save every internet activity there is. It might get there in the future, but I don't want to predict the future of computer technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
Not every piece of data ever on the internet, but you're underestimating just how interested power hungry bureaucrats are with this stuff.

Also keep in mind that even though a lot of this discussion is about the US, it's relevant elsewhere. There's an agreement called "Five Eyes" between the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia to share intelligence and data which arose from the Cold War. Essentially what that means is that even though it's illegal for the CIA to spy domestically on American citizens and for MI6 to spy domestically on UK citizens, MI6 will spy on Americans and the CIA will spy on Brits and then they'll compare notes later.

These guys got caught tapping Angela Merkel's phone for over 10 years! If we can't trust these people not to spy on the leader of one of their best allies, how can we trust them not to abuse their power on average people? I know I sound like I'm wearing a tin foil hat but we already have tons of publicly released evidence of very shady stuff going on, who knows what else is happening that we don't know about?
 
Last edited:
Okay, yes it's getting easier to find data from archives, but you still have to be able maintain such an archive and I don't believe that even the technology governments have is ready to save every internet activity there is. It might get there in the future, but I don't want to predict the future of computer technology.

But that's a strawman. They don't need to save every internet activity for it to be abusive. They just need to save some.

Also, I think you would be astounded just how much storage capacity exists in some places. Think about how much storage Google needs, and then think about how the government could probably be orders of magnitude above that if it wanted.

Besides, the point isn't that it's OK because it's hard to do. The point is that it's not OK, no matter how difficult it is. It's not OK for me to snipe someone in the head from 5 kilometers away just because it's really difficult.

That's an issue, but there are multiple ways to do it. Not being able to be watched by some government agency won't make you anymore safe from hackers and other individuals who can also find something to blackmail for, if determined enough. I'd be far more concerned if I found out that some source with less resources to find only few people's personal information has found my webcam video for the last two years than a computer with millions of other exactly same type of videos.

Who said anything about it making you safe from hackers?

This isn't about how difficult it is to protect your information from people willing to go to extreme lengths to get it. It's about how difficult it is to protect your information from people who are being handed it on a platter.

There's a big difference between hackers committing a crime to access your information, and the government having free access to that same information.

The point of that paragraph I wrote was to illustrate using a contemporary example how dangerous it can be to make freely available information that can be used against you, trusting that the difficulty of linking it to you will keep you safe. In the long term, it won't. And when we're talking about computers, the long term can be surprisingly short.

Okay that's something I agree, mostly because it's already there. I don't think it'll make much of a difference for me, though, because as far as I know my face hasn't been on a YouTube video yet. Not to mention the fact we don't even know if YouTube is any good as a source for videos in 20 years to the future.

I never said that I'm happy about being watched, but it still doesn't make any changes to most people's lives and therefore I don't see that people would really care whether it happens or not.

Except that's the point.

Say this goes through, and the government uses the information to blackmail or otherwise terrorise people that it wants to. It's only ever going to be a tiny fraction of the amount of people that it's gathered information on, because that's just how it works. Only a tiny fraction of people are in positions where pressuring them would be of value.

But you don't know beforehand who it is. It could be you. It could be me. It could be little Timmy von Smiles down the street. It could be the little old lady who works at the orphanage, gives to charity every year and helps feed the homeless at Christmas.

It doesn't become OK because only a small amount of people are having their privacy violated. We don't accept other forms of abuse simply because there's not that many people being abused.

If you want to make the argument that the cost of a few people having their privacy violated is to the ultimate good of the community, then make that argument. But simply saying "small numbers don't matter" without any further justification isn't valid.
 
I have recently learned something. The FCC has not released the full text of these new rules yet. All debate beforehand and now is based on a brief summary that the commission has released, not the full 300+ page document. Even Congress, who oversees the FCC has not seen the full documents.

So, currently we do not know exactly what powers they gave themselves.

The thing to keep in mind is that the rulemaking process for the FCC requires them to give Congress the full text of their new rules so that Congress may consider overturning the rules.


Considering that both houses are now Republican controlled there is a major chance that this will never see the light of day. That chance could be why it hasn't been released yet. They can sit on the release until Congress is near the end of a session or is out of session so that it can be old news before they get to it.

Whatever they are waiting for, which could be something legitimate, it won't go into effect until 60 days after it has been published on the federal register.
 
Considering that both houses are now Republican controlled there is a major chance that this will never see the light of day. That chance could be why it hasn't been released yet. They can sit on the release until Congress is near the end of a session or is out of session so that it can be old news before they get to it.

Congress has to get a bill past Obama to pull that off - not so likely.
 
Congress has to get a bill past Obama to pull that off - not so likely.
This is true, but I think we are close enough to a presidential election year to see some unexpected moves. The companies affected are big donors and public support appears to make huge swings based on how you describe net neutrality.

Part of me also suspects that this is not a large enough issue to outweigh votes for other issues, especially if they make it come in quietly.

Do it quietly and Obama can let it pass, not make a lot of news, and Democrats can maintain financial support.




Christ, I've been working for government too long. I'm looking for the backdoor angles on this. I should see if Frank Underwood has any positions open.
 
Before I get started a bit of news: The FCC finally published their full regulation to the Federal Register this week. You probably didn't hear about it because it was buried in stories of presidential candidates and tax day. That sounds about right for trying to hide the details of your regulation. It's like an executive order on New Year's Eve.

You can read it here. I am reading through it, but being over 300 pages (Clear and concise is not a government practice) and having a life I haven't had time. As I haven't read completely yet my statements below reflect only the FC summary released two month(!!!) ago and the idea of net neutrality in general.






I am bringing this over from the Presidential Election thread in order to keep it on topic.

DK
Where's the bit in the FCC's new regulations that give them power to shut down websites?
They don't have power to straight shut down a Web site. I never said it. I said they had the power to alter things like fees for certain kinds of content. It isn't censorship, just like ridiculous high taxes on tobacco isn't a ban, but it makes it very hard for businesses and consumers to afford to perform transactions involving it. That is a power allowed in Title II, which broadband Internet is being reclassified as.

I'd hazard a guess that if they feared that they would get shut down, they'd probably voice their concerns. Plus, I'm far from convinced that the FCC would get away with controlling online content without a massive backlash.
Really? Have you seen our broadcast radio and TV stuff? The backlash comes when something offensive, like a wardrobe malfunction or foul language, occurs. There is very little backlash over it not being there, due to regulation.

The pornography industry sees this currently, with a Democrat controlled FCC, as a boost in their favor. But what happens when a conservative gets in office and appoints his guys to the FCC? They would suddenly have a door and legal precedent through which to act in ways the current FCC is promising (and no one lies in politics) would never happen.

The FCC's net neutrality rules ban ISPs from doing three things: charging content providers for prioritisation, throttling apps or services, or blocking legal content - that includes porn.
Key phrase: "ban ISPs from doing three things." I am not talking about ISPs doing it. In fact. I think that if anyone should be allowed to do it that it is the ISPs, since it is their network and managing it should be their job. Nor am I talking about an actual block of content.

And what if the TimeWarner/Comcast merger goes ahead and they decide they don't like discussion forums like Reddit because its users complain too much about their service? Comcast part-owns Hulu - what if they decide they don't like the competition offered by Netflix, YouTube, Crunchyroll or HBO GO and decide to hold them hostage?
Good luck to them maintaining a customer base. Unless they own every single utility in an area they can't act as if they have zero competition. There are too many competing ISPs out there now. There is DSL, cable, wireless, and satellite. Consumers have choices. Unless every company got together to fix the business, which is currently illegal under antitrust laws, it couldn't happen. Within the same kind of provider you see multiple different plan types. Hell, I have three data plan choices for my mobile data service through AT&T alone. But if broadband is labeled as a common carrier telecom they are no longer under the same regulatory authority of the FTC. What would be considered antitrust before could be determined by the FCC to be necessary to an open internet.



Now, there are other issues that arise that could bite some of the content providers and consumers who support this down the road. This will create a blanket ban on packet prioritization. On the surface people go, "Yay, nothing will be slowed down." One problem: Some forms of content are more network heavy than others. For example: Netflix. They are beginning to support 4k Ultra HD. Now, if they were smart they would recognize that latency is a major issue for them. It would be in their best interest to go to cable companies and pay to have prioritization in order to prevent their Ultra HD signal from being disrupted by regular Internet traffic (something they currently do, but no ISP has required). But that will soon be illegal. If Netflix happens upon a network that is too busy to smoothly fit their packets in equally with all others their Ultra HD can suffer. They already charge extra for this service, so their customers will be upset that they aren't getting what they pay for.

Now, some might argue that it would be unfair for Netflix to be able buy prioritization. Consumers of other services will suffer. OK. What if the consumer wanted to buy a tier to get prioritized video and gaming streaming? Illegal now, but we could have seen customized packages. The consumer who is just using email and shopping online could have paid less than the people who are steaming video and gaming all the time. Now they get the same priority. Now they pay the same price for two very different usage amounts. Someone will suffer. Ultimately, the person doing email is subsidizing the gamer. They pay the exact same and use a fraction of the data. And if they can't prioritize to help process the data more efficiently then someone is going to get bogged down, if not both.

See, the fear is that without prioritization there will be a complete stifling of innovation, despite zero evidence of this being a problem to date. The problem is that some forms of innovation may rely on prioritization. If a network is struggling to load all traffic equally then it will need more time and money before it can be adequately upgraded, but then as the bandwidth usage of services grows the ISPs might struggle to keep up.

The other fear is that the ISP can say they will only offer certain services. Remember AOL? They started out that way. The only Internet connection you had was through their interface. Then they had competitors who came out and connected you straight to the Internet with no other interface. The online world was open to you as you liked. AOL had to react. They made it so that you could connect with their interface, but then minimize it and work through other programs.

And that is what every net neutrality supporter forgets. We live in a society where there is a free market and competition. Time Warner wouldn't last long if they denied access to services to their customer or treated them horribly through some crazy pricing schemes.



Ultimately, to me this comes down to one thing: Who owns the network? Not you, me, or the government. This is the equivalent of telling a restaurant they can't sell Coke but not Pepsi because they get a better distribution deal from Coke.
 
They don't have power to straight shut down a Web site. I never said it. I said they had the power to alter things like fees for certain kinds of content. It isn't censorship, just like ridiculous high taxes on tobacco isn't a ban, but it makes it very hard for businesses and consumers to afford to perform transactions involving it. That is a power allowed in Title II, which broadband Internet is being reclassified as.
Really? Here's what the New York Times has to say:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/technology/net-neutrality-rules-explained.html
Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a “light-touch” approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more, better, and open broadband. Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium. This is Title II tailored for the 21st century. Unlike the application of Title II to incumbent wireline companies in the 20th century, a swath of utility-style provisions (including tariffing) will not be applied. Indeed, there will be fewer sections of Title II applied than have been applied to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), where Congress expressly required the application of Sections 201, 202, and 208, and permitted the commission to forbear from others. In fact, Title II has never been applied in such a focused way.



Really? Have you seen our broadcast radio and TV stuff? The backlash comes when something offensive, like a wardrobe malfunction or foul language, occurs. There is very little backlash over it not being there, due to regulation.

The pornography industry sees this currently, with a Democrat controlled FCC, as a boost in their favor. But what happens when a conservative gets in office and appoints his guys to the FCC? They would suddenly have a door and legal precedent through which to act in ways the current FCC is promising (and no one lies in politics) would never happen.
OK, I understand your concerns here. I'm just saying that any move by a conservative-dominated FCC would draw a massive backlash from massive swathes of Internet users, just like the anti-SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP/TTIP movements.

Now, there are other issues that arise that could bite some of the content providers and consumers who support this down the road. This will create a blanket ban on packet prioritization. On the surface people go, "Yay, nothing will be slowed down." One problem: Some forms of content are more network heavy than others. For example: Netflix. They are beginning to support 4k Ultra HD. Now, if they were smart they would recognize that latency is a major issue for them. It would be in their best interest to go to cable companies and pay to have prioritization in order to prevent their Ultra HD signal from being disrupted by regular Internet traffic (something they currently do, but no ISP has required). But that will soon be illegal. If Netflix happens upon a network that is too busy to smoothly fit their packets in equally with all others their Ultra HD can suffer. They already charge extra for this service, so their customers will be upset that they aren't getting what they pay for.

Now, some might argue that it would be unfair for Netflix to be able buy prioritization. Consumers of other services will suffer. OK. What if the consumer wanted to buy a tier to get prioritized video and gaming streaming? Illegal now, but we could have seen customized packages. The consumer who is just using email and shopping online could have paid less than the people who are steaming video and gaming all the time. Now they get the same priority. Now they pay the same price for two very different usage amounts. Someone will suffer. Ultimately, the person doing email is subsidizing the gamer. They pay the exact same and use a fraction of the data. And if they can't prioritize to help process the data more efficiently then someone is going to get bogged down, if not both.

See, the fear is that without prioritization there will be a complete stifling of innovation, despite zero evidence of this being a problem to date. The problem is that some forms of innovation may rely on prioritization. If a network is struggling to load all traffic equally then it will need more time and money before it can be adequately upgraded, but then as the bandwidth usage of services grows the ISPs might struggle to keep up.

The other fear is that the ISP can say they will only offer certain services. Remember AOL? They started out that way. The only Internet connection you had was through their interface. Then they had competitors who came out and connected you straight to the Internet with no other interface. The online world was open to you as you liked. AOL had to react. They made it so that you could connect with their interface, but then minimize it and work through other programs.

And that is what every net neutrality supporter forgets. We live in a society where there is a free market and competition. Time Warner wouldn't last long if they denied access to services to their customer or treated them horribly through some crazy pricing schemes.

Ultimately, to me this comes down to one thing: Who owns the network? Not you, me, or the government. This is the equivalent of telling a restaurant they can't sell Coke but not Pepsi because they get a better distribution deal from Coke.

I just had a quick look on Google to check the requirements for streaming 4K Ultra HD, and it turns out that you need stable speeds of at least 25Mb/s, and in some cases upwards of 30Mb/s. Funnily enough, in January the FCC voted (albeit along party lines) to redefine "advanced broadband" as speeds of at least 25Mb/s down, 3Mb/s up (from 4Mb/s down, 1Mb/s up). The article goes on to state that at the moment, 17% of the US population have access to this "advanced broadband".

OK, I've checked usage caps across the major ISPs (Verizon, Comcast/Xfinity, TimeWarner), and you do have a point about those who use the Internet minimally subsidising heavy users. I can't find anything about Verizon having caps. Comcast offer a 5GB package but it seems next-to-useless when it's just $5 cheaper than the 300GB package. I can't find anything about TimeWarner having caps either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon and TimeWarner had vague "fair use" policies that may be stricter for lower tiers.
 
Back