Sorry that this thread is old, but when I saw it... I had to respond... And make an account...
There are a lot of 'misconceptions' about Net Neutrality, but it is not what it seems. It still includes government intervention, regulation, and so forth. It is not as 'free' as people seem to think. Well, I can't explain it well, but this video helps explain the problem:
(I'd rather have used a video that isn't so... Y'know... But it gave the simplest description of the problem with Net Neutrality.)
Not having Net Neutrality won't lead to companies controlling which sites you can or cannot view. Just because one company started decreasing service to a site once doesn't mean things like that will keep happening. We have been without net neutrality for years, and it has been fine. By the way, I'm sure you all think that we have Net Neutrality now, we don't. Net Neutrality involves bigger government control, less freedom. If we had Net Neutrality now, then why are people trying to get it enforced? Because it isn't. We DO NOT have Net Neutrality currently.The way it is now is fine, and it has been for years. There is no need to change it, to give the government more power. Not having Net Neutrality will not become the apocalypse you all seem to think it will be.
And an interesting comment by someone responding to that YouTube video:
"Sorry I'm a skeptic, because right NOW, the internet is fine... If people don't like the service, they can go elsewhere, Gamers and movie watchers will in a heartbeat. Net neutrality is a foot in the door I think.. Why are BUSINESSES like verizon/google laying out the blueprints? They would have the MOST to benefit if this did start happening."
Just remember to check all sides of the argument before assuming that what the government told you to believe is actually right. Because usually it isn't.
We really do have net neutrality right now, though. It just isn't entirely put into law. It's more a tacit agreement at this point, and not many ISPs have policies that really go against it (a few do in some minor places; bigger offenders, like Comcast, are rare). People want it to become law so ISPs cannot begin to violate it.
Just remember to check all sides of the argument before assuming that what the government told you to believe is actually right. Because usually it isn't.
Yeah, because a YouTube straw-man is much more believable. Network neutrality wasn't something started by a government. They don't define what it is and you certainly get your definitions wrong, especially if you think that the internet in its current state, as MrQuizzles pointed out, hasn't been governed by these principles (if only tacitly in this case).
Redefining what network neutrality is is not "another side" to the argument, it's a FUD campaign, pure and simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Wtg Net Neutrality
I really think Spe-x is a troll.
Net neutrality is not "Everybody gets the same plan, whether you use it or not"
It's "Everybody gets an equal amount of service for the amount they paid", in basic terms of course.
The government is not going to take control over your internet. It is simply enforcing ISP's to not restrict what you do for the sake of restricting. If somebody looks at my eyes, and says to me that net neutrality is bad for almost everyone, I would call them a liar or an ignormaous, or both.
Read what it is before you make a strong opinion over it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from house »
"You talk to God, you’re religious. God talks to you — you’re psychotic."
How can anyone who is not some corporate fat-cat be against Net Neutrality?
Because it's nothing more than a foot in the door for the government to regulate your access to internet content. That's the underlying purpose.
The government wants to have control over what you can access on the internet ultimately so that it can prevent you from accessing information that would lead you to understand the ways in which the powers-that-be -- the unholy marriage of politicians and the wealthy -- manipulate the system in order to maintain their own advantage to your detriment. The internet is a horrible thing for them, since it provides an immediate vehicle for the dissemination of information that is entirely outside of their control, and they cannot abide that. The system that protects their privilege depends to a considerable degree on misleading the public, and control of the media is a fundamental part of that.
But as it stands, they have no way to get in and control your access to internet content. The only things that they have any jurisdiction over at all are things that are already illegal in and of themselves-- child porn, fraud and the like-- and, much though they might desire to, they can't make news stories and opinions regarding current government policies and actions illegal. So the only way that they can gain the control they desire is incrementally, and the first step has to be to establish the precedent that they can legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to their customers. They're certainly not going to try to establish that precedent by proposing legislation that would limit that access, since that would be vehemently opposed. So they've instead chosen a course of proposing legislation that would guarantee access to content, specifically because that sounds good on the surface, and people are sure to support it. But the result is the same-- the government establishes the precedent that it can legislate regarding the provision of internet content. With that precedent in place, they can THEN pass legislation to limit access, and it will be too late to stop them.
Because it's nothing more than a foot in the door for the government to regulate your access to internet content.
Of course they do, but that has nothing to do with net neutrality (beyond the tendency of some people in the government to try to piggy-back other less desirable legislation on the back of something that would actually do good).
But my best argument against this is that basically you're arguing that because the government might use it as a device of controlling the internet, we should oppose net neutrality and instead trust corporations to control the internet without regulation.
But the result is the same-- the government establishes the precedent that it can legislate regarding the provision of internet content. With that precedent in place, they can THEN pass legislation to limit access, and it will be too late to stop them.
Nonsense. This is slippery slope reasoning since you could just apply it to *any* regulatory legislation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Because it's nothing more than a foot in the door for the government to regulate your access to internet content.
Of course they do, but that has nothing to do with net neutrality (beyond the tendency of some people in the government to try to piggy-back other less desirable legislation on the back of something that would actually do good).
But my best argument against this is that basically you're arguing that because the government might use it as a device of controlling the internet, we should oppose net neutrality and instead trust corporations to control the internet without regulation.
In the first place, I don't trust corporations at all, but I distrust them far less when they're on their own than I do when they're able to take advantage of deliberately purchased political influence.
Dangerous though corporations can be, the marriage of corporations and government is MORE-- not less-- so. If the government manages to get their foot in the door and gain control over the provision of internet content, one can be certain that right alongside managing that provision to serve their own interests, they'll do so to serve the interests of those who have purchased their influence.
Government vs. corporations is a false dichotomy. There is no vs. there. The two work hand in hand to further their mutual interests.
But the result is the same-- the government establishes the precedent that it can legislate regarding the provision of internet content. With that precedent in place, they can THEN pass legislation to limit access, and it will be too late to stop them.
Nonsense. This is slippery slope reasoning since you could just apply it to *any* regulatory legislation.
Yes-- and legitimately. Any legislation that establishes a new precedent-- that grants to the government the power to control an additional aspect of citizens' lives-- provides an opportunity for the expansion of that control. The surest way to prevent that is to simply not grant that power in the first place. Granting the government control over any aspect of our lives and then expecting them to never abuse that control for their own benefit is like giving a teenager a car and a case of beer and then telling him not to drink and drive.
Do you even know what net neutrality is? The things you're saying lead me to believe you don't.
Of course I do. In a nutshell, it's all packets must be treated equally. More precisely, it's the concept that ISPs should be prohibited from differentiating between content or sites or such-- from allowing some, disallowing others, charging less for access to some, more for others and so on.
More fundamentally though, and this is the thing I'm addressing, it's a piece of legislation concerning the provision of content by ISPs to customers. At this point, aside from already illegal content such as child porn (as I already noted) the government has no power to legislate regarding the content provided by ISPs at all, for good or for ill. That power quite simply does not exist. Allowing net neutrality to be made law would establish the precedent that the government does have the power to legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to customers. While net neutrality, in and of itself, is obviously not a threat, granting the government the power to legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to their customers quite clearly is a dangerous thing to do. We certainly have no guarantee that they will only use that power for our benefit, and history shows that ultimately they will use that power primarily for their own benefit and for the benefit of their cronies and patrons. Therefore, by a considerable margin, the safest course of action is to not allow them that power in the first place.
You're presenting me with a classic slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. I'd look it up if I were you. The only thing I really have to say to it is "not necessarily", and it's defeated, so here we go:
Not necessarily.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the FCC has actually been a big proponent of net neutrality and consumer rights in general. Indeed, one of the main jobs of the FCC and the FTC is to protect consumers. They're there for us. I would feel comfortable giving the FCC the power to preside over internet communications. It really is their area, anyways, and they've been good about sticking up for consumers in the past.
You're presenting me with a classic slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. I'd look it up if I were you. The only thing I really have to say to it is "not necessarily", and it's defeated, so here we go:
Not necessarily.
Actually-- "not necessarily" would only serve as a counter to my argument if my argument was "necessarily." And even in that event, it would have to be proven-- not merely stated.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the FCC has actually been a big proponent of net neutrality and consumer rights in general.
That's funny.
Yes-- I'm fully aware that the FCC is a big proponent of net neutrality.
Indeed, one of the main jobs of the FCC and the FTC is to protect consumers. They're there for us. I would feel comfortable giving the FCC the power to preside over internet communications. It really is their area, anyways, and they've been good about sticking up for consumers in the past.
Do you know how one goes about catching wild pigs?
You heard that, green and red.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post.
There are a lot of 'misconceptions' about Net Neutrality, but it is not what it seems. It still includes government intervention, regulation, and so forth. It is not as 'free' as people seem to think. Well, I can't explain it well, but this video helps explain the problem:
(I'd rather have used a video that isn't so... Y'know... But it gave the simplest description of the problem with Net Neutrality.)
Not having Net Neutrality won't lead to companies controlling which sites you can or cannot view. Just because one company started decreasing service to a site once doesn't mean things like that will keep happening. We have been without net neutrality for years, and it has been fine. By the way, I'm sure you all think that we have Net Neutrality now, we don't. Net Neutrality involves bigger government control, less freedom. If we had Net Neutrality now, then why are people trying to get it enforced? Because it isn't. We DO NOT have Net Neutrality currently.The way it is now is fine, and it has been for years. There is no need to change it, to give the government more power. Not having Net Neutrality will not become the apocalypse you all seem to think it will be.
And an interesting comment by someone responding to that YouTube video:
"Sorry I'm a skeptic, because right NOW, the internet is fine... If people don't like the service, they can go elsewhere, Gamers and movie watchers will in a heartbeat. Net neutrality is a foot in the door I think.. Why are BUSINESSES like verizon/google laying out the blueprints? They would have the MOST to benefit if this did start happening."
Just remember to check all sides of the argument before assuming that what the government told you to believe is actually right. Because usually it isn't.
Yeah, because a YouTube straw-man is much more believable. Network neutrality wasn't something started by a government. They don't define what it is and you certainly get your definitions wrong, especially if you think that the internet in its current state, as MrQuizzles pointed out, hasn't been governed by these principles (if only tacitly in this case).
Redefining what network neutrality is is not "another side" to the argument, it's a FUD campaign, pure and simple.
If you're from the United States, I'd take the time to sign this petition too:
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
Not that petitions ever really do anything, but it doesn't hurt to try.
http://www.hellfireirc.net
I really think Spe-x is a troll.
Net neutrality is not "Everybody gets the same plan, whether you use it or not"
It's "Everybody gets an equal amount of service for the amount they paid", in basic terms of course.
The government is not going to take control over your internet. It is simply enforcing ISP's to not restrict what you do for the sake of restricting. If somebody looks at my eyes, and says to me that net neutrality is bad for almost everyone, I would call them a liar or an ignormaous, or both.
Read what it is before you make a strong opinion over it.
Because it's nothing more than a foot in the door for the government to regulate your access to internet content. That's the underlying purpose.
The government wants to have control over what you can access on the internet ultimately so that it can prevent you from accessing information that would lead you to understand the ways in which the powers-that-be -- the unholy marriage of politicians and the wealthy -- manipulate the system in order to maintain their own advantage to your detriment. The internet is a horrible thing for them, since it provides an immediate vehicle for the dissemination of information that is entirely outside of their control, and they cannot abide that. The system that protects their privilege depends to a considerable degree on misleading the public, and control of the media is a fundamental part of that.
But as it stands, they have no way to get in and control your access to internet content. The only things that they have any jurisdiction over at all are things that are already illegal in and of themselves-- child porn, fraud and the like-- and, much though they might desire to, they can't make news stories and opinions regarding current government policies and actions illegal. So the only way that they can gain the control they desire is incrementally, and the first step has to be to establish the precedent that they can legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to their customers. They're certainly not going to try to establish that precedent by proposing legislation that would limit that access, since that would be vehemently opposed. So they've instead chosen a course of proposing legislation that would guarantee access to content, specifically because that sounds good on the surface, and people are sure to support it. But the result is the same-- the government establishes the precedent that it can legislate regarding the provision of internet content. With that precedent in place, they can THEN pass legislation to limit access, and it will be too late to stop them.
Just wait and see.
Of course they do, but that has nothing to do with net neutrality (beyond the tendency of some people in the government to try to piggy-back other less desirable legislation on the back of something that would actually do good).
But my best argument against this is that basically you're arguing that because the government might use it as a device of controlling the internet, we should oppose net neutrality and instead trust corporations to control the internet without regulation.
Nonsense. This is slippery slope reasoning since you could just apply it to *any* regulatory legislation.
In the first place, I don't trust corporations at all, but I distrust them far less when they're on their own than I do when they're able to take advantage of deliberately purchased political influence.
Dangerous though corporations can be, the marriage of corporations and government is MORE-- not less-- so. If the government manages to get their foot in the door and gain control over the provision of internet content, one can be certain that right alongside managing that provision to serve their own interests, they'll do so to serve the interests of those who have purchased their influence.
Government vs. corporations is a false dichotomy. There is no vs. there. The two work hand in hand to further their mutual interests.
Yes-- and legitimately. Any legislation that establishes a new precedent-- that grants to the government the power to control an additional aspect of citizens' lives-- provides an opportunity for the expansion of that control. The surest way to prevent that is to simply not grant that power in the first place. Granting the government control over any aspect of our lives and then expecting them to never abuse that control for their own benefit is like giving a teenager a car and a case of beer and then telling him not to drink and drive.
umad?
~ILoveRules.
Of course I do. In a nutshell, it's all packets must be treated equally. More precisely, it's the concept that ISPs should be prohibited from differentiating between content or sites or such-- from allowing some, disallowing others, charging less for access to some, more for others and so on.
More fundamentally though, and this is the thing I'm addressing, it's a piece of legislation concerning the provision of content by ISPs to customers. At this point, aside from already illegal content such as child porn (as I already noted) the government has no power to legislate regarding the content provided by ISPs at all, for good or for ill. That power quite simply does not exist. Allowing net neutrality to be made law would establish the precedent that the government does have the power to legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to customers. While net neutrality, in and of itself, is obviously not a threat, granting the government the power to legislate regarding the provision of content by ISPs to their customers quite clearly is a dangerous thing to do. We certainly have no guarantee that they will only use that power for our benefit, and history shows that ultimately they will use that power primarily for their own benefit and for the benefit of their cronies and patrons. Therefore, by a considerable margin, the safest course of action is to not allow them that power in the first place.
Not necessarily.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the FCC has actually been a big proponent of net neutrality and consumer rights in general. Indeed, one of the main jobs of the FCC and the FTC is to protect consumers. They're there for us. I would feel comfortable giving the FCC the power to preside over internet communications. It really is their area, anyways, and they've been good about sticking up for consumers in the past.
Actually-- "not necessarily" would only serve as a counter to my argument if my argument was "necessarily." And even in that event, it would have to be proven-- not merely stated.
That's funny.
Yes-- I'm fully aware that the FCC is a big proponent of net neutrality.
Do you know how one goes about catching wild pigs?
Look it up.