Net Neutrality

[CoffeeFiend]

I won't pretend to know why the big ISPs lobbied so hard for it. I can only assume that it was for the very same reason any other big company lobbies for anything... $$$. Of course there is always the threat that ISPs will jack up the costs for users. But there's just as much of a possibility that they won't. Only time will tell, but I certainly hope that in the end the lack of government regulation will actually spur growth and investment in infrastructure that would actually provide the end users with a better overall product. Again, the reasons I listed above are not my own. I was merely summarizing the arguments against the repeal that I have read on various news sites, and the point was that there is so much information out there from both sides of the argument that it is hard to weed out what is fact and what is fiction.

If you're not sure, you only have to look at the very "soft touch" years (2005-2010) and the increasing amount of lawsuits against the FCC from 2010 to 2015. ISPs and other telecom companies haven't exactly been tight-lipped about any of it. Information isn't hard to find, nor is fact from fiction. There are literally multiple websites that fact-check very popular news stores, snopes, factcheck org, politifact, etc. And those are just the popular ones. Netflix already mentioned ~2015 that Comcast has charged them for customers using their service. Is it any wonder that literally a day after Net Neutrality was repealed I got an email stating my bill would go up in 2018 for "more quality programming"? Netflix has notoriously hiked/modified their billing structure every ~2 years. Two rate hikes in a one year period? I'm skeptical.

People only don't want Net Neutrality because they either don't understand it, or they don't like government regulations. When you don't regulate companies/corporate bodies....especially larger ones (spoiler alert.....there's not very many small telecom companies left).....they exploit you, legally.

Thanks for the reply. I agree, there are plenty of sites out there that give factual information. The problem is, and the original point I was trying to make, is that far too many people DO NOT USE THEM. They simply participate in group-think and if someone says "Net neutrality good... repeal bad" then someone else repeats it without doing any research of his/her own. Then another repeats it... then another... and another. Again, the points I listed in my original post were not my own beliefs or anywhere near what I personally think will happen. Maybe I didn't do so well explaining that before. I was stating the opinions OF OTHERS which I have read or heard on news sites and various other forums. Like I said before, only time will tell what kind of impact, whether positive or negative, this will have on the consumers.

[borg101]

Thanks for the reply. I agree, there are plenty of sites out there that give factual information. The problem is, and the original point I was trying to make, is that far too many people DO NOT USE THEM. They simply participate in group-think and if someone says "Net neutrality good... repeal bad" then someone else repeats it without doing any research of his/her own. Then another repeats it... then another... and another. Again, the points I listed in my original post were not my own beliefs or anywhere near what I personally think will happen. Maybe I didn't do so well explaining that before. I was stating the opinions OF OTHERS which I have read or heard on news sites and various other forums. Like I said before, only time will tell what kind of impact, whether positive or negative, this will have on the consumers.

I see your point about repeating without doing any research. It is a logical fallacy commonly called the "bandwagon fallacy". In your example. it is categorically unfair as it seemingly attempts to paint one side in a negative light while ignoring the other. Also, I would point out "Net Neutrality" was in the top 5 "What is" Google searches in 2017. Based on that alone I would wager more people are doing their research than not.

[CoffeeFiend]

Thanks for the reply. I agree, there are plenty of sites out there that give factual information. The problem is, and the original point I was trying to make, is that far too many people DO NOT USE THEM. They simply participate in group-think and if someone says "Net neutrality good... repeal bad" then someone else repeats it without doing any research of his/her own. Then another repeats it... then another... and another. Again, the points I listed in my original post were not my own beliefs or anywhere near what I personally think will happen. Maybe I didn't do so well explaining that before. I was stating the opinions OF OTHERS which I have read or heard on news sites and various other forums. Like I said before, only time will tell what kind of impact, whether positive or negative, this will have on the consumers.

I see your point about repeating without doing any research. It is a logical fallacy commonly called the "bandwagon fallacy". In your example. it is categorically unfair as it seemingly attempts to paint one side in a negative light while ignoring the other. Also, I would point out "Net Neutrality" was in the top 5 "What is" Google searches in 2017. Based on that alone I would wager more people are doing their research than not.

Fair enough. It was certainly not my intention to paint one side in a bad light and I should have offered up my thoughts on the other side as well. Both sides of the argument are very much vulnerable to disinformation and are equally as passionate in thier defense of each side. That is great that the topic was one of the top 5 "What is" searches in Google. That at least shows people are making an attempt to get information.

[NChewie]

Unfortunately any change to law has to have a political element, by definition, as politicians tend to be law-makers
But I'll try to give a neutral view, i.e. not left or right (or even centrist)

Here's a thought:

Lets say a major international ISP is owned and controlled by persons with certain political or technology leanings - what is to stop it from throttling the bandwidth available to access any website (news media outlet, political sites, bulletin boards, linux hosting site) leaning against its view while giving high speed access to sites which promote its own political/technology agenda?

If the owners of public networks get to choose who can access which websites and what speed the users get, let us hope that the linux haters don't buy up those networks, or we will all lose access to the mint forums

[majpooper]

Here's a thought:

Lets say a major international ISP is owned and controlled by persons with certain political or technology leanings - what is to stop it from throttling the bandwidth available to access any website (news media outlet, political sites, bulletin boards, linux hosting site) leaning against its view while giving high speed access to sites which promote its own political/technology agenda?

If the owners of public networks get to choose who can access which websites and what speed the users get, let us hope that the linux haters don't buy up those networks, or we will all lose access to the mint forums

We have come full circle. "In the USA, at least, we are protected by the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, same as we were prior to net neutrality being passed in 2015 and will continue to be".

As was pointed out before - unfortunately laws and regulations are not always enforced often depending on who is in power politically.

[KalEl]

I do not have the capacity to understand laws and etc ...

The only thing I understand about it all is that, they want to deploy this model of Marketplace in worldwide, physical and virtual.

They know who you, where you live, what you do and did, they have the photo even of you naked, they have your voice recorded, they know everything.

They have always been able to predict everything that has happened or will happen in the world, capitalist or whatever the system.

They just want to try, use all this information, not to control you or harm you, they simply want to get all the information they have and know, what decision to take based on the two options they have to impose something on you ...

Only that ...

In fact, if an internet cable on the street break, they are even neutral, removing the service, because there is a problem in the wiring of the street, I do not know, if you will understand my text because, I have problems and use medications...

[borg101]

I do not have the capacity to understand laws and etc ...

The only thing I understand about it all is that, they want to deploy this model of Marketplace in worldwide, physical and virtual.

They know who you, where you live, what you do and did, they have the photo even of you naked, they have your voice recorded, they know everything.

They have always been able to predict everything that has happened or will happen in the world, capitalist or whatever the system.

They just want to try, use all this information, not to control you or harm you, they simply want to get all the information they have and know, what decision to take based on the two options they have to impose something on you ...

Only that ...

In fact, if an internet cable on the street break, they are even neutral, removing the service, because there is a problem in the wiring of the street, I do not know, if you will understand my text because, I have problems and use medications...

Here's my problem with almost every conspiracy theory. First. who's "they"? Second, to what end? Every conspiracy shows some large forboding group of monster people that just want to convince us the world is round because........or, in your statement, because net neutrality will allow the big bad forboding group, whom already have all our info, naked pictures, etc, to have more information....even though they already have all of it? Is their big bad plan to sell me more video games Or to sell me more kichee figurines and keychains? Because I'm all for that. Sure, you could make the argument that some people make...."they" (whoever "they" actually is) could hack into a pace maker and kill me if I had one. But again....to what end? If I'm dead, I can't buy more video games and funko pops. So they spent money to have me killed so I would stop spending money because????? This all sounds like Underpants Gnomes. Step 1: Collect underpants. Step 2: ????????? Step 3: Profit.

[KalEl]

I do not have the capacity to understand laws and etc ...

The only thing I understand about it all is that, they want to deploy this model of Marketplace in worldwide, physical and virtual.

They know who you, where you live, what you do and did, they have the photo even of you naked, they have your voice recorded, they know everything.

They have always been able to predict everything that has happened or will happen in the world, capitalist or whatever the system.

They just want to try, use all this information, not to control you or harm you, they simply want to get all the information they have and know, what decision to take based on the two options they have to impose something on you ...

Only that ...

In fact, if an internet cable on the street break, they are even neutral, removing the service, because there is a problem in the wiring of the street, I do not know, if you will understand my text because, I have problems and use medications...

Here's my problem with almost every conspiracy theory. First. who's "they"? Second, to what end? Every conspiracy shows some large forboding group of monster people that just want to convince us the world is round because........or, in your statement, because net neutrality will allow the big bad forboding group, whom already have all our info, naked pictures, etc, to have more information....even though they already have all of it? Is their big bad plan to sell me more video games Or to sell me more kichee figurines and keychains? Because I'm all for that. Sure, you could make the argument that some people make...."they" (whoever "they" actually is) could hack into a pace maker and kill me if I had one. But again....to what end? If I'm dead, I can't buy more video games and funko pops. So they spent money to have me killed so I would stop spending money because????? This all sounds like Underpants Gnomes. Step 1: Collect underpants. Step 2: ????????? Step 3: Profit.

Who they are ? is simple...
Is 1% of the population

[trapperjohn]

Well, who [are] they? With regard to Net Neutrality they are ISPs.

Post -3 appears to more generally question big-data privacy concerns, and not specifically with regard to marketing. Who are they? Well, ISPs, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, toy manufacturers, Firefox, and many, many others. Many of the big list have privacy policies that state that they may collect and share your data with their partners (potentially anyone).

Why is that bad?

For one, because the law does not adequately protect us because it increasingly lags behind a rapidly advancing technology. It is potentially discriminating... providing shaped information based on demographics. Folks, it profiles individuals and classifies them.

Most importantly, it violates privacy. There are dolls that record a child's interactions and share them with the manufacturers and their partners...the most sacred relationship I can imagine... a child’s relationship with an imaginary friend. (Go ahead, share your inquiry with Google and fuzz this doll with a search engine that profiles you.)

Additionally, you may trust the system and the integrity of the data collectors, but do you trust all of their workers who have access to your information, any one that hacks them, and any authority that can demand the data and fuzz you?

What you learn, your ideas and values, who you vote for, what job opportunities you find, and, yes, what you buy in part depends on what information is available to you. Still like big data information shaping?

I don't like it and poster -3 doesn't like it.

[borg101]

Who they are ? is simple...
Is 1% of the population

Besides the fact that doesn't answer to what end, it implies that a large group of people have collectively met and decided they're going to control the people, systems, and devices at every level without anyone finding out about it. If anyone thinks that its possible to pull off without anyone knowing or laws being broken, that's paranoia to the extreme.

Well, who [are] they? With regard to Net Neutrality they are ISPs.

Post -3 appears to more generally question big-data privacy concerns, and not specifically with regard to marketing. Who are they? Well, ISPs, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, toy manufacturers, Firefox, and many, many others. Many of the big list have privacy policies that state that they may collect and share your data with their partners (potentially anyone).

Why is that bad?

For one, because the law does not adequately protect us because it increasingly lags behind a rapidly advancing technology. It is potentially discriminating... providing shaped information based on demographics. Folks, it profiles individuals and classifies them.

Most importantly, it violates privacy. There are dolls that record a child's interactions and share them with the manufacturers and their partners...the most sacred relationship I can imagine... a child’s relationship with an imaginary friend. (Go ahead, share your inquiry with Google and fuzz this doll with a search engine that profiles you.)

Additionally, you may trust the system and the integrity of the data collectors, but do you trust all of their workers who have access to your information, any one that hacks them, and any authority that can demand the data and fuzz you?

What you learn, your ideas and values, who you vote for, what job opportunities you find, and, yes, what you buy in part depends on what information is available to you. Still like big data information shaping?

I don't like it and poster -3 doesn't like it.

First, you took my response to Kalel out of context. I was responding to the paranoia of the conspiracy theory mentality and how it is illogical. If you had read my post, you would know I fully understand Net Neutrality and why it is needed and why it is a good thing.

Second, you assume I "trust the system". I inherently don't. However, Google gives you far more ability to control your data, and even remove it.

Third, so lets say random Google employee decides to specifically target me. Besides the fact there's no reason for said random employee to go after me specifically.......I don't have loads of money, power, influence, etc. lets say they try to blackmail me. Besides the fact they're committing a crime, they have access to all my data right? They know my income and they know what they could potentially bilk from me. They know my age, medical history, etc, etc and that benefits them how? I, and most likely you, and everyone else on here, are of no significance in the world therefore not a potential target. So lets pretend we are. Say we're politicians or people of significance with a high income level. So they try to blackmail us. We go to the police, the police go to the FBI, etc. One of two things will then happen. The criminal will be caught and your data secured as evidence and the criminal will be prosecuted. Or he gets away and releases the data. If we've done nothing illegal, the point is moot. The only thing we would suffer is embarrassment which is frankly our own fault in this scenario because we put ourselves in a compromising situation, even though its legal.

Lastly, who is "poster -3"? Regardless, it doesn't matter much as this thread is beginning to derail and turn into hypotheticals and conspiracies.

[Moem]

This is Open Chat; hypotheticals and conspiracies are okay as long as they stay within the forum guidelines.

[trapperjohn]

Well folks, don't take it personnally. I'm just edgy about all this.

[majpooper]

Well folks, don't take it personnally. I'm just edgy about all this.

It is no wonder folks are "edgy" about the state of things. All but a very few tend to retreat into their echo chambers where they are bombarded with just one side of every issue. When presented with opinions or even facts that logically support an opposing view they are rejected out of hand. - it's called "conformation bias" and it is human nature and very difficult to overcome even for those who want to have an open mind, most however want the comfort they get from their belief system being validated. This psychological phenomenon applies equally to all sides. Typically the response is that, that is not me or those who believe what I believe, rather the other side is guilty because they are ___________ (fill in with some disparaging insult).

Net Neutrality arguments are seldom about the technical aspects of the issue. The argument seems to be more about political and economic ideology.

[trapperjohn]

OK,

For me, I still believe I have it right on this. If the net is the new press, then it should not be subject to censorship and an ISP being able to shape information access allows this. There is no alternate newspaper or radio station here in the hills.

I don't believe I have a conspiracy theory or a confirmation bias. The ISPs are not necessarily evil, but they could be stupid and they are self-seeking.

Right now I have a courtesy bias and don't want to fight on the Mint forum. I'll stick to slashdot for that.

[BenTrabetere]

For me, I still believe I have it right on this. If the net is the new press, then it should not be subject to censorship and an ISP being able to shape information access allows this.

In the US, newspapers and broadcasters have always been able to control and limit what they present. There are stories that are covered in the Washington Post and MSNBC that never get mentioned in the Washington Time or on FoxNews. These are private entities, and as such are not bound by the same rules as the government. While the result is often the same, Content Editing != Censorship.

USAian ISPs have the same freedom. My Server, My Rules is in play, is not a violation of the First Amendment, and it is how the Moderators here are able to do what they do.

[trapperjohn]

and it is how the Moderators here are able to do what they do.

But, if they were to "filter out content', currently there would be another forum available.

What would happen if the WP wasn't able to use delivery services? You'd have to live with WT.

Net neutrality guarenteed that, if a user wanted to connect to an information source, he/she could.

[BenTrabetere]

Net neutrality guarenteed that, if a user wanted to connect to an information source, he/she could.

Let me start by stating I think Net Neutrality is essential to an open internet, and that I think eliminating those rules will hurt consumers.

I did a poor job of stating my points. First, comparing ISPs to newpapers and broadcasters is not a good comparision. Second, I do not think I clearly explained the difference between Restricting Content and Censorship - they both may accomplish the same thing, but only the government can censor.

Service providers were limiting access long before Net Neutrality became an issue. At one time UseNet was a lot more important than it is today, and I switched service providers several times when they stopped offering it. If I recall, AOL did not carry any of the alt.binary groups - truth be told, it was a black day when AOL provided access to UseNet to people whose only contribution to the discussion was "Me, too."

Anyway. The environment changed when broadband and wireless internet became the norm, and internet access was available to a small number of very large corporations. Some people recognized this as a very real threat to an open internet, and push was made to declare service providers to be common carriers, which would bind them by clearly defined federal regulation.

[kenetics]

(For you economists): Without Net Neutrality we could call it "trickle-down internet." We'll get what's left over after the big players take their share.

[borg101]

Net neutrality guarenteed that, if a user wanted to connect to an information source, he/she could.

Let me start by stating I think Net Neutrality is essential to an open internet, and that I think eliminating those rules will hurt consumers.

I did a poor job of stating my points. First, comparing ISPs to newpapers and broadcasters is not a good comparision. Second, I do not think I clearly explained the difference between Restricting Content and Censorship - they both may accomplish the same thing, but only the government can censor.

Service providers were limiting access long before Net Neutrality became an issue. At one time UseNet was a lot more important than it is today, and I switched service providers several times when they stopped offering it. If I recall, AOL did not carry any of the alt.binary groups - truth be told, it was a black day when AOL provided access to UseNet to people whose only contribution to the discussion was "Me, too."

Anyway. The environment changed when broadband and wireless internet became the norm, and internet access was available to a small number of very large corporations. Some people recognized this as a very real threat to an open internet, and push was made to declare service providers to be common carriers, which would bind them by clearly defined federal regulation.

It was definitely an issue back then as well. It just wasn't called Net Neutrality. The same lobbyists have been trying to do the same thing since 1994. It wasn't until 2005, I believe, that the term was brought into the main stream by the FCC and legislators.

[KalEl]

Oh there is a web site or forum I do not know whats is they talk about this marketplace quora ...
They say a lot of