Net Neutrality, good bye internet.

[Koldo]

Did it ever occur to you that I see your position as being how you described mine?
But I didn't go there.

Can you even describe my position ?

As a matter of principle, if a regulation cannot be justified based upon cost v benefit,
then it ought'a be ditched. So far, the arguments for net neutrality have been of the
parade of horribles type. Better than the current policy, we need only have regulation
to prevent dysfunctional monopolies.

But you have presented only extremely superficial knowledge over the cost and benefits. That is why I have said you seem to oppose net neutrality as merely a matter of principle.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you have presented only extremely superficial knowledge over the cost and benefits.

A criticism which applies to both of us.
So you score no points there, bub.
Stop trying so hard to be right.

Looking at the effects, let's establish whether there's a problem to solve....
- Did net neutrality solve a pre-existing monopoly or censorship problem?
- Are there such problems in countries which don't have it, eg, Canuckistan?

 

[Koldo]

A criticism which applies to both of us.
So you score no points there, bub.
Stop trying so hard to be right.

There are no scoreboards here. As I have said before: "I was trying to understand your point of view since it is hard to find those that would oppose net neutrality, but I couldn't get you to elaborate on your criticism."

Looking at the effects, let's establish whether there's a problem to solve....
- Did net neutrality solve a pre-existing monopoly or censorship problem?

You would have to look no further than wikipedia for some examples of what happens when you allow ISPs to do as they please:

"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[6] Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the FCC ordered them to stop.[7] In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services.[8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[9]" - Net neutrality - Wikipedia

If you have regulations to prevent this from happening, isn't it a benefit ?

- Are there such problems in countries which don't have it, eg, Canuckistan?

You see, this is a problematic question because it assumes Canada doesn't have some form of net neutrality. It does, much like the rest of the developed world. I suggest you look at this map: Global Net Neutrality Coalition

So, what are the costs of maintaining net neutrality ? Can you elaborate on that ?

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have regulations to prevent this from happening, isn't it a benefit ?

If the deleterious effects are minimal, then regulation isn't likely beneficial overall.

You see, this is a problematic question because it assumes Canada doesn't have some form of net neutrality. It does, much like the rest of the developed world. I suggest you look at this map: Global Net Neutrality Coalition

I mentioned Canuckistan because it has thrived without net neutrality.
Ref....
Net neutrality in Canada - Wikipedia

So, what are the costs of maintaining net neutrality ? Can you elaborate on that ?

No way to quantify it.

 

[Koldo]

If the deleterious effects are minimal, then regulation isn't likely beneficial overall.

No way to quantify it.

...isn't likely beneficial overall ?

If you can't even quantify the cost, nor even guesstimate it, then you can't make a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Can't you find anyone interested on repealing net neutrality that has done actual research about how much 'cost' ( and its nature ) is involved here ? Can't you also mention at least one benefit, and substantiate it, we would have from repealing net neutrality ?

I mentioned Canuckistan because it has thrived without net neutrality.
Ref....
Net neutrality in Canada - Wikipedia

You might have missed the part where it states: "In April 2017, the CRTC took a series of decisions to support net neutrality."

But you should also read in my link: "Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued regulations protecting Net Neutrality in 2009 with Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657. The policy states four overarching principles related to internet traffic management: Transparency, Innovation, Clarity, and Competitive Neutrality. Carriers controlling content or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications must receive prior consent from the Commission. The policy has been elaborated over time in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Individual users can petition the Commission to enforce violations of the policy. Net Neutrality can also be enforced through subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits Canadian carriers from conferring an undue disadvantage to others, or an undue preference to themselves or others. This subsection has been used to prohibit providers from offering zero-rated services, such as in Broadcasting and Telecom Decision CRTC 2015-26."

 

[Revoltingest]

...isn't likely beneficial overall ?
If you can't even quantify the cost, nor even guesstimate it, then you can't make a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Can't you find anyone interested on repealing net neutrality that has done actual research about how much 'cost' ( and its nature ) is involved here ? Can't you also mention at least one benefit, and substantiate it, we would have from repealing net neutrality ?

You have no cost info either.

You might have missed the part where it states: "In April 2017, the CRTC took a series of decisions to support net neutrality."

No, I didn't miss it.
But it wasn't relevant to my question about their problems without net neutrality.

But you should also read in my link: "Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued regulations protecting Net Neutrality in 2009 with Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657. The policy states four overarching principles related to internet traffic management: Transparency, Innovation, Clarity, and Competitive Neutrality. Carriers controlling content or influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications must receive prior consent from the Commission. The policy has been elaborated over time in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Individual users can petition the Commission to enforce violations of the policy. Net Neutrality can also be enforced through subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits Canadian carriers from conferring an undue disadvantage to others, or an undue preference to themselves or others. This subsection has been used to prohibit providers from offering zero-rated services, such as in Broadcasting and Telecom Decision CRTC 2015-26."

Without clear benefit, I say we ditch the regulation.
If problems worth addressing arise, then they can be handled.

 

[Koldo]

You have no cost info either.

I don't, but I am not the one in favour of a change just because of an unknown cost.
You haven't presented any substantiated benefit to repealing net neutrality, while on the other hand we have a clear benefit with net neutrality.

No, I didn't miss it.
But it wasn't relevant to my question about their problems without net neutrality.

This isn't an 'all or nothing' situation.
Canada has regulation to prevent 'unjust discrimination' from carriers dating back to 1993.

Without clear benefit, I say we ditch the regulation.
If problems worth addressing arise, then they can be handled.

Do you mean you see no clear benefit in prohibiting the internet service providers to give differential treatment to any content they want ?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't, but I am not the one in favour of a change just because of an unknown cost.

You're in favor of regulation with an unknown cost in case of an unproven threat.
Let's agree to disagree about our preferences.

 

[Koldo]

You're in favor of regulation with an unknown cost in case of an unproven threat.

Let's agree to disagree about our preferences.

What unproven threat ? I have already brought to your atention factual examples.

You can't substantiate even one single benefit people could get from repealing the net neutrality. Not a single one on this entire topic.

You can't even quote any source saying how much net neutrality costs to the population, not even a guesstimate, even though there are major companies that would love to see it repealed and could use the cost as an argument.

What I am favor of is keeping a regulation that has a clear benefit until it is shown that its costs are higher than its benefits. Since you have failed miserably at showing that to be case, I remain supporting net neutrality.

 

[Revoltingest]

What unproven threat ? I have already brought to your atention factual examples.

You can't substantiate even one single benefit people could get from repealing the net neutrality. Not a single one on this entire topic.

You can't even quote any source saying how much net neutrality costs to the population, not even a guesstimate, even though there are major companies that would love to see it repealed and could use the cost as an argument.

What I am favor of is keeping a regulation that has a clear benefit until it is shown that its costs are higher than its benefits. Since you have failed miserably at showing that to be case, I remain supporting net neutrality.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I gave my reasons....you don't like them.
You gave yours....I find them lacking.

 

[Koldo]

We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I gave my reasons....you don't like them.
You gave yours....I find them lacking.

The issue I have with your reasons is that they are nothing more than a consequence of your bias against regulation along with your utter lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.

This could be honestly framed as a matter of preference if you had actually brought a proper cost-benefit analysis to the table and shown there is some sort of equivalence in benefits/costs to your side and that the proper method to choose what to do was indeed a matter of preference. But as it is, that has yet to be done. And considering how far we have gone, if you could you would have done it already, which means it won't be done.

And considering that, I am afraid I have nothing else to say or ask on this topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue I have with your reasons is that they are nothing more than a consequence of your bias against regulation along with your utter lack of knowledge.....

You imagine that your pro-reg bias & visions of worst case scenarios are more cromulent?
You imagine that this ad hominem is productive?
Please give it a rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

So it's been almost half a year since the last post.
Has anyone noticed the predicted censorship or end of the internet?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So it's been almost half a year since the last post.
Has anyone noticed the predicted censorship or end of the internet?

Congress still has 60 days to remove the repeal from the register. Nothing has actually been enacted yet, and won't until April 23rd at the earliest. Thank goodness for slow federal beurocracy.

Meanwhile, I've noticed the people responsible for the repeal are under investigation for fraud, and receiving buyout money by telecoms. (What? The move was by greedy corporate shills looking to make more money without earning It? Color me shocked.)

I've also noticed delays and blocks on new legislation, meanwhile half the states have already ruled keeping the net neutrality protections, and a new protections are pending federally.

So the fight is still continuing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Congress still has 60 days to remove the repeal from the register. Nothing has actually been enacted yet, and won't until April 23rd at the earliest. Thank goodness for slow federal beurocracy.

Meanwhile, I've noticed the people responsible for the repeal are under investigation for fraud, and receiving buyout money by telecoms. (What? The move was by greedy corporate shills looking to make more money without earning It? Color me shocked.)

I've also noticed delays and blocks on new legislation, meanwhile half the states have already ruled keeping the net neutrality protections, and a new protections are pending federally.

So the fight is still continuing.

Any links to prosecution for fraud related to net neutrality?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Any links to prosecution for fraud related to net neutrality?

You mean links about the investigations?
Ajit Pai faces investigation into moves that benefit Sinclair Broadcasting
FCC Boss Ajit Pai’s Own Agency Is Investigating Him For Potential Corruption
about Ajit Pai
Americans! See if your identity was used to make fake net neutrality comments
The FCC Is Blocking a Law Enforcement Investigation Into Net Neutrality Comment Fraud
About identity fraud used to push through repeal

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean links about the investigations?
Ajit Pai faces investigation into moves that benefit Sinclair Broadcasting
FCC Boss Ajit Pai’s Own Agency Is Investigating Him For Potential Corruption
about Ajit Pai
Americans! See if your identity was used to make fake net neutrality comments
The FCC Is Blocking a Law Enforcement Investigation Into Net Neutrality Comment Fraud
About identity fraud used to push through repeal

It doesn't sound like it's about net neutrality, but it's interesting.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It doesn't sound like it's about net neutrality, but it's interesting.

It's as I said, the people under investigation were responsible for net neutrality, and was in part of their repeal efforts. It's interconnected enough that it's caused serious backlash against the move and most of the country to retain NN protections, and push for new ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's as I said, the people under investigation were responsible for net neutrality, and was in part of their repeal efforts. It's interconnected enough that it's caused serious backlash against the move and most of the country to retain NN protections, and push for new ones.

Well, keep me posted.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So the greedy corporations have won, and successfully repealed net neutrality.

Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same

Which means endless paywalls and micro transactions just to access what had been free. Does this mean the end of the internet age? Will people go back to the old ways of the old days (pre-80's)? I certainly will if it gets as bad as I suspect it will. Your thoughts and comments appreciated.


As per @Kapalika request.


"As companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast acquire more online content like video, they could give their own services priority on their networks, squeezing out competitors and limiting what you could access. This might mean fewer startups get a shot at becoming the next Facebook, Netflix or YouTube. Ultimately, it could lead to your internet experience looking more like cable TV, where all the content is curated by your provider.


Some critics also fear this control could lead to higher prices. And groups such as the ACLU say it could affect your First Amendment right to free speech as big companies control more of what you experience online."

I think you mean pre 90s. There was no internet in the 80s