Debate FCC Net Neutrality

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

admin

Administrator
Staff member
Dec 2, 2017
347
226
63
#1
There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law in the United States. ... The US Telecom industry argued that "the FCC reclassifying broadband carriers as 'common carriers' is an overreach on the part of the FCC".

On one hand shouldn't there be freedom to all, even companies, to do what they want and charge what they want but on the other hand do we really trust these companies to not do what is wrong? Should the interenet be classified as a utility or just a luxury?
 

Heathen

Forum Addict
Dec 3, 2017
141
141
48
#2
SLOWLY...government will erode your freedom and your choice, they will legislate for no reason other than to control and spy, and ultimately if you do something they don't agree with, you will be fined and/or imprisoned. It will be done in such a way that they will make you want it
 
Dec 5, 2017
11
30
13
#3
The internet should be a utility... As the US moves to scrap net neutrality, Canada is reaffirming its commitment to net neutrality principles. If critics of net neutrality are right, average prices for internet will go down in the US and new markets and ISP companies will open up. They are not though, ISPs in the US have almost a complete monopoly on the market, and these companies have already been caught throttling different services that they dislike, for example netflix and skype. This will probably become more common place and legal as the US continues deregulating pretty much everything.

Net neutrality is also pretty basic, it's a set of principles and rules that say internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data fairly without blocking or "throttling" certain data streams. "Open internet" advocates fear an end to net neutrality will lead to censorship and increased costs for internet connectivity. For example, right now an ISP (or a government) could not legally throttle a consumer's connection to a critical article about themselves. Without these laws, they could do so (and probably will, businesses have been known to retaliate against negative news coverage An example where Disney banned the LA times after a negative news story).

The head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, whose responsibility it is to regulate interstate communications , and who used to be a top lawyer for Verizon, wants to do away with net neutrality, claiming that it limits competition. In reality, there are quite a few things that limit competition among ISPs in the US - such as existing ISPs themselves.

But competition doesn't really exist in the US ISP market, only 8% of consumers have more than one ISP available to them. If ISPs decide to throttle, censor, or mark up the prices on data, there's not much that can be done. Advocacy groups do plan to challenge the removal of net neutrality in court, and the monopolization of communication services is one angle they plan to take.

These decisions will also affect other countries. If you are accessing a site from the US in another country, such as eqaulout.com ,and for whatever reason ISPs in the US have decided to slow or throttle the connection, it doesn't matter that you are from Canada, since the data is from the US. The connection will be affected. The US hosts 43% of the world's websites, which is a number that might change if ISPs begin throttling companies that don't pay extra.

A lot of people critical of net neutrality also point out that net neutrality in the FCC is relatively new, but tend to leave out the fact that when net neutrality was introduced, it was at a time when ISPs were found to be throttling or blocking certain services on their networks. There is unfortunately not a great precedent.

Most people use the internet for a variety of purposes. I use it for research, to watch shows, for school, for work, to talk to family, friends, often my boyfriend. It is something critical to many people that should be regulated, the idea of deregulating it like this is not a good idea.

Edit: Also the US is super polarized, bunch of babies. If you tell a Republican a democrat supports one thing, they'll typically instantly say they disagree with it. Maybe a consequence of a two party system or increased extremism? I don't know, but it's worth noting that when "net neutrality" is presented as a concept, members of both parties support it. This should be a non-partisan issue for the country, sadly it is not, but wanted to mention that.

What is Net Neutrality?
 
Last edited:

LyfeCakeBuff

Forum Addict
Dec 4, 2017
255
144
63
#4
The internet should be a utility.
I agree with this. With as far as technology has come and how much we depend on it. For school, jobs and entertainment.

government will erode your freedom and your choice, they will legislate for no reason other than to control and spy, and ultimately if you do something they don't agree with, you will be fined and/or imprisoned. It will be done in such a way that they will make you want it
This is not false it can happen and does happen in some parts of the world. I can see why some people are worried to let the government regulate ISP.

Net neutrality is also pretty basic, it's a set of principles and rules that say internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data fairly without blocking or "throttling" certain data streams. "Open internet" advocates fear an end to net neutrality will lead to censorship and increased costs for internet connectivity.
This is one of the biggest reasons I support Net neutrality. I really don't think it would be fair for ISPs to throttle data because they want to censor things or make you visit websites that they want you too or charge you for accessing things like Netflix (which you already pay for).
 

Heathen

Forum Addict
Dec 3, 2017
141
141
48
#5
This is one of the biggest reasons I support Net neutrality. I really don't think it would be fair for ISPs to throttle data because they want to censor things or make you visit websites that they want you too or charge you for accessing things like Netflix (which you already pay for).
I agree, but be careful what they try and sell to you, I see too many wolves in lambs clothing these days.

We have a completely different system here in Australia as we have a multitide of ISPs available to us with 3-4 main players who have built the infrastructure and resell their service to over ISPs