What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
@penguinwrangler Here is a more complete list.
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
-
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
The issue is that the FTC has no authority at all to do anything in these cases, until people / businesses are harmed. The FCC had the authority to prevent these abuses by requiring service providers such as Verizon to not do these kinds of things at all.
To equate all packets the same.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
Problem is, we don't care how competitive it is, that's a minor issue. It's the greater issue that the FCC is supposed to protect us from that is the issue. Access to information and resources shouldn't be seen as a consumer issue, it should be seen as a freedom issue.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I don't trust the government to be the watchdog, that honestly is my biggest beef with NN.
Here is the problem, though.. the government is the watchdog. There is no other choice. There's no alternative. So there are two things we can do... task and empower the government with doing it, or let them get away without having to do it.
So the question isn't do you want government or not, but do you want protection or not.
-
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
But you trust the ISP's to not screw you over the moment they have the chance more than you trust the government?
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
But is that not better than no watchdog at all?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
But is that not better than no watchdog at all?
The problem is that the watchdog can get confused as to who it is supposed to be watching.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
Another anti NN person with a total misunderstanding of the issue.
-
@dafyre said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
But is that not better than no watchdog at all?
The problem is that the watchdog can get confused as to who it is supposed to be watching.
Still remains, give the options.... a watchdog you don't trust, or just letting the inmates take over, which do you prefer?
-
@dafyre Seriously, another one. Ok, phone companies have been under Title II for nearly a century. Where is the rampant censorship from the FCC on your phone calls? Show me one example of the FCC interfering with your phone calls maliciously in the last century. There is none, just like classifiying ISPs Title II would lead to none.
-
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable. It was to hold the corporations accountable. Our 1st amendment rights by the constitution is to hold the government at bay, but we see how well that is holding up.
-
@momurda said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dafyre Seriously, another one. Ok, phone companies have been under Title II for nearly a century. Where is the rampant censorship from the FCC on your phone calls? Show me one example of the FCC interfering with your phone calls maliciously in the last century. There is none, just like classifiying ISPs Title II would lead to none.
That (or something similar to it) was mentioned by the "fathers of the internet" in that a user who goes to google.com no more chooses if the content is delivered across an individual network or CDN, they simply want to go to google.com.
Just like a person who calls a telephone number from their home phone has no choice in the path to getting their call to the number they want.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable. It was to hold the corporations accountable. Our 1st amendment rights by the constitution is to hold the government at bay, but we see how well that is holding up.
This isn't about keeping corporations at bay though. It's about the government doing the Job "we the people" are telling it to do.
Which is to control how we are billed for our internet, and what is and isn't acceptable to us, the people.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
-
I would like the Anti NN people to show an example of FCC abuse or censorship of phone calls during your lifetime, your parent's lifetime, your grandparent's lifetime.
@bigbear @dafyre @PenguinWrangler
Just one please.
If you cant do that, youre making your decision based on some vague fear, and as you should know, Fear is the Mindkiller. It prevents you from making rational decisions. -
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
I agree with that. NN wasn't targeted at the government. Who is supposed to keep the government in check? We the people. NN was supposed to keep the ISPs in check.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
I agree with that. NN wasn't targeted at the government. Who is supposed to keep the government in check? We the people. NN was supposed to keep the ISPs in check.
Right, so without NN, there is no one watching the ISPs, and no one supposed to watch them. So we have a major problem.
