Net Neutrality

Here's the rundown on net neutrality:
Net neutrality is an idea which first was coined in 2003. Having net neutrality is having an internet connection where all information passed through the internet must be treated equally. For example, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) cannot slow or stop data from reaching anyone through their internet infrastructure based on the information, such as how much of it or its server of origin. This is the way Net Neutrality is used at this current time, as a rule to require ISPs to use "dumb pipe" systems (systems which only provide a resource as needed and don't regulate the resource as it passes through) for the information they provide across the internet.

In 2005, the Supreme court stated at the end of a case:
"The Court's decision today in the Brand X case raises the question of whether Congress, in tackling its next revision of the Telecommunications Act, should act to ensure that communications, content, and applications are allowed to pass freely over the Internet's broadband pipes. We believe Congress should do so, because 'net neutrality' is a worthy goal that not only will promote free speech and creativity on the Internet, but also will benefit those who provide broadband connectivity by making that connectivity more valuable."

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 lists its goal as :
"An Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies."

It also was summarized at the beginning of the law as being created:
"to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector
deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition."

This law amended the Communications Act of 1934 to overhaul many ideas expressed within it. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) was created initial by the Communication Act to regulate against any violations to the Communications Act. Their scope was somewhat limited, as the Communications Act specifically was created about radio telecommunications. The Supreme Court case of National Broadcasting Co. Inc. et al. v. United States et al. resulted in the FCC being indirectly given power to regulate all telecommunications, not just radio. There was dispute as some felt the power given to the FCC was given in an unconstitutional manner. This power has been held by the FCC to this day.

In the end, this law was created with the specified goals of increasing competition to provide better services to the people and to help new businesses be able to compete with old within the markets of telecommunications infrastructure. The actual law created regulations which forced telecommunications to interconnect their systems, set up inter-carrier compensation (the user pays for the server they access to reach the intermediary such as the ISP) and made long distance communication legally possible for communications providers. The actual effects of the law were meant to exist for old technology (mostly phone lines and cables) which means newer technologies such as wifi create large loopholes which can be exploited by certain companies in certain situations.

An important fact about the Telecommunication Act is that it focuses on telecommunications and their providers and not information services. With the growth of the internet past DSL (Digital Subscriber Line, internet services provided through telephone wires), arguments became more prevalent which stated that the internet was not a Telecommunication and instead an information service. The idea that internet was different from telecommunications was held by the FCC until 2015, as legal cases would not allow the FCC to regulate net neutrality. In 2010, the FCC created "Open Internet Rules" which created more regulations about providing Net Neutrality. As of June 12, 2015, the FCC was fully able to regulate its Net Neutrality regulations.

Ajit Pai was placed as chairman of the FCC by President Trump in January and later announces a plan to remove the Net Neutrality ruling from before. On December 14, the FCC votes to reverse Net Neutrality with 3 for and 2 against.

Advocates for net neutrality say the lack of regulations is tested by companies to give themselves more power. Many say that larger companies would pay ISPs to slow down data from competitors and that ISPs would slow down internet service to its customers so they could up-charge without having to improve the physical infrastructure of their services. They also believe that competition between ISPs isn't present enough for any free market force to control ISPs. Some extreme theories state that corporations will eventually team up together with different ISPs until a system similar to cable television occurs with different websites costing differing amounts of money individually.

Those against net neutrality state the flaws in the current system: ISPs don't compete with each other, freedom for ISPs to choose how they do business is restricted, and ISPs have to take large packets of data and treat them as if they don't take more resources than any other data packets. They believe that any moves by companies to hurt the people will result in people changing providers, thus having the market control ISPs instead of the FCC. Some say it results in more freedom for all in their options.

I'm willing to answer questions about the background of Net Neutrality, just as many on this forum will also probably do. I tried to keep this post factual instead of opinionated and I will later state my opinions on the matter.

 

Net neutrality wouldn’t be neccesary if there was more competition in the industry. The reason there are not competitors is because the government makes it extremely hard to get into the market and gives billions of dollar savings in subsidies to established conpanies.

the goal of having more ISPs is to allow small businesses to be accessed equally. Government meddling with the market is the reason we don’t have enough ISPs, therefore removing government meddling would increase the number of ISPs, leading to ISPs having to provide a higher quality of service to retain a customer base, making net neutrality regulations unneeded.

What type of research do you think is done regarding ethical theories? Any conclusions a research would reach would have to be weighed as ethical based on an already established ethic.

Government interference in markets usually messes up the system, leading to things like artificial prices that are not the equilibrium between consumer demand and supply that free markets usually allow for.

Corporations are groups of individuals contractually bounds together, what possible distinction could you make that would lead to the conclusion that corporations aren’t individuals voluntarily exchanging private property

It isn’t letting me quote your last point about bailouts, but I think bailouts are a perfect example of government meddling in markets which creates unfair competition and ultimately worse services for the customers.

 

Why its good: competition in rural areas
Why its bad: The internet could become like EA
TLDR:
eh

 

i dont think the phrase "motivated" can be applied to congress

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 22, 2017 ---

I see your "efficiency" and raise you "designed obsolescence".

 

What I don't know won't hurt me so I'm okay.

On a serious note though I have no idea what it's about but I don't do online banking and could live without social media if it affects them, if not I'm not bothered.

 

If people decided they valued products without planned obsolescence they could spend their money elsewhere. Also boosting consumption with planned obsolescence can, in certain circumstances, be the economically sound decision.

 

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing, what does AJAX (a computing technique) have to do with the topic, and what IPO are you talking about. Additionally the "productus" spelling in my original post was due to autocorrect as I had been googling various types of aquatic crustaceans. As you said I "don't get it" with relation to "AJAX".

 

you make a really good point

 

-1 for no net neutrality

 

I’m not here to lecture about my option (oh snap this is a first).... just listen to Ben Shapiro’s take on it!

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 27, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 27, 2017 ---

Opinion***

 

Care to make any of your own arguments or at least list some literature to read?

 

Nope, I like what Ben Shapiro said, that’s basically how I feel about it.

 

Aquatic crustacean...

So shrimp?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 27, 2017, Original Post Date: Dec 27, 2017 ---

You’re literally making fun of this whole debate

 

Crabs actually.
Cancer productus - Wikipedia
Productus subaculeatus - Wikipedia

 

I believe the direction we are headed with the boxed process is not very beneficial to the cereal mascots. I believe that the servers which house these AJAX-Z-Amos can not provide enough cellular data to promote the planned obsolescence. Let's focus on figuring out how to deal with the community and its obsession with commiting tax fraud, so we can figure out what's causing the problems with the IPOs. This way, we will be able to track the amount of dietary fiber the collective consumes each week. This isn't science fiction young man- it's buisness.

--- Double Post Merged, May 31, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 17, 2018 ---

the fight for net neutrality continues as congress does a thing

 

The people who voted to get rid of net neutrality basically voted to make the Internet slower...

 

Looking at it now, I think net neutrality had to end at some point because the system can be unfair to more developed companies, but it should only have been ended after there was more balance between the different ISPs. Net neutrality is much like the New Deal programs: necessary for a time but must be removed when the problem is fixed. There are still few ISPs and most have little incentive to compete. For example, most anywhere in the US has a couple ISPs (even if a few are just satellite) but almost nowhere are there multiple great options for ISPs. Once there is actually competition between ISPs then there is reason to look at the best way to repeal net neutrality without along monopolies (even micro-monopolies).