5 ms·

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you're failing to ask one very important question. Why was the rule put in place in 2015? Most regulations, like

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you're failing to ask one very important question. Why was the rule put in place in 2015? Most regulations, like laws, are reactive in nature. If our existing laws and regulations were good enough then why would we need to elect new law makers? Why would we even need them at all? The fact is that people are constantly finding new and creative ways to exploit others and or ever evolving laws and regulations are a response to this exploitation.

nickpp 9y ago
For the same reason most regulations are made: to increase the government's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said government.
- berbec 9y ago
  I find the government regulating the ISPs to stop them from killing competing businesses is not increasing my dependence on the government. I do depend on the government to stop corporations from forcing me to depend on their products while stopping competitors from entering the market. [1] Isn't a free market with competition what everyone wants? 1: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go...
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Yes, damned that FDA and NHTSA for not letting me drink my raw milk while driving in a car without airbags. Clearly a power grab.
  - nickpp 9y ago
    I used to drink raw milk as a child. It was delicious. I like making my own choices. I do not need to be protected from myself.
    - 0xfeba 9y ago
      Congratulations. The other 99% of people do need to be protected. Remember, more than 90% of 30,000 of them kill themselves or others in car crashes each year due to driver error, in the US. That number used to be much higher before safety standards were implemented. So while you can argue about specific standards and regulations, on the whole it's clear society has benefited greatly from them.
- mfringel 9y ago
  [citation needed]
  - nickpp 9y ago
    Do you seriously need a citation for that idea? Why do you think govts exist? Why do all those smart politicians take those fairly crappy paid govt jobs? From the goodness of their hearts?!
- masklinn 9y ago
  That is funny, because the pre-2015 rules were only put in place in 2005, downgrading from a much more stringent regulatory environment than the post-2015 one. And by funny I mean nonsensical. Furthermore the 2015 move was undertaken because since 2005 the FCC had been enforcing Net Neutrality rules under Title I, but Verizon ultimately sued and in 2014 the courts decided the FCC did not have the authority to enforce these rules under Title I.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    Really? It was my understanding that this was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Am I mistaken?
    - masklinn 9y ago
      Likely confused rather than mistaken. The Telecommunications Act set up the various titles and regulatory regimes, but the FCC decides which regime applies to whom, and until 2002 (Cable) and 2005 (dial-up and DSL) ISPs were classified as Title II, which is where the FCC put them back in 2015. And the reason the FCC moved them back to Title II is that in 2014 the courts ruled the FCC's long-standing Net Neutrality rules could not actually be enforced under Title I.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  Couldn't something similar be said of companies? Companies what regulations repealed: to increase the company's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said company. Why do you have more faith in companies than a government? Do you honestly believe that market forces can sway mega corporations?
  - nickpp 9y ago
    Because I always have a choice with companies: they cannot be monopolies unless helped by governments. Startups and competitors will swiftly punish any bad player in a free market, thus compelling players to behave. The proof is all around me: everything good comes from companies: cars, computers, my house, my heating furnace, restaurant food, hotels, etc. Everything crappy and bad is related one way or another with govts: bureaucracy, dmv, borders, postal service, state hospitals, state schools.
    - takeda 9y ago
      First Title II doesn't make the government start offering Internet service, it is similar to FDA preventing companies to include poison in our food to cut cost (and you can be sure that especially the public companies would do that if they could. This happens when individual people are not liable and #1 goal of a public company is to improve earnings every quarter). I have an exercise for you right now. Let say you are pissed at your current ISP and don't want to use them anymore, who would you switch to? If you have 1 extra choice of high speed internet, congratulations you're one of very small percentage of people. If you don't have other choices (like me) perhaps now you see the problem.
      - nickpp 9y ago
        The lack of choice in ISP marked is due to heavy govt regulation. They then added more regulation to fix the problem they created. Which is my original point: keep increasing that power...
        9y ago
thehardsphere 9y ago
Actually, I am asking that. Several other commentors have asserted that "the world changed" a few years before the rule passed, yet nobody has really explained in detail how. So far I've gotten a hypothetical about Wal-Mart paying ISPs to destroy Amazon, which didn't actually happen. (Though I haven't read other responses yet, so maybe there's something more here I just have missed.) But, let's take a closer look at what you just said here. You are correct that many laws and regulations are reactive in nature. That doesn’t automatically justify them. As a matter of fact, it is often the case that the most reactive laws and regulations can be some of the worst, as has constantly been demonstrated from September 11, 2001 to the present day. I mean, there is a real problem with terrorism, but that real problem doesn't automatically justify banning travel from 8 majority-Muslim countries, does it? At least in the terrorism example, I have some understanding of how terrorism exploits people, and that makes it possible to debate how to use the government to protect people from that exploitation (or to protect other people from exploitation by the government, in the name of protecting people from explotation). Individual acts of terrorism have been clearly identified and publicized, so it is possible to have a coherent public policy discussion. But in the net neutrality case, everyone either discusses: 1. Hypotheticals, like Wal-Mart paying Comcast to destroy Amazon 2. Court cases that... actually were resolved in court under anti-trust law 3. Assertions that new censorship will take place like we've never seen before, even though we'd be going back to the pre-2015 status quo. Despite sounding flippant about it, I don't actually mean to. People here are pretty smart, so if they're all worked up about it, I must be the one missing something. I would just like someone to coherently explain what that is.
- takeda 9y ago
  The reason FCC made change in 2015, because in 2014 court ruled that with prior classification, FCC had no authority to enforce anything unless they reclassify the Internet. Before the ruling, the companies were still respecting what FCC said (here are some cases that happened between 2002 (when FCC reclassified Internet as a telecommunication service) and 2015[1]), now the cat is out of the bag. Also note that 2015 change essentially brought back what was changed in 2002. [1] https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...

nickpp 9y ago

For the same reason most regulations are made: to increase the government's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said government.

berbec 9y ago
I find the government regulating the ISPs to stop them from killing competing businesses is not increasing my dependence on the government. I do depend on the government to stop corporations from forcing me to depend on their products while stopping competitors from entering the market. [1] Isn't a free market with competition what everyone wants? 1: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go...
0xfeba 9y ago
Yes, damned that FDA and NHTSA for not letting me drink my raw milk while driving in a car without airbags. Clearly a power grab.
- nickpp 9y ago
  I used to drink raw milk as a child. It was delicious. I like making my own choices. I do not need to be protected from myself.
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    Congratulations. The other 99% of people do need to be protected. Remember, more than 90% of 30,000 of them kill themselves or others in car crashes each year due to driver error, in the US. That number used to be much higher before safety standards were implemented. So while you can argue about specific standards and regulations, on the whole it's clear society has benefited greatly from them.
mfringel 9y ago
[citation needed]
- nickpp 9y ago
  Do you seriously need a citation for that idea? Why do you think govts exist? Why do all those smart politicians take those fairly crappy paid govt jobs? From the goodness of their hearts?!
masklinn 9y ago
That is funny, because the pre-2015 rules were only put in place in 2005, downgrading from a much more stringent regulatory environment than the post-2015 one. And by funny I mean nonsensical. Furthermore the 2015 move was undertaken because since 2005 the FCC had been enforcing Net Neutrality rules under Title I, but Verizon ultimately sued and in 2014 the courts decided the FCC did not have the authority to enforce these rules under Title I.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Really? It was my understanding that this was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Am I mistaken?
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Likely confused rather than mistaken. The Telecommunications Act set up the various titles and regulatory regimes, but the FCC decides which regime applies to whom, and until 2002 (Cable) and 2005 (dial-up and DSL) ISPs were classified as Title II, which is where the FCC put them back in 2015. And the reason the FCC moved them back to Title II is that in 2014 the courts ruled the FCC's long-standing Net Neutrality rules could not actually be enforced under Title I.
cptskippy 9y ago
Couldn't something similar be said of companies? Companies what regulations repealed: to increase the company's power while pretending to protect you, but in fact increasing your dependence of said company. Why do you have more faith in companies than a government? Do you honestly believe that market forces can sway mega corporations?
- nickpp 9y ago
  Because I always have a choice with companies: they cannot be monopolies unless helped by governments. Startups and competitors will swiftly punish any bad player in a free market, thus compelling players to behave. The proof is all around me: everything good comes from companies: cars, computers, my house, my heating furnace, restaurant food, hotels, etc. Everything crappy and bad is related one way or another with govts: bureaucracy, dmv, borders, postal service, state hospitals, state schools.
  - takeda 9y ago
    First Title II doesn't make the government start offering Internet service, it is similar to FDA preventing companies to include poison in our food to cut cost (and you can be sure that especially the public companies would do that if they could. This happens when individual people are not liable and #1 goal of a public company is to improve earnings every quarter). I have an exercise for you right now. Let say you are pissed at your current ISP and don't want to use them anymore, who would you switch to? If you have 1 extra choice of high speed internet, congratulations you're one of very small percentage of people. If you don't have other choices (like me) perhaps now you see the problem.
    - nickpp 9y ago
      The lack of choice in ISP marked is due to heavy govt regulation. They then added more regulation to fix the problem they created. Which is my original point: keep increasing that power...
      - 9y ago

thehardsphere 9y ago

Actually, I am asking that. Several other commentors have asserted that "the world changed" a few years before the rule passed, yet nobody has really explained in detail how. So far I've gotten a hypothetical about Wal-Mart paying ISPs to destroy Amazon, which didn't actually happen. (Though I haven't read other responses yet, so maybe there's something more here I just have missed.) But, let's take a closer look at what you just said here. You are correct that many laws and regulations are reactive in nature. That doesn’t automatically justify them. As a matter of fact, it is often the case that the most reactive laws and regulations can be some of the worst, as has constantly been demonstrated from September 11, 2001 to the present day. I mean, there is a real problem with terrorism, but that real problem doesn't automatically justify banning travel from 8 majority-Muslim countries, does it? At least in the terrorism example, I have some understanding of how terrorism exploits people, and that makes it possible to debate how to use the government to protect people from that exploitation (or to protect other people from exploitation by the government, in the name of protecting people from explotation). Individual acts of terrorism have been clearly identified and publicized, so it is possible to have a coherent public policy discussion. But in the net neutrality case, everyone either discusses: 1. Hypotheticals, like Wal-Mart paying Comcast to destroy Amazon 2. Court cases that... actually were resolved in court under anti-trust law 3. Assertions that new censorship will take place like we've never seen before, even though we'd be going back to the pre-2015 status quo. Despite sounding flippant about it, I don't actually mean to. People here are pretty smart, so if they're all worked up about it, I must be the one missing something. I would just like someone to coherently explain what that is.

takeda 9y ago
The reason FCC made change in 2015, because in 2014 court ruled that with prior classification, FCC had no authority to enforce anything unless they reclassify the Internet. Before the ruling, the companies were still respecting what FCC said (here are some cases that happened between 2002 (when FCC reclassified Internet as a telecommunication service) and 2015[1]), now the cat is out of the bag. Also note that 2015 change essentially brought back what was changed in 2002. [1] https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...