I don’t understand Net Neutrality. Everything I DuckDuckGo is horribly biased. WTH is it?

One thing to remember is that our government lied to us about ObamaCare so that it could pass and the people who wrote the law have admitted this. Our government lied about the structure and nature of Social Security and Medicare. They lie about things that have serious consequences for everyone in the country. The people in DC are the least trustworthy people in the country, but then we knew that already right?

We simply can not believe what they say about the law, what's in it, what it is intended to do, or how it will be implemented or interpreted by the courts. We have to assume they have malevolent motives. Unfortunately that's where we're at. I wish that weren't true.

If you were on the fence between innovation and regulation then the "government corruption" factor should push you into the innovation camp.

You are right, but the banks did not have to lie about the safety of the financial product they were selling or insure it multiple times, then short the market. Other point still valid.

DiscoGary wrote:

Innovativeness wrote:

To the argument that less regulation leads to innovation. This is very true. Here are a few examples.

1) Banks were operating with little regulation and oversight. They started giving risky loans. Those risky loans were looking bad in their books so they packaged them up as AAA securities and sold them off to retirement plans, etc.. Then they innovated Credit Default Swaps where investors could insure their assets, and so could everybody else on the same asset.

...

You left out the beginning of the story. Government forced banks to give low interest loans to people who could not pay them back, THEN they started giving risky loans because they had a Federal gun to their head.

The government caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

So because the government failed to regulate due to lack of funding and being hamstringed by pharma insiders, it is the government's fault pharma broke the laws? Good argument.

DiscoGary wrote:

Innovativeness wrote:

To the argument that less regulation leads to innovation. This is very true. Here are a few examples.

...

3) Pharmaceutical companies innovate the idea that Opiods are great for chronic pain and other ailments. They go and give seminars to doctors and incentives to prescribe. Doctors do so. Sales skyrocket. Pharmaceutical companies are required to report "suspicious" orders to the DEA. Millions of opiod pills are sent to single pharmacies in rural areas. They do not consider this suspicious because it makes them lots of money. 200,000 Americans are now dead from opiod overdoses. They too have installed former executives in Washington DC to squelch regulation. DEA ability to sieze drug shipments is taken away. True innovation.

...

Opiods are already regulated by the government at many levels, and require a doctor's prescription. The opiod epidemic is an example where government regulation and oversight failed completely.

Sure there is corruption, but given the choice between a company out for profit and the government run by people who were elected, I'll choose to put my health and financial well being in the hands of government (FDA, EPA, SEC, etc). Obviously we disagree on this. Maybe you have not been screwed over as many times by corporations as I have and don't feel that they put profit before the well being of their customers. But corporations are invading the government, so we can't win. "Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." -Noam Chomsky

DiscoGary wrote:

One thing to remember is that our government lied to us about ObamaCare so that it could pass and the people who wrote the law have admitted this. Our government lied about the structure and nature of Social Security and Medicare. They lie about things that have serious consequences for everyone in the country. The people in DC are the least trustworthy people in the country, but then we knew that already right?

We simply can not believe what they say about the law, what's in it, what it is intended to do, or how it will be implemented or interpreted by the courts. We have to assume they have malevolent motives. Unfortunately that's where we're at. I wish that weren't true.

If you were on the fence between innovation and regulation then the "government corruption" factor should push you into the innovation camp.

theJeff wrote:

Would love to hear a counter argument, if there is one.

The counterargument is the one being voiced by the Head of the FCC. That we shouldn't tell ISP how to run their product. That by doing so, we are limiting free trade and business.

Unfortunately, he worked for Verizon and is a bit biased. The only reason anyone wants to change it is for more profit. Which I'm not against - Businesses making money is the shizz.

But I echo what stateroftheoblivious said. But for me, one of the biggest issues is the 1st amendment. Not that I'm an alarmist, or think that this is something to be worried about, but this would allow ISPs to block access to websites based on their own policies or agendas. If the CEO of AT&T or CenturyLink decides they don't like gays or guns, they could block access to sites that promote or support them.

Again, not that that will ever happen, but I become wary when we allow companies to control what we see, considering their motivations.

Also, this will also allow them to sell and distribute your personal info and likes/dislikes to advertisers. Which already happens to an extent, but you can take measures on your end to end that (to an extent). But if the ISP can see every address going in/out of your home...

And again, what you see will be altered by who pays the ISP more. You want to do a google search? You may be charged more to visit google at all. Google will undoubtedly pay more to prevent that from happening. But then those results will be changed - whoever your ISP wants you to see will show up, and others won't, based on who paid the ISP.

You do a search for quality butter? Well, dang - Land O' Lakes paid up, but KerryGold didn't. Well, shoot, bro. You're up a creek. Even though KerryGold is far superior, Land O' Lakes gets the nod.

DiscoGary wrote:

If you were on the fence between innovation and regulation

False dichotomy. We do not have to choose between these.

theJeff wrote:

Thank you for this. Very helpful.

I will keep checking in to see if anyone disagrees. Most of what I have found seems to echo your sentiment. Would love to hear a counter argument, if there is one.

the counter argument is so obvious yet will make people who are against this have to admit that they are against capitalism. most great advancements in technology in the USA were mostly funded by the tax payer, and that moved into the private sector where it produced winners and losers. winners and losers is a long way of saying capitalism. i am agasint it because i believe that socialism is better than capitalism. but if you are for capitalism you cant be against it.

Trump_wins wrote:

Regulations always raise fees and prices!

Obama regulated Healthcare, deductibles went up bc healthy people were paying for sick people.

Obama regulated food, food prices went up.

They don't come down.

IF this place is a liberal echo chamber so be it.

But know ahead of time, you will be scammed by Govt.

Govt is not love

Govt is force

healthy paying for sick people is the definition of health insurance or any insurance. before obama most young healthy people would either be covered by their employer or would usually not buy insurance. now most companies dont provide insurance and with national insurance everyone must be covered. That is why rates are going up. food has been regulated for a long time, and food prices go up every year and have been since before obama.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

What my ISP is complaining about is that previously I didn't use the network that much (because I didn't have Netflix) and now I do. In other words, they are complaining that I am now using more of the service that I PAY FOR. If they weren't able to offer me the service at that price then why did they do it?

Do you know how banking, insurance, and vacation timeshares work?

Innovativeness wrote:

"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise

to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." -Noam Chomsky

Just because something is a quote does not make it true.

What party is mostly behind this sh*tshow, republicans or democrats?

A good counter argument is not to look at the internet as a public utility like roads but rather like electric or water. You pay for the amount of bandwidth you use/download. The internet companies could charge huge fees to companies like netflix and google that use huge amounts of bandwidth. Smaller companies using smaller amounts of bandwidth could pay less. An older folk who checks their email a couple times a week could pay for less bandwidth than a millennial who watches netflix, plays games ect. really this will cause smaller companies who use little bandwidth to help subsidize large companies like google and netflix who use a lot of bandwidth.

Senator Davis wrote:

It literally won’t affect anything. There is no reason to care about an absurd bandwagon with zero relevance to the Average Joe (or Jeff in your case).

Posted the telecommunications Internet Community Coordinator.

Taking telecoms out of common carrier status means the telecom monopolies then get to act like monopolists.

Democrat/Republican wrote:

What party is mostly behind this sh*tshow, republicans or democrats?

Telecomms lobby has no party.

Read this very well written piece....

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/#memberful_done

Alright Jeff, here's the deal as I see it. Anything that is this far reaching should have one of two things if it is to be enacted. Predefined triggers that re-implement Net Neutrality given evidence of anti-competitive behavior or censorship. Or, a sunset period whereby these rules are automatically re-enacted if they are not explicitly extended.

As for when it is appropriate for regulation to be proactive vs reactive. If the externalities/consequences are health/life affecting; preemptive/proactive regulation is appropriate. You shouldn't have to wait for Lake Eerie to be in flames or Love Canal to ooze thru a school yard before implementing safeguards. Agency issues are easy to spot in most cases, and setting regulations to resolve those inherent conflicts when the lives and well being of populations are involved only makes sense. You shouldn't have to wait for someone to notice that an entire town downwind from the power plant has lead poisoning before putting emissions standards on them.

As far as regulation that isn't life threatening, like bank regulations, I'm more inclined to make those reactive and with sunsets, but also contingent upon there not being any litigation constraints and making legal remedies more available to everyone. There has to be some avenue for financial or criminal penalties for bad actors, otherwise there is no accountability.

FCC wants to hear from you

https://www.theonion.com/fcc-chair-unveils-premium-comment-line-to-fast-track-ne-1820986235

trolljackerer wrote:

There was a political forum I go to and a poster with the name "theJeff". Do you indeed post on other forums?

Which forum? Maybe, but if so, it has been a long time.

Actually, I did post a couple of times recently about a welfare program, but I don't even remember the website.

If someone out there considers himself "thejeff", he must be stopped at all costs.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

theJeff wrote:

No, I just used "DuckDuckGo" as a verb instead of "Google" to be snarky. I DO understand you point, but that isn't the issue here.

Still, good call.

Maybe if you want a serious discussion about a complicated subject you shouldn't start it with a nonsense post.

Maybe you should take your pissy little attitude, turn it sideways, and shove it right up your candy @$$!

FINALLY! THEJEFF HAS COME BACK... TO LETSRUN.