FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Yeah, you'll actually find that it screws over people that are not "popular" or are already corporations that want to make videos on youtube. I don't dispute, or agree with this.

That doesn't change the fact that it's affecting many people currently regardless of political ideology.

H3H3 is incredibly popular and his video is demonetized.  It has nothing to do with popularity, it has to do with whether the people in charge of blocking videos on YouTube like the content in question.  In fact, H3H3 almost got as many views as Jimmy Kimmels gun speech despite the fact that Youtube played the gun speech on the front page and prevented H3H3's video from being recommended to anyone or appearing on the front page.

@Lord RavenI did not use it as an argument.  I said that was the argument that the FCC is citing.  You spend all this time complaining about the FCC and you don't even care what their argument is?  That's kind of messed up.  It's important to know the arguments of both sides.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Zasplach]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

But here's the thing.  Ajit Pai (or whatever his name is) has said the number one reason he wants to repeal the 2015 NN legislation is because all the smaller ISPs are saying that it is creating a huge barrier to enter the market.  Its the SMALLER ISPs that want nn to be repealed, not the larger ones.  At least acc't the FCC.

Mr. Pai like any human can say whatever he thinks will help him win an argument, we all do it, doesn't verify the veracity of the statement.  I can say unicorns fly out of my ass if I think it will help me win an argument, it's not true, but I could say it.

[Lushen]

1 minute ago, Zasplach said:

Mr. Pai like any human can say whatever he thinks will help him win an argument, we all do it, doesn't verify the veracity of the statement.  I can say unicorns fly out of my ass if I think it will help me win an argument, it's not true, but I could say it.

Like I said I don't know if its true.  I still think its important to know what HIS argument is, even if you don't like him.  We had the same problem in the elections with people hating candidates on both sides without doing any actual research on them.

[Tryhard]

29 minutes ago, Lushen said:

H3H3 is incredibly popular and his video is demonetized.  It has nothing to do with popularity, it has to do with whether the people in charge of blocking videos on YouTube like the content in question.

I meant popularity as in celebrity status. Jimmy Kimmel is a "protected" class, so to speak. Youtube has always taken this side over other people.

Like I said, I don't agree with that. For what it's worth, H3H3 voted for Hillary and seems to be somewhat liberal leaning as far as I know. I don't think it's because of his content.

I have viewed actual fascist (neo-nazi) content that was actually removed later, as an aside.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

@Lord RavenI did not use it as an argument.  I said that was the argument that the FCC is citing.  You spend all this time complaining about the FCC and you don't even care what their argument is?  That's kind of messed up.  It's important to know the arguments of both sides.

First of all, the FCC used it as an argument, without relaying why. They continued to say this. You, too, used it as an argument just now, by quoting them and saying that's a benefit of net neutrality.

Therefore, you said some shit, without being able to properly defend it. Already, strike one. This is not good faith argument; you just said something to help your "side" win it, which your side amounts to what everyone else is not saying.

Now, I quoted some ISPs saying that it provides more local monopolies, and that there are some that are heavily against the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality. You edited your post to pretend like you responded to me, but I provided quotes and proof. Strike two, ignoring evidence and facts.

Strike three, you assumed that I did not know the other side's arguments. I am well aware of the "other side"'s arguments. They range from bullshit to semi-valid but inapplicable. This is something I've said a few times in this thread, and I can easily provide proof. Strike three.

You have no logical basis to call me out on this.

Let me re-link the article to show you that smaller ISPs are not in favor of the repeal of Title II classification.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Like I said I don't know if its true.  I still think its important to know what HIS argument is, even if you don't like him.  We had the same problem in the elections with people hating candidates on both sides without doing any actual research on them.

You should look it up before talking out of your ass. I frankly don't care what Ajit Pai has to say; I prefer to look it up myself, because Ajit Pai doesn't speak for the entire anti-NN crowd, and Ajit Pai's intentions are very unlikely to line up with his rhetoric.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

First of all, the FCC used it as an argument, without relaying why. They continued to say this. You, too, used it as an argument just now, by quoting them and saying that's a benefit of net neutrality.

Therefore, you said some shit, without being able to properly defend it. Already, strike one. This is not good faith argument; you just said something to help your "side" win it, which your side amounts to what everyone else is not saying.

Now, I quoted some ISPs saying that it provides more local monopolies, and that there are some that are heavily against the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality. You edited your post to pretend like you responded to me, but I provided quotes and proof. Strike two, ignoring evidence and facts.

Strike three, you assumed that I did not know the other side's arguments. I am well aware of the "other side"'s arguments. They range from bullshit to semi-valid but inapplicable. This is something I've said a few times in this thread, and I can easily provide proof. Strike three.

You have no logical basis to call me out on this.

Let me re-link the article to show you that smaller ISPs are not in favor of the repeal of Title II classification.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/

You did not read what I said correctly.  I did not use it as an argument, I only pointed out that it was their argument.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Lushen said:

You did not read what I said correctly.  I did not use it as an argument, I only pointed out that it was their argument.

Why bring it up and say it if it's patently false? Maybe you should look it up and see if what he's saying is bullshit or not before repeating it.

[Zasplach]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Like I said I don't know if its true.  I still think its important to know what HIS argument is, even if you don't like him.  We had the same problem in the elections with people hating candidates on both sides without doing any actual research on them.

Understanding what someone is saying and buying into the paradigm aren't equal, you should understand what someone is saying, not have to buy what they are saying, listen, observe, understand; polite and required for civilized people to argue, buying what they say, not required.  

 

[Lushen]

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Why bring it up and say it if it's patently false? Maybe you should look it up and see if what he's saying is bullshit or not before repeating it.

Because I think its important to look at both sides of the argument.  I don't think its fair to formulate opinions about people without listening to them.  But IDK, maybe I'm just crazy.

From what I just briefly read, 40 small ISPs have stated that they do not like net neutrality.  There are over 3,000 small ISPs.  This leaves at the very least 2,960 small ISPs who have not made a public comment on NN.  We have no idea what small ISPs generally think about nn.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

Like I said I don't know if its true.  I still think its important to know what HIS argument is, even if you don't like him.  We had the same problem in the elections with people hating candidates on both sides without doing any actual research on them.

His arguments are demonstrably bullshit. He's simply douchebag lawyer doing douchebag lawyer things because money.

[Integrity]

i'm gonna go eat dinner but i got linked here which probably means i was supposed to get linked here for a reason so be good to each other and i'll evaluate you when i get back

[Lord Raven]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Because I think its important to look at both sides of the argument.  I don't think its fair to formulate opinions about people without listening to them.  But IDK, maybe I'm just crazy.

I personally don't care to listen to Ajit Pai, and I just stated why. His rhetoric and his intentions are two vastly different things, and you just told me that Ajit Pai stated that it's all for the small businesses when the small businesses are wholly against it. This is a very good reason I am not listening to Ajit Pai.

I am however, listening to your arguments which happen to disagree with mine, and I feel myself getting dumber for responding to them. I did listen to a dude on page 1 and someone else on page 1 that was iffy and disagreed with it, and I do view a ton of stuff that is contrary to my own opinions from people who have actually backed their facts up. Notice how in page 2 I was taking a more neutral stance towards it despite my being highly in favor of NN, thinking it wouldn't do much, simply because I didn't view the pre-2015 issues as too big a deal and saw those as a best case scenario. But it's still much more beneficial to the American people and small ISPs to keep NN in place than repeal it, which Tryhard has shown repeatedly.

This is not an "other side" issue. This is me, looking everywhere on the internet, talking with people that are not you who disagree with me in a respectful way, then formulating my opinion and arguing it forth. It just so happens that you say so much stuff in bad faith, and Ajit Pai is not a trusted source of information or intention, that I sound much more fierce in my support of NN. It's not that I've never heard anti-NN arguments before, in fact I've heard many anti-NN arguments, and they were all full of crap and I have successfully managed to convince myself why they were full of crap beyond "the person I'm responding to is stupid."

I know how to research things for myself and form my own opinions. You're under the impression it's all propaganda, but I and many others have been in the lions den and you're not the first person I've conversed with or argued with over this, and you sure as hell won't be the last.

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

From what I just briefly read, 40 small ISPs have stated that they do not like net neutrality.  There are over 3,000 small ISPs.  This leaves at the very least 2,960 small ISPs who have not made a public comment on NN.  We have no idea what small ISPs generally think about nn.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171213/11094638800/fcc-boss-claims-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps-fccs-own-data-proves-otherwise.shtml

Reality and Ajit Pai's rhetoric are two different things.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I personally don't care to listen to Ajit Pai, and I just stated why. His rhetoric and his intentions are two vastly different things, and you just told me that Ajit Pai stated that it's all for the small businesses when the small businesses are wholly against it. This is a very good reason I am not listening to Ajit Pai.

[snip comments about me]

[snip more comments about me and how stupid I am]

[snip comments about me instead of the argument...again]

Seriously.  This is why I can't reply to you.  3/4 of this was talking about how stupid I am and how talking to me makes you feel dumb.  This is not constructive at all.

Then 1/4 talks about how while you complain about me not doing any research you admit that you don't listen to the other side of the argument which means that you're not doing research.  

I actually don't like Ajit Pai and I think some of his arguments are wrong.  But everyone should at least watch some of his arguments (and I'm not talking about the meme video he posted but his actual arguments.

Here's a small sample:  (skip to like 50s)

Spoiler

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I actually don't like Ajit Pai and I think some of his arguments are wrong.  But everyone should at least watch some of his arguments (and I'm not talking about the meme video he posted but his actual arguments.

What arguments of his do you find wrong and what do you take away from his actual arguments?

You're telling me to watch a video, but I kinda don't care about his arguments. There's a reason why. I've explained it. As I said, I have no issue talking to people I disagree with, but Ajit Pai is a demagogue and I haven't listened to a word he's said since his initial announcement and the few bits after, and it was quite clearly full of shit.

If you think me ignoring a known bullshitter and and me ignoring someone who disagrees with me are synonymous, then I don't know what to do with you. Seeing as I don't do the latter, although I don't do the former either. You should realize that while there is near-unanimous support of NN, Ajit Pai is not a singular spokesperson against it, and that there are people who exist beyond him who don't believe in NN.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

What arguments of his do you find wrong and what do you take away from his actual arguments?

You're telling me to watch a video, but I kinda don't care about his arguments. There's a reason why. I've explained it. As I said, I have no issue talking to people I disagree with, but Ajit Pai is a demagogue and I haven't listened to a word he's said since his initial announcement and the few bits after, and it was quite clearly full of shit.

If you think me ignoring a known bullshitter and and me ignoring someone who disagrees with me are synonymous, then I don't know what to do with you. Seeing as I don't do the latter, although I don't do the former either.

You cannot be against arguments you don't know about.  If you dont LISTEN to his arguments then you cant be against them.  How do you even know Ajit Pai is against nn?  Maybe he's the world's biggest supporter and you just don't realize it.  You have to actually watch it you can't just listen to what everyone else says.  This is why bandwagons are such a big problem in US politics right now, especially among the youth.  You can say Ajit Pai is a bullshiter because that's the public opinion of him but like it or not he is the most important figure in nn right now.  If you don't know anything about him beyond reddit memes I don't know how you can talk about nn.

Arguments I like from this 8 minute podcast (its only 8 minutes)
- He talks about how utilities lack innovation.  Your water company is not so different than it was 20 years ago.  Sure it gets some innovation every couple hundred years but its largely the same.  On the other hand, internet 20 years ago was all dial up.  Now we have cable.  The internet should not be seen as a utility because it is constantly being innovated by ISPs and imposing more regulation on the companies in charge of innovation will restrict that innovation
- He talks specifically about satellite ISP companies and how they could be the next big thing and they need to be allowed to innovate before they can get here.

Honestly I think Ajit Pai would be a lot more respected if he acted professionally instead of making a meme go viral on Youtube.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You cannot be against arguments you don't know about.  If you dont LISTEN to his arguments then you cant be against them.  How do you even know Ajit Pai is against nn?  Maybe he's the world's biggest supporter and you just don't realize it.  You have to actually watch it you can't just listen to what everyone else says.  This is why bandwagons are such a big problem in US politics right now, especially among the youth.  You can say Ajit Pai is a bullshiter because that's the public opinion of him but like it or not he is the most important figure in nn right now.  If you don't know anything about him beyond reddit memes I don't know how you can talk about nn.

Because he announced the repeal of NN, it's extremely obvious he's anti-NN. I did say I listened to him, I just prefer not to care about what he says after he announced its repeal, and I feel his arguments are ultimately irrelevant because I'm personally not directly addressing him in any of my arguments. I am, however, addressing you and I expect you to have your own arguments that are backed up by your own, self-researched points.

And like this entire administration, I have no faith that his reasoning lines up with his rhetoric.

You're also assuming all I know about him is reddit memes. To me he's the FCC chair that was the forefront of Title II repeal, and his arguments are simply "innovation", which I will touch upon now. You're also assuming I only argue with people through memes. You're also assuming I haven't researched this topic on my own. Finally, Ajit Pai was appointed to the FCC partially due to his views on NN -- notice how our president has been firmly against NN in his campaign?

I frankly view Ajit Pai as a South Asian uncle Tom-like figure, but that's just me speaking as a South Asian person, and has no bearing in my views towards NN.

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

- He talks about how utilities lack innovation.  Your water company is not so different than it was 20 years ago.  Sure it gets some innovation every couple hundred years but its largely the same.  On the other hand, internet 20 years ago was all dial up.  Now we have cable.  The internet should not be seen as a utility because it is constantly being innovated by ISPs and imposing more regulation on the companies in charge of innovation will restrict that innovation

- He talks specifically about satellite ISP companies and how they could be the next big thing and they need to be allowed to innovate before they can get here.

The internet should be seen as a utility because it is necessary for everyday life nowadays. This has been covered in great detail in many sources and in this thread. You apply to jobs through the internet, many times you communicate with other people all the way across the world through the internet, homework is done through the internet in a lot of places in college, professors communicate with students through the internet, teachers communicate with students through the internet.

It is a utility. It is necessary to function in this world nowadays. It may have been innovated continuously for around 10 years, but the internet wasn't as widely used until the mid 2000s, and it didn't become fundamentally necessary in every facet of our life until the mid to late 2000s.

This is not a controversial point. Innovation has allowed it to become a utility, but at this point it must be treated as such and ISPs must still provide innovation. Hell, internet is still getting faster despite having Title II protections for the past two years, and they continue to innovate. Hell, my current research is government funded and it's also ultimately used to create faster computers and communications, and our funding came before the repeal of Title II classification, just as an example.

The military has actively funded faster internet for more secure and safer communication, and they've often funded research laboratories to produce the means. Nothing about this states that we need to repeal net neutrality for innovation.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

27 minutes ago, Integrity said:

i'm gonna go eat dinner but i got linked here which probably means i was supposed to get linked here for a reason so be good to each other and i'll evaluate you when i get back

to make your job easier it's (probably) because of my ad hominem on the page before. i'll take the warning or whatever and be on my merry way. :)

Edited December 18, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Johann]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I actually don't like Ajit Pai and I think some of his arguments are wrong.  But everyone should at least watch some of his arguments (and I'm not talking about the meme video he posted but his actual arguments.

Did you check out my links? Pai straight-up lies when talking about ISP behavior, saying that issues like throttling or blocking sites/services haven't happened, when there is proof that they had (which is the reason NN was implemented at all).

Pai's other main argument is that since NN was implemented, investment in broadband dropped by about 5% (a pretty small sample size since it's a mere 2 years), and apparently that, too, is incorrect.

[Lushen]

24 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

The internet should be seen as a utility because it is necessary for everyday life nowadays. This has been covered in great detail in many sources and in this thread. You apply to jobs through the internet, many times you communicate with other people all the way across the world through the internet, homework is done through the internet in a lot of places in college, professors communicate with students through the internet, teachers communicate with students through the internet.

It is a utility. It is necessary to function in this world nowadays. It may have been innovated continuously for around 10 years, but the internet wasn't as widely used until the mid 2000s, and it didn't become fundamentally necessary in every facet of our life until the mid to late 2000s.

This is not a controversial point. Innovation has allowed it to become a utility, but at this point it must be treated as such and ISPs must still provide innovation. Hell, internet is still getting faster despite having Title II protections for the past two years, and they continue to innovate. Hell, my current research is government funded and it's also ultimately used to create faster computers and communications, and our funding came before the repeal of Title II classification, just as an example.

The military has actively funded faster internet for more secure and safer communication, and they've often funded research laboratories to produce the means. Nothing about this states that we need to repeal net neutrality for innovation.

TBF no ISP in history has banned job application websites or sites where you can submit homework.  Nor has it ever been suggested that they have any intention of doing so.  This is the only reason I am speaking on this issue.  People are taking a small issue and treating it like these big greedy corporations are going to take over the world.  In reality, we are going back two years.  I submitted online job applications and turned in my homework 2 years ago just fine.  I'm not going to pretend that legislation that hasn't done much so far is going to redefine the internet as we know it. 

As I said before I don't really care whether we have nn or not b/c I don't think it will make a big difference. I think a lot more things matter like the amount of ISPs we have, whether or not they are changing their rates without telling consumers, 2yr contracts being done away witih, not being able to get decent upload speeds, etc.  I just dont think NN is the biggest issue when it comes to me getting my internet.  I'm not overly for or against, I just think its a lot smaller topic than people care to admit.

Really monopoly law reform would be a thousand times more significant than nn.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

TBF no ISP in history has banned job application websites or sites where you can submit homework.  Nor has it ever been suggested that they have any intention of doing so.  This is the only reason I am speaking on this issue.  People are taking a small issue and treating it like these big greedy corporations are going to take over the world.  In reality, we are going back two years.  I submitted online job applications and turned in my homework 2 years ago just fine.  I'm not going to pretend that legislation that hasn't done much so far is going to redefine the internet as we know it. 

This is irrelevant to the idea of internet as a utility. The internet is a utility due to all of the reasons which I described. Title II classification is classification as a utility. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As I said before I don't really care whether we have nn or not b/c I don't think it will make a big difference. I think a lot more things matter like the amount of ISPs we have, whether or not they are changing their rates without telling consumers, 2yr contracts being done away witih, not being able to get decent upload speeds, etc.  I just dont think NN is the biggest issue when it comes to me getting my internet.  I'm not overly for or against, I just think its a lot smaller topic than people care to admit.

Really monopoly law reform would be a thousand times more significant than nn.

Ever heard of not breaking what was already working fine? Why repeal Title II classification if it wasn't a big deal? It's definitely not just for show -- the majority of the country is against the repeal. How would you reform monopolies to solve NN then? What even is "monopoly reform"?

Right now you're shrugging it off because it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal to you, but currently your argument hinges on "well it MAY have been unnecessary," even though it's for consumer protection and was shown to be necessary. Whether or not it's a big issue compared to other issues is irrelevant to the fact that this is an issue that is well worth our energy.

 

[Zasplach]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Really monopoly law reform would be a thousand times more significant than nn.

It's a small topic, but a leak turns whole which turns into a flood which turns into a mess if you keep poking holes.  The problem is that the monopoly laws on the book are as good as we are ever going to get.  Let's be frank, the American people aren't 'smart', I can't think of a better word for it, enough to care about monopoly laws.  Economic rules and regulations are complicated and no politician in their right mind is going to campaign on issues like 'I believe the current economic problems of the nation are because hegemonic powers of monopolies and our inability to identify them.'  90% of Americans are going to tune you out and call you a blowhard and unable to be related to and something horrible like an intellectual, you'll get blown out of the water.  The reason why the bureaucracies like the FCC exist is because the politicians can insulate themselves from powerful corporate lobbyists whose money politicians desperately need to win in this century.  Corporations and lobbyists care a lot more about monopoly laws than the rest us, a lot more.  

[Lushen]

12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

This is irrelevant to the idea of internet as a utility. The internet is a utility due to all of the reasons which I described. Title II classification is classification as a utility. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

Well you said the reason the internet is a Title II classification is because it is necessary.  But none of the necessities are things that ISPs have ever done or logically ever plan to do.  

I don't believe the internet can be seen as a utility for two reasons.

1.  It is still innovating. This is a very good point made by Ajit Pai.  While we may disagree on this as well, I strongly believe that the free market is the best practice when it comes to encouraging innovation.  We wouldn't be complaning about ISPs if internet was cheap as hell which innovation could lead to.  Either way, we all know that utility companies innovate A LOT slower than services that are in the free market.  And I believe IIRC the FCC has stated that ISPs are losing like half their income (don't quote me on that though)

2.  99% of the internet is unnecessary.  Yes things like e-mail, online homework submissions, school registrations, etc. are a part of our daily lives.  But so is my phone.  So is my computer.  So is my desk.  So is my chair.  So is my bed.  Plenty of things are "necessary" to my daily life.  Utilities cannot be classified as "Necessities", that's too broad a term.  

12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Ever heard of not breaking what was already working fine? Why repeal Title II classification if it wasn't a big deal? It's definitely not just for show -- the majority of the country is against the repeal. How would you reform monopolies to solve NN then? What even is "monopoly reform"?

Right now you're shrugging it off because it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal to you, but currently your argument hinges on "well it MAY have been unnecessary," even though it's for consumer protection and was shown to be necessary. Whether or not it's a big issue compared to other issues is irrelevant to the fact that this is an issue that is well worth our energy.

 

Why impose Title II classification when it wasn't necessary to begin with?

As I said my stance is not that we are better off without the 2015 legislation. It's also not that we are better off with it.  It's simply that whether nn exists or not is not going to have a significant impact on our daily lives and that there are some arguments from the FCC that make sense as well as some arguments from tech corporations that make sense.  I have no problem with it being repealed nor was I very vocal when it was put in place.  But I do have a problem with the mass hysteria surrounding the topic.

Really I don't think this is a fight between consumers and producers as the tech companies would have you believe.  Really its a fight between tech companies and ISPs but the tech companies have consumers wrapped around their little finger.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Integrity]

40 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

to make your job easier it's (probably) because of my ad hominem on the page before. i'll take the warning or whatever and be on my merry way. :)

yeah i think you're right but i'll just dish you a half-warn, you know what you did and don't be fussed by it tbf

 

i'll be monitoring this thread meanwhile for the rest of you nerds

[Lord Raven]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

Well you said the reason the internet is a Title II classification is because it is necessary.  But none of the necessities are things that ISPs have ever done or logically ever plan to do.  

Not in the United States, but Spain and Portugal require packages so you can do things like view your email. This is an adverse effect resulting from a lack of Title II-classification and protection.

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I don't believe the internet can be seen as a utility for two reasons.

1.  It is still innovating. This is a very good point made by Ajit Pai.  While we may disagree on this as well, I strongly believe that the free market is the best practice when it comes to encouraging innovation.  We wouldn't be complaning about ISPs if internet was cheap as hell which innovation could lead to.  Either way, we all know that utility companies innovate A LOT slower than services that are in the free market.  And I believe IIRC the FCC has stated that ISPs are losing like half their income (don't quote me on that though)

2.  99% of the internet is unnecessary.  Yes things like e-mail, online homework submissions, school registrations, etc. are a part of our daily lives.  But so is my phone.  So is my computer.  So is my desk.  So is my chair.  So is my bed.  Plenty of things are necessary to my daily life.  Utilities cannot be classified as "Necessities", that's too broad a term.  

1. It is innovating independent of Title II classifications. If somehow NN slows down innovation (it doesn't, and has not been shown to do so), then the military will pick up the slack very easily. A good chunk of our defense budget goes towards technological innovations.

2. Just because 99% is unnecessary doesn't mean it's not a utility. Utilities, or more specifically public utilities, are defined as the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility

The internet is classified as such due to its sheer necessity in day to day life. Everything you mentioned lacks the complex infrastructure that a utility has, therefore it requires significantly less regulation to sell and possess because it's relatively easy to enter the market for those things.

Internet service actively depends on other companies to do all of the backend stuff for each individual user, and there is a lack of competition (almost monopolistic) which arises due to both necessity and the internet being mostly privatized. (I agree with the decision to privatize it with business-based regulations, by the way, since I don't want government interfering with the internet, and I'm willing to bet others feel the same way).

The idea of net neutrality is also to prevent corporate takeover of internet content, which is much more likely to happen given its repeal.

Regardless, you need to read up on the idea of elastic vs inelastic demand. The internet, water, and sewage and etc are very inelastic demand, whereas beds and computers have elastic demand. There is a reason why this is controversial.

[Johann]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Well you said the reason the internet is a Title II classification is because it is necessary.  But none of the necessities are things that ISPs have ever done or logically ever plan to do.  

I don't believe the internet can be seen as a utility for two reasons.

1.  It is still innovating. This is a very good point made by Ajit Pai.  While we may disagree on this as well, I strongly believe that the free market is the best practice when it comes to encouraging innovation.  We wouldn't be complaning about ISPs if internet was cheap as hell which innovation could lead to.  Either way, we all know that utility companies innovate A LOT slower than services that are in the free market.  And I believe IIRC the FCC has stated that ISPs are losing like half their income (don't quote me on that though)

First off, you really shouldn't bother saying anything you can't back up (specifically the "ISPs are losing half their income" thing).

Innovation is sometimes stifled by free markets just as much as regulation, it depends more on circumstances like competition creating a need for innovation. ISPs aren't going to reduce the cost of the internet even if it was "cheap as hell" unless they have competition doing so, and they largely don't. While it's true that most utilities aren't innovating often, in part due to regulation, the intent of the regulation is to protect consumers and ensure service that they can't afford to lose. Scrapping the rules opens up problems with accountability and exploitation.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

2.  99% of the internet is unnecessary.  Yes things like e-mail, online homework submissions, school registrations, etc. are a part of our daily lives.  But so is my phone.  So is my computer.  So is my desk.  So is my chair.  So is my bed.  Plenty of things are necessary to my daily life.  Utilities cannot be classified as "Necessities", that's too broad a term.  

Why impose Title II classification when it wasn't necessary to begin with?

You have a gross misunderstanding of how vital the internet is to most people, businesses, organizations, etc. This goes far beyond email and homework. Throttling and data limits imposed by ISPs could affect any number of operations an organization requires for its primary functions, notably the exchange of data.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

As I said my stance is not that we are better off without the 2015 legislation. It's also not that we are better off with it.  It's simply that whether nn exists or not is not going to have a significant impact on our daily lives and that there are some arguments from the FCC that make sense as well as some arguments from tech corporations that make sense.  I have no problem with it being repealed nor was I very vocal when it was put in place.  But I do have a problem with the mass hysteria surrounding the topic.

Really I don't think this is a fight between consumers and producers as the tech companies would have you believe.  Really its a fight between tech companies and ISPs but the tech companies have consumers wrapped around their little finger.

ISPs have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby against NN. They have a clear financial gain if they can operate without it, primarily by charging more for their services and stifling their competition. While this would make it a free market, it would also be a market failure, having long-reaching economic impacts on a variety of businesses, and most of all, consumers. Every single one of us here is going to be affected by this in a negative way.