FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday

[Phoenix Wright]

regardless, the "99%" of time internet isn't used for necessary things is irrelevant. it doesn't matter what you use electricity for--the world as it is now could not operate without it. the world could not operate without the internet, as it does today. the world could operate without beds or chairs. we'd be significantly less comfortable, but we can operate world markets without them. we can do the things needed for daily life without them.

public goods and services are simply in a different domain than private property like computers and chairs. the united states needs a police force. the us needs power lines. not every american needs a computer. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[SoulWeaver]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

If you truly want to be a contrarian, look at how @SoulWeaver did it. He brought up how NN isn't an issue in his country and he brought up why, but he also came to an understanding as it why it's almost necessary in the United States, while teaching me that a lack of NN laws could work here if we had a healthier infrastructure for competition between ISPs.

Just so you know, I'm actually in Utah. The info doesn't really contribute to the argument, but I figured I'd let you know the italicized part is technically incorrect, though I think it's just the word country that's off.
As for it being almost necessary, I'd like to clarify that I believe our ISPs are run by people who are smarter than we give them credit for, and have faith that they won't abuse the power they're being given here, but also recognize that I may very well be wrong and am willing to admit that fact as well. To paraphrase, I don't believe it's even almost necessary - in fact I'm rather of the opposite opinion - but I know I don't know everything, so I may be wrong and am willing to say so.
I am also glad you appear to have gotten something of value from my comments. Yours have also been very intriguing to read, and it's been good to see someone with a different situation share their opinion on something that affects us both, even if perhaps not in equal measure.

Also,

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

It's worth noting that polls estimated that 83% of all Americans, including >70% of Republicans opposed this move. You want to talk about how 'will of the people' or 'democracy' works in America, that's pretty much what you have (not to mention the repeal that Trump signed that had a 6% approval rating from Americans of a law that prohibited telecom companies from selling on/sharing customers personal private information like web browsing history without their consent)

This is like three pages late, but we're actually not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic that certain people are trying to slowly change into a Democracy, likely because Democracy is little more than the stepping stone between a Republic and a full-fledged Oligarchy, which is likely the end goal of those certain people. I assume you already knew that, as I've seen other posts of yours and they're generally written quite intelligently, indicating you to be a man of knowledge, but I wanted to clarify that fact because there are definitely people out there who do not know that, in part because people throw around buzzwords and catchphrases without bothering to ensure they are being correctly defined, which was the original reason I posted on here.

[Lord Raven]

3 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

As for it being almost necessary, I'd like to clarify that I believe our ISPs are run by people who are smarter than we give them credit for, and have faith that they won't abuse the power they're being given here, but also recognize that I may very well be wrong and am willing to admit that fact as well.

I think a bunch of us believe they're smart, I think also a bunch of us believe that they're acting more in ill-intentions than good intention. ISP's inherent purpose is profit, and the purpose of a liberal democracy (which is basically the principle that the US was founded upon) is to cater to its people within reason. 

This can get kind of messy though, because people within government act in pursuit of power and people within companies may be driven solely by innovation and curiosity. But the inherent goal of a company is profit and government is to protect the people.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Dandy Druid]

I just want to say one thing: Screw Ajit Pai and his flip flopping bs. 

19 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

regardless, the "99%" of time internet isn't used for necessary things is irrelevant. it doesn't matter what you use electricity for--the world as it is now could not operate without it. the world could not operate without the internet, as it does today. the world could operate without beds or chairs. we'd be significantly less comfortable, but we can operate world markets without them. we can do the things needed for daily life without them.

public goods and services are simply in a different domain than private property like computers and chairs. the united states needs a police force. the us needs power lines. not every american needs a computer. 

The United States is becoming a digital country more and more each day. Not every American needs one, but an overwhelming majority do (320 M out of roughly 327 M in North America)- students need them to study or have access to an online document. Applying for schools, scholarships, etc., is all done on the computer now. Businesses need them to properly communicate with each other (small businesses are hurt more). Businesses aren't a public good, and unless they're the ISP people, they'll be affected as well. Also, Information is being kept in computer databases rather than being written on records (data such as law services, marriages, statistics, etc.).  Why should people have to pay for services that have been free?

[Sias]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

 

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.

I've been pretty busy lately and therefore don't have the time to participate as much in this discussion as I'd like to, but I nevertheless wanted to quickly pop in to address your point about innovation and the free market.

What it boils down to is that the free market isn't really that good at stimulating innovation at all. Its main motivation is simply the maximization of profit, and this ends up all too often in avoiding innovation (due to possible financial risk) or directly impeding it (because it would conflict with your current business interests). The free market is great at extracting tons of money out of existing innovations, but it's terrible at reinvesting this in anything else than increasing the dividends of their shareholders.

There was a pretty nice article about this in the Guardian a while back and I'll just quote the most relevant part:

Quote

Contrary to popular belief, entrepreneurs typically make terrible innovators. Left to its own devices, the private sector is far more likely to impede technological progress than to advance it. That’s because real innovation is very expensive to produce: it involves pouring extravagant sums of money into research projects that may fail, or at the very least may never yield a commercially viable product. In other words, it requires a lot of risk – something that, myth-making aside, capitalist firms have little appetite for.

This creates a problem. Companies need breakthroughs to build businesses on, but they generally can’t – or won’t – fund the development of those breakthroughs themselves. So where does the money come from? The government. As the economist Mariana Mazzucato has shown, nearly every major innovation since the second world war has required a big push from the public sector, for an obvious reason: the public sector can afford to take risks that the private sector can’t.

Conventional wisdom says that market forces foster innovation. In fact, it’s the government’s insulation from market forces that has historically made it such a successful innovator. It doesn’t have to compete, and it’s not at the mercy of investors demanding a share of its profits. It’s also far more generous with the fruits of its scientific labor: no private company would ever be so foolish as to constantly give away innovations it has generated at enormous expense for free, but this is exactly what the government does. The dynamic should be familiar from the financial crisis: the taxpayer absorbs the risk, and the investor reaps the reward.

 

[Tryhard]

37 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

This is like three pages late, but we're actually not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic that certain people are trying to slowly change into a Democracy, likely because Democracy is little more than the stepping stone between a Republic and a full-fledged Oligarchy, which is likely the end goal of those certain people. I assume you already knew that, as I've seen other posts of yours and they're generally written quite intelligently, indicating you to be a man of knowledge, but I wanted to clarify that fact because there are definitely people out there who do not know that, in part because people throw around buzzwords and catchphrases without bothering to ensure they are being correctly defined, which was the original reason I posted on here.

Fair, even though the US calls itself a strict democracy when it is convenient. It was mostly to point out how these are overwhelmingly unpopular policies.

[Johann]

41 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

As for it being almost necessary, I'd like to clarify that I believe our ISPs are run by people who are smarter than we give them credit for, and have faith that they won't abuse the power they're being given here, but also recognize that I may very well be wrong and am willing to admit that fact as well. To paraphrase, I don't believe it's even almost necessary - in fact I'm rather of the opposite opinion - but I know I don't know everything, so I may be wrong and am willing to say so.

The whole reason Net Neutrality was established in the first place was because major ISPs were caught throttling and blocking data. They've already abused their power, and by lobbying for NN's removal, they fought to get that power back.

[Zasplach]

5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

 the purpose of a liberal democracy (which is basically the principle that the US was founded upon) is to cater to its people within reason. 

This is a strange place to argue this, but the purpose that many fought for in the Revolution may have been a liberal democracy, but the Constitution established a deferential republic with a fear of the masses.

This is a direct quote from Madison's Federalist 10 From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Hell, it isn't until Jacksonian democracy in the 1820's until universal man-hood (white man) suffrage even happens.  The US was founded on the principles of limited government, limited citizen participation in government and separation of powers in government.  Heck, it isn't until the 20th century when women can vote or even there is popular election of US senators.  The constitutional convention only happens because of problems like Shay's Rebellion where the fear of the landed masses of the unlanded masses requires a stronger, less publicly accountable government that could regulate a free society.  'Liberal Democracy' is a new thing, mostly post WWII, but a little bit with the Progressive movement too. 

[Lord Raven]

9 hours ago, Zasplach said:

This is a strange place to argue this, but the purpose that many fought for in the Revolution may have been a liberal democracy, but the Constitution established a deferential republic with a fear of the masses.

I want to clarify that it's the principle I was getting at, but the rest of the post was very informative regardless. It is true that we were not properly a liberal democracy until the 20th century, but the bill of rights is probably where I'm empasizing the "liberal" part.

[Lushen]

17 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

This is like three pages late, but we're actually not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic that certain people are trying to slowly change into a Democracy, likely because Democracy is little more than the stepping stone between a Republic and a full-fledged Oligarchy, which is likely the end goal of those certain people.

Technically we are both a federal republic and a constitutional republic.  Constitutional just means we have a constitution and we aren't just a republic with a constitution.  I personally think its best to think of the US as its own thing.

Liberal democracy implies that we are a representative democracy which is what I always say we are for short, but its not really true.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Phoenix Wright]

18 hours ago, Dandy Druid said:

I just want to say one thing: Screw Ajit Pai and his flip flopping bs. 

The United States is becoming a digital country more and more each day. Not every American needs one, but an overwhelming majority do (320 M out of roughly 327 M in North America)- students need them to study or have access to an online document. Applying for schools, scholarships, etc., is all done on the computer now. Businesses need them to properly communicate with each other (small businesses are hurt more). Businesses aren't a public good, and unless they're the ISP people, they'll be affected as well. Also, Information is being kept in computer databases rather than being written on records (data such as law services, marriages, statistics, etc.).  Why should people have to pay for services that have been free?

well you aren't wrong. but i think making computers a government-protected utility would be weird, no? in truth, what should and should not constitute as a government-protected utility is subtle; it's far from easy. i feel very strongly that healthcare is a right--but for some reason i feel differently for food. i suppose, for me, what it boils down to is that there is such a thing as too much regulation. i'm okay with food programs, but i'm not ok with the government taking even partial control of food distribution. 

in the specific case of net neutrality, i'm okay with the government protecting the highways--the internet itself. i'm not okay with the government controlling commodities like computers or smartphones, despite their importance. to continue the analogy i've been using with lushen, it'd sorta be like the government building a highway system and strictly controlling what cars you can drive on them. it's too much.

in the same vein, i'm okay with social programs that get kids/people computers if they cannot afford them.

i hope this drivel made some sort of sense.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

@Phoenix Wright I think the argument is infrastructure. The internet is such that it requires a complex infrastructure that is far beyond mass production; as is water, housing (to some extent), electricity, etc. There are not many options and you’re often at the mercy of how the local government or highly specialized companies set up the infrastructure. In order to implement those, they are very obtrusive.

Computers, however, are compact and have tons of options, the infrastructure is not really existent nor is it dependent on local governments and it’s completely unobtrusive to implement. Also, there is a market for computers and food and there’s a lot of stuff out on there to choose from. The way it is set up there is fundamentally a choice to make.

In short, the scale of infrastructure is what differentiates a utility from a simple necessity, as well as the general market availability. Water and electricity on the free market is a disaster.

Also, elasticity of demand. When an ISP brings up the price, you still end up paying for it. If one kind of food rises in price, you grab another kind.

[Dandy Druid]

7 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

well you aren't wrong. but i think making computers a government-protected utility would be weird, no? in truth, what should and should not constitute as a government-protected utility is subtle; it's far from easy. i feel very strongly that healthcare is a right--but for some reason i feel differently for food. i suppose, for me, what it boils down to is that there is such a thing as too much regulation. i'm okay with food programs, but i'm not ok with the government taking even partial control of food distribution. 

in the specific case of net neutrality, i'm okay with the government protecting the highways--the internet itself. i'm not okay with the government controlling commodities like computers or smartphones, despite their importance. to continue the analogy i've been using with lushen, it'd sorta be like the government building a highway system and strictly controlling what cars you can drive on them. it's too much.

in the same vein, i'm okay with social programs that get kids/people computers if they cannot afford them.

i hope this drivel made some sort of sense.

It makes sense, and I agree with you for the most part.

Luckily, schools have begun to distribute computers for students, but that's just in my area.

The main thing about the net neutrality issue is that we didn't have a chance to vote. Sure, we could contact our local Congressman, but there's no guarantee they'll even talk about it. IIRC, FCC heads (5 guys) voted. It just grinds my gears that a government meant to serve the people ignored the majority in this case. It just seems like they've been paid off, which doesn't surprise me, since Congress as of late has been lobbied heavily with $$$ from huge businesses. For example, pharmaceutical companies that distribute opioid painkillers lobbying for less restriction in order to protect their profits, despite the rising number of overdoses due to the medication.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it just seems like big business is running America now (no surprise), so their interests are more so for profit, rather than meeting the demands of the people.

[Phoenix Wright]

20 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

@Phoenix Wright I think the argument is infrastructure. The internet is such that it requires a complex infrastructure that is far beyond mass production; as is water, housing (to some extent), electricity, etc. There are not many options and you’re often at the mercy of how the local government or highly specialized companies set up the infrastructure. In order to implement those, they are very obtrusive.

Computers, however, are compact and have tons of options, the infrastructure is not really existent nor is it dependent on local governments and it’s completely unobtrusive to implement. Also, there is a market for computers and food and there’s a lot of stuff out on there to choose from. The way it is set up there is fundamentally a choice to make.

In short, the scale of infrastructure is what differentiates a utility from a simple necessity, as well as the general market availability. Water and electricity on the free market is a disaster.

Also, elasticity of demand. When an ISP brings up the price, you still end up paying for it. If one kind of food rises in price, you grab another kind.

this is great!

17 hours ago, Dandy Druid said:

It makes sense, and I agree with you for the most part.

Luckily, schools have begun to distribute computers for students, but that's just in my area.

The main thing about the net neutrality issue is that we didn't have a chance to vote. Sure, we could contact our local Congressman, but there's no guarantee they'll even talk about it. IIRC, FCC heads (5 guys) voted. It just grinds my gears that a government meant to serve the people ignored the majority in this case. It just seems like they've been paid off, which doesn't surprise me, since Congress as of late has been lobbied heavily with $$$ from huge businesses. For example, pharmaceutical companies that distribute opioid painkillers lobbying for less restriction in order to protect their profits, despite the rising number of overdoses due to the medication.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it just seems like big business is running America now (no surprise), so their interests are more so for profit, rather than meeting the demands of the people.

1

agreed, that is frustrating; however, major corporations and states are set to sue the fcc. so, in the end, this isn't a unilateral decision that we all just have to deal with, thankfully.

[Harvey]

The thing that bothers me about this is that why did the FCC think that it was necessary to even get rid of net neutrality? Its not benefiting anyone. If anything, it removes competition entirely just practically making big corporate lose more money because people like me can't afford to constantly pay to various websites...

 

[The Geek]

20 minutes ago, Harvey said:

The thing that bothers me about this is that why did the FCC think that it was necessary to even get rid of net neutrality? Its not benefiting anyone. If anything, it removes competition entirely just practically making big corporate lose more money because people like me can't afford to constantly pay to various websites...

 

Because the ISPs (the ones who pay the FCC a lot of money and whom Ajit Pai used to and likely will again in the future work for) stand to make a lot of money by itemizing their internet service.

[Lord Raven]

16 hours ago, Harvey said:

The thing that bothers me about this is that why did the FCC think that it was necessary to even get rid of net neutrality? Its not benefiting anyone. If anything, it removes competition entirely just practically making big corporate lose more money because people like me can't afford to constantly pay to various websites...

I think working under the assumption that our government works for the good of the people makes it hard to wrap your head around their actions. Working pragmatically as a conduit for private profit as well as attempting to keep power in a democracy will add a ton of context to their actions.

Would like to continue to emphasis that the democratic senators and representatives may not be on board with NN and I'm fairly confident that they are lukewarm on it unless we actively make it clear to our senators and representatives that it is extremely important to us. I think Democrats at least stay pragmatic for the people as a whole, even if they have many corporate ties, due to the diversity of their constituents and voters. Republicans just pander to their rich base and their evangelical base. If NN is important to you, call your local members of congress. Their job is to represent you, and the calls will make a difference if a bunch of people make them.

[eclipse]

On 12/23/2017 at 6:02 PM, Lord Raven said:

 If NN is important to you, call your local members of congress. Their job is to represent you, and the calls will make a difference if a bunch of people make them.

My congresscritters voted no.  As much as I'd like to yell at other state's representatives, I don't think that will be very effective.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, eclipse said:

My congresscritters voted no.  As much as I'd like to yell at other state's representatives, I don't think that will be very effective.

Was there a vote and is their position consistent? Calling also encourages that they remain on the side of NN. Just because they are in agreement does not mean that they can't be swayed.

[eclipse]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

Was there a vote and is their position consistent? Calling also encourages that they remain on the side of NN. Just because they are in agreement does not mean that they can't be swayed.

I'm in Hawaii.  They despise Trump.  Like, we have two on record calling him out on various bullshit.  I doubt they'll be swayed.

[Lord Raven]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

I'm in Hawaii.  They despise Trump.  Like, we have two on record calling him out on various bullshit.  I doubt they'll be swayed.

Okay, but voicing your concerns is always beneficial, and the calls take ~2 minutes apiece. There's no reason for this nihilism, and calls do sincerely make a difference. If you have other concerns, go ahead and voice them and top them off with net neutrality. You don't need to keep arguing in favor of nihilism towards the process; if you simply don't want to call, then don't call, but don't give the argument that it is meaningless.

I call representatives in both states I live in just to make sure my voices and concerns are heard, no matter how much I agree or disagree with their politics.

[eclipse]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

Okay, but voicing your concerns is always beneficial, and the calls take ~2 minutes apiece. There's no reason for this nihilism, and calls do sincerely make a difference. If you have other concerns, go ahead and voice them and top them off with net neutrality. You don't need to keep arguing in favor of nihilism towards the process; if you simply don't want to call, then don't call, but don't give the argument that it is meaningless.

I call representatives in both states I live in just to make sure my voices and concerns are heard, no matter how much I agree or disagree with their politics.

That's fair.  I have my own personal issues with my representatives, hence why I'd rather NOT call them.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, eclipse said:

That's fair.  I have my own personal issues with my representatives, hence why I'd rather NOT call them.

Isn't that more of a reason to call them?

[eclipse]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

Isn't that more of a reason to call them?

Calling a representative to say "hey thanks for actually voting for net neutrality, but I still think you're an idiot" isn't exactly going to go well.

[Lord Raven]

Then be tactful. Say "I stand by net neutrality and appreciate your support, but I have other concerns. For instance, I personally feel that the representative's viewpoint towards this particular issue is misguided based on such and such a thing that I've researched and read."

And so on. I really don't know what point you're necessarily making, because these complaints seem solvable by an application of basic social tact and common sense which I know you have.