The End of Net Neutrality is Here.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

As many are aware, June 11, 2018 Net neutrality ends for the US. Despite all efforts to stop this from happening, Trumps appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was determined to remove Net Neutrality protections for Americans and allow Internet providers to decide what their customers, and others are allowed to access and at what speeds. This means yes, they will be able to bottle neck speeds for some people and allow others normal access as well as allow the access you enjoy now to go to the highest bidder.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-date-is-here-so-long-net-neutrality.html

All hail Ajit Pai, Overlord of American Internet!
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai

Because of course Americans do not need to be able to determine what they access for themselves, We need our internet providers to decide that for us!

The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Also, the EU's new proposed law for net regulations is a far more pressing matter, and discussion of both belongs in Religion and Politics.

If net neutrality didn't change anything, why is it such a pressing matter for internet providers to get rid of it

If only I had a computer and hard drives to download like crazy.

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Here this may help you better understand, as that is not accurate:
https://www.sutori.com/story/the-history-of-net-neutrality-in-the-u-s

undeadsuitor:
If net neutrality didn't change anything, why is it such a pressing matter for internet providers to get rid of it

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Marik2:
If only I had a computer and hard drives to download like crazy.

Get the memes while you can, the EU's law will destroy the meme economy if the Eurocrats get their way.

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:
If net neutrality didn't change anything, why is it such a pressing matter for internet providers to get rid of it

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Then why does it need to be repealed

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:
If net neutrality didn't change anything, why is it such a pressing matter for internet providers to get rid of it

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Then why does it need to be repealed

So Att&T can throttle competing services (for example VOIP services such as Magic Jack at will) and charge more money to be able to access the same content people receive now. They have been doing this off and on for quite some time, Net Neutrality gave people legal recourse for when they do, but with it repealed they can do so at will.

Most people do not even understand that Uverse was a downgrade of their service from the service they were providing before ( dedicated gateway). They are actually charging more for Uverse than they were for the superior service they had prior, as Uverse allowed neighborhood traffic to slow down their connection and their prior service had a dedicated gateway. People actually paid more to take a hit to their speed. MoRe bottlenecks PL0X!

This is what happens when you elect a businessman as your President. His priorities are giving free reign to big businesses and butt fucking the common people.

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:
If net neutrality didn't change anything, why is it such a pressing matter for internet providers to get rid of it

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Then why does it need to be repealed

Because the fight that exists almost exclusively between ISPs and tech companies has no place for the state picking a side in the name of a false "greater good" that, so long as both sides are not dragged into their place, has no true good accomplished.

The "Net Neutrality" law accomplished nothing its advocates praise it for, and the whole campaign is notable for showing how easily people will take sides in a corporate war if you lie about them having any benefit from it. Hell the fact we have yet another thread about this issue (in Off Topic no less, where it doesn't belong) rather then the EU's current law being voted on that will basically break the internet, which has had no discussion, really makes me wonder how much people actually care. Oh, the possibility that At&T will have to deal with the courts in a slightly different way then they already do but still go to court over it if they throttle your connection is important, the the EU killing a massive swath of the internet isn't.

I'd say I'm shocked, but given the partisan nature of politics where people defend the ACA and pretend it wasn't a disaster that made healthcare even worst then it already was purely because the GOP was most of the opposition to it (forget that a hell of a lot of Democrats opposed it too, some for practical reasons, others because it was initially a GOP bill which tainted it forever in their mind) shows how politics has devolved in a lot of ways. Trump could cure cancer and people would complain about him putting researchers out of work. Hell, people have been bitching about the Korean peace talks since he started putting pressure on them, and every single accomplishment has been painted as a defeat on that front.

Partisans man, makes me think.

Canadamus Prime:
This is what happens when you elect a businessman as your President. His priorities are giving free reign to big businesses and butt fucking the common people.

So he's Obama 2.0?

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Then why does it need to be repealed

Because the fight that exists almost exclusively between ISPs and tech companies has no place for the state picking a side in the name of a false "greater good" that, so long as both sides are not dragged into their place, has no true good accomplished.

The "Net Neutrality" law accomplished nothing its advocates praise it for, and the whole campaign is notable for showing how easily people will take sides in a corporate war if you lie about them having any benefit from it. Hell the fact we have yet another thread about this issue (in Off Topic no less, where it doesn't belong) rather then the EU's current law being voted on that will basically break the internet, which has had no discussion, really makes me wonder how much people actually care. Oh, the possibility that At&T will have to deal with the courts in a slightly different way then they already do but still go to court over it if they throttle your connection is important, the the EU killing a massive swath of the internet isn't.

I'd say I'm shocked, but given the partisan nature of politics where people defend the ACA and pretend it wasn't a disaster that made healthcare even worst then it already was purely because the GOP was most of the opposition to it (forget that a hell of a lot of Democrats opposed it too, some for practical reasons, others because it was initially a GOP bill which tainted it forever in their mind) shows how politics has devolved in a lot of ways. Trump could cure cancer and people would complain about him putting researchers out of work. Hell, people have been bitching about the Korean peace talks since he started putting pressure on them, and every single accomplishment has been painted as a defeat on that front.

Partisans man, makes me think.

Zontar, as laymen can you please speak more plainly to me as to why it has to be repealed?

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

The answer is it's not. Hell given the way major companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google where treated by it, there was a lot that was excluded from the bill. Not that it matters, since they'll be put into their place pretty soon anyway.

Then why does it need to be repealed

Because the fight that exists almost exclusively between ISPs and tech companies has no place for the state picking a side in the name of a false "greater good" that, so long as both sides are not dragged into their place, has no true good accomplished

Again, that is far from being accurate.
did you even bother reading how this came about?

a barbershop quartet singer noticed that his quartet songs weren't getting transferred using BitTorrent.After running tests, Topolski concluded that Comcast was sending reset packets, or messages between the computers that stops file transfers.

2008 ? FCC rules against Comcast for BitTorrent blocking, and orders Comcast to disclose throttling practices to customers and to stop discriminating against BitTorrent traffic.

2010 ? the FCC passes Open Internet Order which called for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat Internet traffic equally. The order calls for ISPs to (1) be transparent about how they handle network congestion, (2) prohibit blocking of traffic on wired networks, and (3) outlaw unreasonable discrimination on those networks.

Shortly after the FCC's proposal, Verizon sues FCC for not having the authority to regulate broadband Internet because it was a "information service" rather than a "telecommunication service", which the FCC has jurisdiction to regulate.

2012 ? public interests groups threaten to file a formal complaint to the FCC about the violation against the commission's Open Internet rules when AT&T blocked FaceTime for customers unless they subscribed to a "Mobile Share" plan. AT&T agrees to unblock FaceTime

That isn't just about tech companies, this affects everyone. Not everyone can sue every time their traffic is blocked, that is why we need laws in place that allow them to be fined or even lose their license for these practices rather than leave it up to individuals to fight alone. Good grief, ATt&T has been notorious for disconnecting and blocking VoIP calls to competing services, this will only get much worse.

This should not be considered a partisan issue. It affects everyone.

Samtemdo8:

Zontar, as laymen can you please speak more plainly to me as to why it has to be repealed?

To make a long explanation short the bill accomplished nothing, gave no power to stop throttling that the FCC and the FTC didn't already have between them, and only effected ISPs, leaving out tech companies who, in a real net neutrality bill, would be included.

Hell even looking at the examples used in this very thread, they're all from before the bill was passed where the outcome was the same as if it hadn't, it is at best a redundant bill that could easily be removed just on the justification that you need to attrition two regulations to bring in a new one now, and calling it redundant is very charitable in my mind. Until someone can propose a bill for net neutrality that will actually be more then just forcing ISPs to not throttle internet (which is far from the only thing net neutrality is), then no one's actually discussing net neutrality any more so then discussing the PATRIOT Act is discussing laws that will ensure safety for the country.

Zontar:

Samtemdo8:

Zontar, as laymen can you please speak more plainly to me as to why it has to be repealed?

To make a long explanation short the bill accomplished nothing, gave no power to stop throttling that the FCC and the FTC didn't already have between them, and only effected ISPs, leaving out tech companies who, in a real net neutrality bill, would be included.

Hell even looking at the examples used in this very thread, they're all from before the bill was passed where the outcome was the same as if it hadn't, it is at best a redundant bill that could easily be removed just on the justification that you need to attrition two regulations to bring in a new one now, and calling it redundant is very charitable in my mind. Until someone can propose a bill for net neutrality that will actually be more then just forcing ISPs to not throttle internet (which is far from the only thing net neutrality is), then no one's actually discussing net neutrality any more so then discussing the PATRIOT Act is discussing laws that will ensure safety for the country.

You do realize that they were throttling all over the place and it took a programmer bringing this to attention to be able to file a lawsuit to get very little done. That was why the law is needed, not every person affected is going to be able to sue IS the issue. Not sure how you could overlook that or draw the conclusion you did when that is obvious here.

The examples were from before net neutrality because they were showing WHY it was needed. Yes, these things WERE reduced by net neutrality, but you wouldn't know that , you do not even live in the US.

Reducing protections is not the path to increasing them. It is the opposite of helping.

You are not making an argument here on why they should repeal the one thing stopping ISP's from throttling the internet. You are arguing they should just add more rules. They can do that you know, make more rules, and no need to take away existing ones to do so.

Claiming it does not go far enough means that you can just add rules to address additional concerns, not an argument to repeal the existing one.

Zontar:

Canadamus Prime:
This is what happens when you elect a businessman as your President. His priorities are giving free reign to big businesses and butt fucking the common people.

So he's Obama 2.0?

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

Lil devils x:
You do realize that they were throttling all over the place and it took a programmer bringing this to attention to be able to file a lawsuit to get very little done. That was why the law is needed, not every person affected is going to be able to sue IS the issue. Not sure how you could overlook that or draw the conclusion you did when that is obvious here.

You are aware of the fact that making a law that specifically spells out that something that other laws spell out already doesn't accomplish anything, right? Yes, it took a programmer bringing this to their attention for a lawsuit to happen, just as it did when the law was in effect. That's sort of how lawsuits work, you need to prove it's happening and take it to court.

Reducing protections is not the path to increasing them. It is the opposite of helping.

Well then good thing this does neither, since in the best possible light it is at best a useless redundancy, and at worst a means by tech companies to prevent a real net neutrality bill from being put into place, since a new neutrality bill that actually protects net neutrality would effectively bust the monopoly Google, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and the like have formed.

What, you think they spent millions on a marketing campaign over this because it's for our own good? If that was the case where is their campaign against the EU's internet killing bill that's about to be voted on?

09philj:

Zontar:

Canadamus Prime:
This is what happens when you elect a businessman as your President. His priorities are giving free reign to big businesses and butt fucking the common people.

So he's Obama 2.0?

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

Zontar:

Lil devils x:
You do realize that they were throttling all over the place and it took a programmer bringing this to attention to be able to file a lawsuit to get very little done. That was why the law is needed, not every person affected is going to be able to sue IS the issue. Not sure how you could overlook that or draw the conclusion you did when that is obvious here.

You are aware of the fact that making a law that specifically spells out that something that other laws spell out already doesn't accomplish anything, right? Yes, it took a programmer bringing this to their attention for a lawsuit to happen, just as it did when the law was in effect. That's sort of how lawsuits work, you need to prove it's happening and take it to court.

Reducing protections is not the path to increasing them. It is the opposite of helping.

Well then good thing this does neither, since in the best possible light it is at best a useless redundancy, and at worst a means by tech companies to prevent a real net neutrality bill from being put into place, since a new neutrality bill that actually protects net neutrality would effectively bust the monopoly Google, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and the like have formed.

What, you think they spent millions on a marketing campaign over this because it's for our own good? If that was the case where is their campaign against the EU's internet killing bill that's about to be voted on?

No, the FCC has the power to fine and remove licensing from offenders whereas a civil lawsuit from an individual does not. They can shut down an ISP entirely for repeated violations if necessary if they fail to comply. They do actually have the ability to enforce and people would be losing that ability when Net Neutrality ceases and will be left to pay a lawyer to fight for them themselves.

ISP's in the US own or rent the fibre cables from another ISP, and that is who they are addressing here. If you wish to address other issues, you make separate rules to address those as they may or may not fall within the scope of the FCC. They are indeed separate entities and issues that would be needed to addressed separately. You are conflating two distinct issues as being one in the same and they are not. Google is both and ISP and a tech company, and their ISP function and lines would fall under net neutrality as well.

Google was already sued by AT&T for unfair trade practices when they tried to GIVE people free internet. Go figure.

The current FCC chair has no intention of bringing back Net neutrality for ISPs OR tech, their intention here is to enforce neither. Your argument that they need a law that covers both is not an option here, as they are removing it, not replacing it or updating it.

Yes, Net neutrality's removal does in fact reduce protections as prior to this you had to sue individually, not just file a complaint with the FCC and have them investigate. HUGE difference, as the individual is powerless against corporations huge legal defense budgets. Most people cannot afford such things and you know that as well rendering them powerless to do anything about it.

There is nothing preventing them from leaving net neutrality in place and then adding rules that apply to other issues that fall within their scope.

ISP's being determined to be utility providers by having the internet classified as a utility is what gives the FCC authority to regulate them, not all tech companies would fall under that classification and each type would have to be addressed on it's own separately in order to do so. What you are proposing does not make sense.

If you wish to discuss EU legislation, ACA, or any other subject you keep red herring about, make a thread for that. This is about net neutrality in the US.

...So... are we all totally screwed then? Is there anything we can do? Because I'm not going down without a fight on this...

CrazyGirl17:
...So... are we all totally screwed then? Is there anything we can do? Because I'm not going down without a fight on this...

Tomorrow there are supposed to be protests, and some states are passing their own laws. You can also petition, write your state and federal legislature because your states laws only help your state, however, as we know the internet does not exist in your state alone, thus meaning there can be issues when accessing servers and across shared lines in other states, thus making it a federal issue by crossing state lines.

Contacting your state and federal representatives is probably the best thing that can be done.

09philj:

Zontar:

09philj:

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

The behaviour of the modern left is depressing, sure. The intercene squabbling, the concessions to corporations in exchange for minimal social and financial returns, the focus on short term quick fixes over long term change, but even with all that it's far from being as bad as what the right is mutating into. Filled with impotent bile and utter disregard for their fellow man, the right is growing like a cancer at the heart of the west. Decadent, degenerate, rotten to the core, content to let any number of people suffer and die as long as they can cling to guns, God, and the almighty dollar. Something vital inside you died, leaving only hate and rage and malice. I look upon the world suffer and turn away, retreat from it because I cannot bear to watch. You look at it and smile, safe in the knowledge that unlike everyone else, you're not a puppet, when in reality you're dancing like an epileptic donkey on the end of a string connected to Donald Trump's impotent cock. You're bending over with your arsehole ready to let corporate America bugger you until it's spunk comes spewing out your overfed mouth and you will love it, because they're doing it in the name of capitalism. You disgust me. Fuck you and goodnight.

You do realize this isn't the Wild West right? A post that is nothing but insults and a clear signal that you've never spoken with your political opponents isn't the type of thing that belongs here.

CrazyGirl17:
...So... are we all totally screwed then? Is there anything we can do? Because I'm not going down without a fight on this...

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Zontar:
You do realize this isn't the Wild West right? A post that is nothing but insults and a clear signal that you've never spoken with your political opponents isn't the type of thing that belongs here.

From the looks of that vibrant post, I don't think he much cares. Also, I would think someone who puts things so eloquently has spoken to their opponents well enough to find such kaleidoscopic words to brighten your day. When someone uses such colorful language with me, I usually thank them for cheering me up with a good laugh. One has to appreciate a good insult, most these days are so terribly bland.

Lil devils x:

Zontar:
You do realize this isn't the Wild West right? A post that is nothing but insults and a clear signal that you've never spoken with your political opponents isn't the type of thing that belongs here.

From the looks of that vibrant post, I don't think he much cares. Also, I would think someone who puts things so eloquently has spoken to their opponents well enough to find such kaleidoscopic words to brighten your day. When someone uses such colorful language with me, I usually thank them for cheering me up with a good laugh. One has to appreciate a good insult, most these days are so terribly bland.

I don't know about if he's spoken to his political opponents (certainly doesn't come off that way), but he does have a way with words that you are correct, it is certainly well thought out and has effort put into it that's more then the usual insults you see online.

THIS should not be overlooked:
While the Net Neutrality Fight Continues, AT&T and Verizon are Opening a New Attack on ISP Competition

n 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act in order to inject competition into the telephone market and set the stage for a nascent commercial Internet. Last month, US Telecom, the trade association of AT&T and Verizon, filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to repeal one of the central requirements of the '96 Act that has promoted competition. That requirement being that incumbent telephone companies share their copper line infrastructure at regulated rates with to lower the barrier of entering an incumbent's market. If granted, incumbent wireline telephone companies will be free to raise prices or simply disconnect competitors' access to their infrastructure and potentially jeopardize what the small amount of remaining competition that exists in high-speed broadband.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/while-net-neutrality-fight-continues-congress-and-states-att-and-verizon-are

It is of no coincidence that this is being timed with the end of Net neutrality, as this will not only allow them to slow competition, they will be able to unhook many of them all together. This has been a systematic on going effort, as this has already happened:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fccs-latest-gift-to-telcos-could-leave-americans-with-worse-internet-access/

They should be adding fibre to the copper law, not exempting people from it. This is very bad for the end user.

Lil devils x:

CrazyGirl17:
...So... are we all totally screwed then? Is there anything we can do? Because I'm not going down without a fight on this...

Tomorrow there are supposed to be protests, and some states are passing their own laws. You can also petition, write your state and federal legislature because your states laws only help your state, however, as we know the internet does not exist in your state alone, thus meaning there can be issues when accessing servers and across shared lines in other states, thus making it a federal issue by crossing state lines.

Contacting your state and federal representatives is probably the best thing that can be done.

Thanks, I'm already working on it. Is there any way of finding out what states are passing their own laws? And should I be worried in the short term?

Zontar:

09philj:

Zontar:

So he's Obama 2.0?

In America, you've got the Democrats, who are right wing, and the Republicans, who are right wing and also view you with contempt.

I love the "America is right wing compared to everyone else" meme, it really shows how little people actually follow Canadian and European politics even in our own countries.

The left sold out to megacorporations over the past few years. It's hilarious to watch, sure, especially seeing socialists fight for corporatism, but it's also kind of sad seeing liberalism die not from the right winning but illiberal elements of the left stabbing it in the back.

Guess this is why Gen Z is overwhelmingly small government conservative.

The right in America sold out to business so many years ago. The Confedeacy ceded becuase the Repulicans were pro-Industrialists. They count inured after the Civil War with the Guilded Age that had way more corruption that even today. After many years, the Dems, instead of fighting corruption (or at least pretending too), decided it would be pro-business and sold out too. And Pro-business is the antithesis of Capitalism.

I can understand why Gen Z are tired of governments when both parties are corrupt and don't take care of its populace. Having your data stolen all the time and sold off to the highest bidder is ridiculous too.

Edited

trunkage:

I can understand why Gen Z are tired of governments when both parties are corrupt and don't take care of its populace. Having your data stolen all the time and sold off to the highest bidder is ridiculous too.

Exactly, hell it's happening up here too. Last year when the conservatives had their party leadership race, the libertarian candidate was winning for the first 12 rounds, and lost only in the final round when the social conservative candidate won with 51% of the vote. It took every wing of the party coming together against the libertarians, and they only won by 1%. If Trudeau beats the odds and manages to win the next election, a libertarian is going to be the PM after him.

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Except your wrong, the internet had a ton of issues before 2015. There are a lot of cities in the US that only have one isp, making that ISP a monopoly. Meaning they can pull all sorts of shit on their customers, like data caps, which tended to show up in markets where there was no competition. Thats not even mentioning the issues with Americans paying more for worse internet, again, because of monopolies where the companies had no real incentive to actually improve their infrastructure. We really didn't see speed improving much till Obama really started to push net neutrality.
https://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/

And you are totally ignoring the fact that the network landscape is much different today then it was before we had a president pushing for net neutrality. Now large ISPs are not only media conglomerates, but they also are also building up their own streaming services. I would be very surprised if they haven't already started to squeeze services like Netflix for extra cash or face throttling. After all, Netflix is competition. Why would they let competition access eyes on their service without paying extra.

Zontar:

trunkage:

I can understand why Gen Z are tired of governments when both parties are corrupt and don't take care of its populace. Having your data stolen all the time and sold off to the highest bidder is ridiculous too.

Exactly, hell it's happening up here too. Last year when the conservatives had their party leadership race, the libertarian candidate was winning for the first 12 rounds, and lost only in the final round when the social conservative candidate won with 51% of the vote. It took every wing of the party coming together against the libertarians, and they only won by 1%. If Trudeau beats the odds and manages to win the next election, a libertarian is going to be the PM after him.

When you say rounds, do you mean polls? If I remember correctly, you have preferential voting, so the lowest voted group loses and their votes split per round? Is that what you mean?

One thing that Canada has above the US is multiple parties. The system is set up so lots of people gets a voice and not two. Different parties can rise and fall or even disappear depending on how people like them. In the US, you only ever get two. Also, Liberrtarians don't play well with others. Until they do, they will probably always lose.

Also, many Libertarians are far too Authoritarian in my opinion. Forcing Capitalism down people's throat isn't any better than forcing Soailism or Communism. It's the first major misstep of Libertarians. Just becuase you like Capitalism, doesn't mean everyone else does. If you want Capitalism to succeed, you have to convince them. Also, don't hold up the Gilded Age as Laissez-Fairre when the government was used to pay for railways, block migrants from working, armies were sent in to clear areas for settlers and workers rights were diminished. That's the opposite of Laissez-Faire

Worgen:

Zontar:
The internet was fine before 2015, and this was not net neutrality to begin with given how much was excluded from it that should have been a part of it.

Except your wrong, the internet had a ton of issues before 2015. There are a lot of cities in the US that only have one isp, making that ISP a monopoly. Meaning they can pull all sorts of shit on their customers, like data caps, which tended to show up in markets where there was no competition. Thats not even mentioning the issues with Americans paying more for worse internet, again, because of monopolies where the companies had no real incentive to actually improve their infrastructure. We really didn't see speed improving much till Obama really started to push net neutrality.
https://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/

And you are totally ignoring the fact that the network landscape is much different today then it was before we had a president pushing for net neutrality. Now large ISPs are not only media conglomerates, but they also are also building up their own streaming services. I would be very surprised if they haven't already started to squeeze services like Netflix for extra cash or face throttling. After all, Netflix is competition. Why would they let competition access eyes on their service without paying extra.

Net Neutarlity didn't provide any competition though. That would have been another policy that would have helped reduce monopoly. Yes it reduces the power the monopolies had, and that is important. It was a bandaid IMO, and another policy was need to reduce the actual monopolies.

trunkage:
When you say rounds, do you mean polls? If I remember correctly, you have preferential voting, so the lowest voted group loses and their votes split per round? Is that what you mean?

Yes, that's how party leadership races are held here, until one candidate gets more then 50% of the vote, rounds are held where the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are runoff to whoever the voters picked as their next preferred candidate. Last years leadership race was unprecedented for how many candidates ran, how many rounds it went on for, and the fact that the man who was leading each round lost when it was down to two.

One thing that Canada has above the US is multiple parties. The system is set up so lots of people gets a voice and not two. Different parties can rise and fall or even disappear depending on how people like them. In the US, you only ever get two. Also, Liberrtarians don't play well with others. Until they do, they will probably always lose.

All systems naturally gravitate towards two parties, but in the US they tend to have one collapse over night and be completely replaced by another, while third parties are irrelevant. Up here the change is gradual, and third parties are on the sidelines trying to usurp whichever party is the one for their wing (except for the Bloc, who where an obstructionist party that only ran in Quebec and thus had no means of forming a government even if every candidate they had won).

Also, many Libertarians are far too Authoritarian in my opinion. Forcing Capitalism down people's throat isn't any better than forcing Soailism or Communism. It's the first major misstep of Libertarians. Just becuase you like Capitalism, doesn't mean everyone else does. If you want Capitalism to succeed, you have to convince them.

The interesting thing about Capitalism is that unlike its competitors, it works.

Okay joking aside (though the statement is true), another thing that makes it unique is that there's nothing stopping people from forming communistic or socialistic group within it. There is nothing preventing a group of people pooling their resources and manpower to start a company as a worker's collective. In fact one could argue that libertarians are all for that type of attitude, so long as that system isn't forced onto other private entities.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here