information Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?

[Michael M]

I personally was recently upset to find that NamePros decided to take a political position in favor of Net Neutrality - which I firmly believe instates a regulatory system over the Internet that never should exist. It is sold as "Keeping the Internet Free" - but keep in mind something is much more free before it is regulated. Regulation by definition takes freedoms away from the citizens and businesses.

The position and main talking point is this regulation gives the Government the control to keep Comcast from throttling your Netflix - but it gives them much more power than that. Essentially FCC type control similar to TV networks. This could easily evolve into stifling innovation and freedom of speech.

After waking up this morning, I still found myself offended that NamePros takes this position against the interest of it's users. I found even more offense that my opposition to it seemed to fire up the admins to be more in favor of it and continue to show these deceiving messages more in the future. I refer you to the fact they told me they would put consideration before doing this again, and then short hours later said they had decided to continue. Maybe I am alone in thinking this, but that is ok.

I have yet to decide my future involvement in the NamePros community, but most certainly would feel better if they would not continue to present support in such a deceiving and intrusive manner which solicits people to sign a petition with the urgency that we will lose our freedom otherwise. This is unacceptable behavior for an Internet Company or forum about domaining IMO.

I wanted to share an article I had saved in the past because I found it important to my Industry's livelihood and future. It is amazing how close this is to how I feel today - as I stand in this forum alone.

If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast or any other ISP I’ve ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs, wrecking free speech, and destroying the Internet. Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshst...y-techie-against-net-neutrality/#ef0ba5270d51

 

[Michael M]

neu·tral·i·ty

noun: neutrality

1. 1.
   the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality.
   "during the war, Switzerland maintained its neutrality"
2. 2.
   absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling.
   "the clinical neutrality of the description"
3. 3.
   the condition of being chemically or electrically neutral.

reg·u·la·tion
ˌnoun

1. a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
   "planning regulations"
   synonyms: rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept
   "they obey all the regulations"
2. the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
3. "the regulation of financial markets"
   synonyms: adjustment, control, management, balancing More

free mar·ket
ˈˌfrē ˈmärkət/
noun

1. an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

free·dom of speech
noun
noun: freedom of speech; plural noun: freedom of speeches; noun: free speech; plural noun: free speeches

1. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

 

[Michael M]

neu·tral·i·ty

noun: neutrality

1. 1.
   the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality.
   "during the war, Switzerland maintained its neutrality"
2. 2.
   absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling.
   "the clinical neutrality of the description"
3. 3.
   the condition of being chemically or electrically neutral.

Also laws are generally named and focused grouped for public opinion. They don't necessarily reflect or even properly describe the actual scope of the law/regulation.

 

[NamePrime]

So you're saying that this is a twisted version of the definition of Net Neutrality?

• WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?
  Net neutrality is the basic principle that protects our free speech on the Internet. "Title II" of the Communications Act is what provides the legal foundation for net neutrality and prevents Internet Service Providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from slowing down and blocking websites, or charging apps and sites extra fees to reach an audience (which they then pass along to consumers.)
  
  
• WHY IS NET NEUTRALITY IMPORTANT?
  The Internet has thrived precisely because of net neutrality. It's what makes it so vibrant and innovative—a place for creativity, free expression, and exchange of ideas. Without net neutrality, the Internet will become more like Cable TV, where the content you see is what your provider puts in front of you.
  

 

[Michael M]

So you're saying that this is a twisted version of the definition of Net Neutrality?

• WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?
  Net neutrality is the basic principle that protects our free speech on the Internet. "Title II" of the Communications Act is what provides the legal foundation for net neutrality and prevents Internet Service Providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from slowing down and blocking websites, or charging apps and sites extra fees to reach an audience (which they then pass along to consumers.)
  
  
• WHY IS NET NEUTRALITY IMPORTANT?
  The Internet has thrived precisely because of net neutrality. It's what makes it so vibrant and innovative—a place for creativity, free expression, and exchange of ideas. Without net neutrality, the Internet will become more like Cable TV, where the content you see is what your provider puts in front of you.

Also laws are generally named and focused grouped for public opinion. They don't necessarily reflect or even properly describe the actual scope of the law/regulation.

 

[Michael M]

The Internet has thrived precisely because of net neutrality. It's what makes it so vibrant and innovative—a place for creativity, free expression, and exchange of ideas. Without net neutrality, the Internet will become more like Cable TV, where the content you see is what your provider puts in front of you.

Why had it thrived so well without it for decades - but now we have to regulate it to keep that going?

 

[deez007]

reg·u·la·tion
ˌnoun

1. a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
   "planning regulations"
   synonyms: rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept
   "they obey all the regulations"
2. the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
3. "the regulation of financial markets"
   synonyms: adjustment, control, management, balancing More

free mar·ket
ˈˌfrē ˈmärkət/
noun

1. an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

free·dom of speech
noun
noun: freedom of speech; plural noun: freedom of speeches; noun: free speech; plural noun: free speeches

1. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Dude, the term we are discussing is Net Neutrality

As far as I know when it comes to the law it needs to be defined as per the literal meaning of the term. There can be no deviations that allow for a figurative meaning of the term. (I'm no lawyer, perhaps @Ted.T can shed some light here)

 

[Michael M]

Dude, the term we are discussing is Net Neutrality

As far as I know when it comes to the law it needs to be defined as per the literal meaning of the term. There can be no deviations that allow for a figurative meaning of the term. (I'm no lawyer, perhaps @Ted.T can shed some light here)

We would have to go full political for me to give you some other examples of backwards named laws.

My initial reason for caring is I didn't want NPs in politics. I come here because it is about domains. But when I see a business pushing what I consider a misleading political position - or actually any political position - it is un-nerving. I personally am trying to tune politics out but this is one subject that is close to my heart because I have been on and developing for the internet virtually my entire life - and I believe regulation of the "Free" internet makes it less Free.

 

[Michael M]

Dude, the term we are discussing is Net Neutrality

As far as I know when it comes to the law it needs to be defined as per the literal meaning of the term. There can be no deviations that allow for a figurative meaning of the term. (I'm no lawyer, perhaps @Ted.T can shed some light here)

Also realize the name is NOT the law. They can call it Peaches Law and regulate the internet with it.

 

[deez007]

We would have to go full political for me to give you some other examples of backwards named laws.

My initial reason for caring is I didn't want NPs in politics. I come here because it is about domains. But when I see someone pushing what I consider a misleading political position - or actually any political position - it is un-nerving. I personally am trying to tune politics out but this is one subject that is close to my heart because I have been on and developing for the internet virtually my entire life - and I believe regulation of the "Free" internet makes it less Free.

Don't get me wrong mate, I am 1000% behind an unregulated Internet. I'm sure that most people here on NP are all on the same wavelength when it comes to that. I also try to tune out of politics as much as possible so I understand where you are coming from. I also understand the amount of smoke and mirrors that exist by those wanting to control the masses, this includes BS laws and regulations that have been passed to protect corporations and certain industries whilst "scr*wing people over.

What I'm trying to understand here is that is this entire campaign for "FREE" internet a farse that has duped people into signing a petition under false pretences?

 

[MackieMesser]

It seems to me that your worry is to leave this (enforcing/observing net neutrality, etc) to the government.

Sidenote: This by the way reminds me on the Second Amendment which is to my understanding in discussions often justified with the need to be able to defend yourself against the government. For me as European there seems to be a geneeal distrust in the USA against the (federal) government.

I can understand that leaving it to the government to decide about net neutrality can create uncomfortable feelings. But on the other hand would it better to leave it to big corporations and let them do what they want? Currently I'd say that in this case it is easier for the common people to influence politics and the government than leave it all to the (big) corporations and then try to influence.

After all the government is (indirectly) elected by the people (or should be) while the big corporations are steered by the big shareholders and driven by the interest to accumulate more money.

One could argument to leave it to the "market" which will "regulate itself", but this creates usually more inequality.

Edit: I write this from an European perspective, the legislation or the plans regarding it regarding net neutrality are probably not exactly the same, but net neutrality in the sense of "not leaving the internet/bandwidth in the hand of big corporations" should be the same.

 

[Michael M]

Don't get me wrong mate, I am 1000% behind an unregulated Internet. I'm sure that most people here on NP are all on the same wavelength when it comes to that. I also try to tune out of politics as much as possible so I understand where you are coming from. I also understand the amount of smoke and mirrors that exist by those wanting to control the masses, this includes BS laws and regulations that have been passed to protect corporations and certain industries whilst "scr*wing people over.

What I'm trying to understand here is that is this entire campaign for "FREE" internet a farse that has duped people into signing a petition under false pretences?

That is my position. You would have to be interested enough in it to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

But yea, to stop comcast from throttling netflix they passed close to 1000s pages of regulations for the internet. (if I remember correctly on the #) This current petition going around is about saving those regulations.

 

[Michael M]

It seems to me that your worry is to leave this (enforcing/observing net neutrality, etc) to the government.

Sidenote: This by the way reminds me on the Second Amendment which is to my understanding in discussions often justified with the need to be able to defend yourself against the government. For me as European there seems to be a geneeal distrust in the USA against the (federal) government.

I can understand that leaving it to the government to decide about net neutrality can create uncomfortable feelings. But on the other hand would it better to leave it to big corporations and let them do what they want? Currently I'd say that in this case it is easier for the common people to influence politics and the government than leave it all to the (big) corporations and then try to influence.

After all the government is (indirectly) elected by the people (or should be) while the big corporations are steered by the big shareholders and driven by the interest to accumulate more money.

One could argument to leave it to the "market" which will "regulate itself", but this creates usually more inequality.

My argument is the decades of innovation and navigation around the hiccups that arrived in the industry while it was Free. Regulation was never needed to save it.

 

[deez007]

That is my position. You would have to be interested enough in it to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

But yea, to stop comcast from throttling netflix they passed close to 1000s pages of regulations for the internet. (if I remember correctly on the #) This current petition going around is about saving those regulations.

This is something that I have not dug deeper into, mainly cos I assumed that it's ludicrous to think they would even get away with trying to regulate the Internet.... I made the assumption that they would be stopped and the relevant people with "block" this from happening... I also signed a few petitions thinking it was to keep the Internet neutral.... it has just dawned on me, the last time the US was doing something which I thought was ludicrious and that it would never happen bcos surely the collective intelligence there would not allow it to happen...was when Trump started running for President...I had a good laugh and thought to myself, what an idiot, like he actually has a chance in hell.

I guess this is something I'm going to have to dig deeper into....

 

[MackieMesser]

My argument is the decades of innovation and navigation around the hiccups that arrived in the industry while it was Free. Regulation was never needed to save it.

I see. But maybe regulation is now needed to save net neutrality? Or would you rather say that a simple prohibition of dividing the internet into bandwidth-classes as some big telecommunication corporations intend to do would be better/sufficient?

I mean: When these corporations intend to divide the internet into "bandwidth-classes" and to treat data traffic differently, what would you propose to do in order to prevent them from doing that?

 

[MackieMesser]

Also note my edit on my first post. I look on this from an European point of view. I haven't yet reviewed if there is a significant difference in what is going on in the US regarding this topic.

 

[Michael M]

I see. But maybe regulation is now needed to save net neutrality? Or would you rather say that a simple prohibition of dividing the internet into bandwidth-classes as some big telecommunication corporations intend to do would be better/sufficient?

I mean: When these corporations intend to divide the internet into "bandwidth-classes" and to treat data traffic differently, what would you propose to do in order to prevent them from doing that?

The US - at least in the past - believed in the free market - which is what turned the internet into what it is.

There are issues with the Free Market system, but there is litigation, monopoly laws, and the nature of the beast that allow things to regulate themselves.

Recently in America there is a big political and social divide - so everything is partisan rather people realize it or not. We are progressing in Europe's direction as far as our government system goes. Pretty much the two parties are just about what speed we will arrive there. And I think most citizens are just sick of being lied to by the politicians on both sides.

I personally am disgusted with the state of our politics now and I try to stay away. But for me the Internet was the last "wild west" left from the US - and it was thriving. I fear our government will use these regulations in a manner which will stifle innovation and it will actually favor the big companies who have lobbyist in Washington DC. I just think this will all upset the balance and change the internet as we know it over the next 10-20 years - compared to the direction it would have gone. I believe only the big companies will win with this Legislation - even though it is presented as the opposite.

But that is my opinion. Everyone has their own.

I just believe that the current popups going around are really misleading - as this thread has shown. People were signing it that had no idea what it actually is about just because it said "SAVE YOUR INTERNET FREEDOM - SIGN HERE!"

And also I believe businesses should stay out of politics. I believe NPs motivations were probably good with their support - but I believe they are blinded by their views. I dont think they gain or loose from it. Hence why promote it unless you want to sway people to your point of view politically.

I think a lot of the other big companies that were supporting it seem to gain from it staying enforce or do so as a business calculation since it reads as showing support for the free internet.

 

[Michael M]

To add - The network cost of all this new video steaming data will be passed to the end user in one way or another. This was presented to save your bandwidth from throttling - but Comcast and Netflix would have worked out their disagreement in one manner or another and the end user would pay still pay for the increased network cost regardless.

You do have to consider that NetFlix was putting a major strain on a network that Comcast built - forcing Comcast to limit their bandwidth. Even if they choose to expand their network to handle the traffic (which they have and would have) they probably would have wanted to throttle it in the meantime so other internet users could check their email. Just a thought.

 

[deez007]

Good Ol John Oliver

 

[NamesBond]

I see. But maybe regulation is now needed to save net neutrality? Or would you rather say that a simple prohibition of dividing the internet into bandwidth-classes as some big telecommunication corporations intend to do would be better/sufficient?

I mean: When these corporations intend to divide the internet into "bandwidth-classes" and to treat data traffic differently, what would you propose to do in order to prevent them from doing that?

IMHO, what seems to be missing in this discussion is a self-interested "Domainers" perspective... If you allow the big Telecoms to throttle bandwidth, this creates barriers to entry for start-up online businesses... The very folks we sell domains to... (In short, our bread-and-butter... ) Now, I am not political and I generally favor less regulation and free markets, but in this instance, if they do away with Net Neutrality we are only cutting our own throats, domain-business-wise... again, JMHO...

 

[Eric Lyon]

This topic already exists. Here's the existing topic:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/battle-for-the-net-july-12-petition-popup.1029678/

Thanks for understanding,