>Net neutrality is dying because no one has been able to make a compelling case for it that can be understood by constituents,
I disagree, I think the case can be easily made but it is being drowned out by the ISP's and their supporters with a MASSIVE wave of disinformation, and false information.
I have spent the majority of my time in discussions not attempting to explain why Title II is needed, but simply attempting to cut through the bullshit that has been spread.
For example the most common attack is that "the internet was fine with no regulation" and the feeling is that opposing NN means no regulation with bumper sticker "Hands off my internet" type of sayings
When In reality is a Debate over Title I vs Title II regulations, and if a Internet Service provider is a Telecommunications company (clearly yes) or a Information Services companies (clearly no)
The ISP's and their supporters have tanked any opportunity for real debate with a massive propaganda and disinformation war.. which they appear to have won
THIS. It is very clear that if there is a "MASSIVE wave of anything", it is from the other side i.e. companies like Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter etc. They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all.
If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet. In fact, they are much bigger threat in that they can filter out websites based on their contents, and make certain things impossible to search for or go viral... while ISPs, at best, can block individual IPs.
>They have made it an "internet freedom" issue when internet freedom is not a problem at all.
Example of the disinformation...
>If there is a threat on internet freedom, it's already there and it's Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. who can pick and choose what a user can see on the internet.
They can? How do they do that? I do not use Facebook or Twitter at all, and used google very very limited having transition to DDG as my search provider over a year ago...
Does facebook control my Arch Linux Computer... shit....
>> while ISPs, at best, can block individual IPs.
Please tell me your not serial....
You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really... You just keep highlighting how successful the disinformation campaign is...
Most people get their news from their Facebook newsfeed or their Google search results. Facebook can analyze and prioritize certain content over another. Google does the same. The best example of this is how uninformed you are about this issue.
>You really believe the is "at best" all they can do... really...
Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example.
>Example of the disinformation...
>You just keep highlighting how successful the disinformation campaign is...
So, where is this "disinformation" you speak of? Where am I being bombarded by this idea? I haven't heard or read anything about this from any sources. It is based on my own understanding of the issue. You can read more in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14807940 and tell me where I am wrong.
All I see everywhere is disinformation from the other side and they don't even bring up the actual issue anywhere ever. So, I am pretty much certain that they are the ones disinforming people.
>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example
That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook is not a news organization but anyway) or some other source
I however do not have a CHOICE in broadband internet providers, I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me.
I have CHOOSEN not to use Facebook instead I use other services to communicate with friends and family, I can not CHOOSE the use another ISP as none are available
See the difference...
But continue to educate me on how uninformed I am on this issue despite my near 20 years working professionally in the field
>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me
That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option.
>>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option.
How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that
So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes
>I'm done here.
Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver
You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity.
However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet.
Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.
As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees.
>you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.
OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.
While I agree that there is a disinformation campaign going on, I don't think its "massive".
They got a stooge FCC commissioner, they have some well-paid lobbyists and they are lining the pockets of politicos in various ways to get what they want. Every once in a while some odious talking-head will say something against net-neutrality on AM radio or Fox news. That's a pretty low-key campaign if you ask me.
The fact is not enough regular people care about this issue, not enough are informed about what it really means. That's why they're winning.
I disagree, I think the case can be easily made but it is being drowned out by the ISP's and their supporters with a MASSIVE wave of disinformation, and false information.
I have spent the majority of my time in discussions not attempting to explain why Title II is needed, but simply attempting to cut through the bullshit that has been spread.
For example the most common attack is that "the internet was fine with no regulation" and the feeling is that opposing NN means no regulation with bumper sticker "Hands off my internet" type of sayings
When In reality is a Debate over Title I vs Title II regulations, and if a Internet Service provider is a Telecommunications company (clearly yes) or a Information Services companies (clearly no)
The ISP's and their supporters have tanked any opportunity for real debate with a massive propaganda and disinformation war.. which they appear to have won