Sure, Is the cost really lowered if we're paying to clean up some eco disaster a decade later? Regulations have purpose, but the pendulum can and does swing too far.

Thank you for trying to save me some time, that's very civil of you. It doesn't contribute to the discussion, but hugs all around. I would have argued that deregulation of industries such as auto insurance, airlines and oh what's my job again - telecommunications - all contributed greatly to lower prices and increased access availability but those all seem obvious and I wouldn't want to waste your time.

A VPN server can be run on pretty much any damn thing down to a twenty year old linux box, put it next to Hillary's email server in the bathroom if you want.

Trivially easy but isn't being done yet? Yeah I see that a lot in this industry.

How will removing net neutrality ("deregulation") improve the internet for end users over what it is now?

Before we're arguing about regulation the question needs to be: Who should own the internet?

I think that we should keep this thread from devolving into partison politics.

Aside from calling reps and the fcc, what can a consumer do to stop this?

I have an idea. Instead of calling me a liar, cite some evidence for your claim.

Not to get overly political but fight the party that is pushing the agenda. All they understand is power and votes.

Too late!

You'll have to clear out some of Trump's rubles first.

In before the close

No, I've been quoting you.

When did that ever happen?

What is there to understand? You have not made any logical case for removing net neutrality.

I'm not sorry for standing by my net neutrality position. I'm sorry if it's coming off too strong for you.

No, I don't. Don't know you, don't care. What I care about are the issues. When I see someone attempting to cloud the issues and repeat corporate talking points, I'll continue to share facts and information that is actually helpful for others.

Interesting. Then why are you posting in this thread? Answer - to cloud the issue and gas lighting people.

Yes, because it has not been removed yet. Hence, the reason for this thread.

For those that want to bring partisan politics into the discussion; Most major corporations hedge their bets and donate to both parties. Who do you think these politicians are passing legislation for, the average citizens or their donors?

Most major current issues in the country are non-partisan or bi-partisan. I would implore you to not allow one of the political parties craft a narrative for you. Do the independent research and focus on the issues, not the parties. There is absolutely no need to bring partisan politics into this thread unless you specifically want it to get locked.

Your sincerity is as convincing to me as mine seems to be to you. I don't repeat talking points, I'm very well known in my organization for going against the flow and I'm done with you on this topic. I realized as soon as I started down this path that it was a lost cause and you've driven that point home. Cheers!

All rhetoric no substance. Of all your posts, you never once articulated an argument for removing net neutrality. Everyone reading should take note, this is exactly what you will get when someone attempts to speak in favor of removing net neutrality. There is no logical argument that it would help the consumer in any way, none. This deregulation only helps those in telecom and the politicians that will move back into the private sector and cash in after killing net neutrality.

For those of you who would like to get involved, there are a lot of good resources and groups that provide steps that you can take to help the cause. Here are just a few:

Activism:
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

FCC Comments:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

You can contact FCC chairman Ajit Pai and let him know what you think by emailing him: [email protected]. You can also call the FCC at 1-888-225-5322. At the prompt, press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 to be connected to an agent and file a complaint.

Since you're being so vague, I can't respond other than to say that:

1) I'm not aware of any federal auto insurance deregulation at all.
2) Airline deregulation did not improve air travel, are you kidding?
3) What telecommunications deregulation are you talking about? Kindly be more specific.
4) Sometimes deregulation is mistakenly used to describe the breakup of a monopoly, such as Bell, so if you're talking about THAT kind of deregulation, I'm in favor. I just wouldn't call it deregulation.

With few exceptions I would say that heavy government regulation and subsidies contributed to the increased access availability we see today. The monopolies granted by the government as a result of those subsidies have made Internet a one choice option for many. You don't mean to say that most of the fiber was laid without government approval, subsidies and regulation?

Still waiting for a documented example of deregulation that led to clear human good.

You were really vague about what exactly you do in telecommunications. I guess you didn't read the part where I talked in detail about my background. It's okay, it was earlier in the thread. So while it is possible that we may know the same amount about VPNs, but I seriously doubt you know more than I do about them; I sysadmin multiple Linux servers (for fun) and have for decades. My first Linux box was Internet facing in 1996. Between 1994 and 2015 my industry was the Internet, and the decade prior I was a hardcore Internet enthusiast. Doing things like sending emails from an acoustically coupled pocket modem equipped laptop through the Internet and various gateways (University UNIX servers and several commercial services) in the 1980s both in the USA and in travels abroad.

You don't seriously think it would be hard to implement real time VPN blocking in 2017 do you? The only reason Telcos aren't mass banning VPNs is because they can't argue they have a basis to do it... right now. If Net Neutrality is abolished, the telco can successfully argue that you're trying to get around their policies and that would make running a VPN a TOS violation. So yeah, trivially easy, and they just need an excuse. It'll happen as fast as they shut down port 25 for legit mail servers on their "unlimited" residential Internet packages.

Myself, and many people like me worked damn hard to make the Internet what it is. Yes, sometimes we got paid for it, but a lot of our work was done for free (look up Richard Stallman and his legions of followers for more). We fought battles that most people aren't even aware of and take for granted: free and open standards, for access to good encryption, and for NO WALLED GARDENS. We're saying that removing Net Neutrality is damn serious, and this will lead to a dramatically worse Internet. You can scoff at us, ignore us, shake your head like we're a bunch of crazy people... just like a lot of people did back in the 80s and 90s when we were talking about how the Internet would transform society. Or take action.

Lastly, it's not cool and directly against the moderator's stated rules for this thread to try and make this nonpartisan thread partisan with that Hillary quote. Bait not taken.

There are good and relevant analogies in this tread, but the best example still remains with the telecoms. After AT&T was broken up and companies were given equal access to telephone lines, it resulted in huge decreases in consumer costs coupled with an increase in quality due to competition. Net neutrality is to the internet what telecom regulations made possible.

I'm kind of shocked that you confuse your argument with some kind of absolute truth. A much more reasonable position would be "most of the time deregulation is bad"
That's the only point I'm making.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980

No one gives a shit if deregulation is blanket always bad or always good. It's a pointless and stupid argument, speaking in absolutes is a recipe for a never ending spew of pedantic counterexamples. The world is never black and white like that.

If you're against net neutrality then make an argument against it specifically. If you're for it stop lumping it in with a bunch of other things it has nothing to do with.

Agreed. This is not a referendum on the concept of regulation in general.

Net Neutrality specifically is beneficial and critically important, and dismantling it is an absolute tragedy for the free flow of information over the internet.

There is no reason to generalize this cause into an ideological one.

I share the concern on net neutrality (or lack thereof), but if FCC reverses classifying ISPs under title II it doesn't mean there's no regulation. In that case ISPs would be covered by title I which is regulated by FTC. Granted, While the FCC has broad power to regulate communications networks, the FTC focuses on abusive business practices that harm competition and consumers in all sectors and could also do something to protect the principles of net neutrality.

Although net neutrality is in the heart of the debate, I'm surprised no one (incl. Noone) has brought up privacy. Under title II FCC also imposed stricter rules on privacy and what ISPs can do without consumer consent. Yes, FTC also has rules on privacy but FCC added things like web-browsing and app-usage data to the list. Google and Facebook are still regulated by the FTC's looser guidelines and thus are not forced to obtain opt-in consent before they collect and sell your web-browsing and app-usage data, and of course the ISPs are not happy about this discrepancy as they could monetize that info. If that happens, it's potentially a big setback for online privacy

Fine lady, you can have your deer. Just let me take the saddle off first.

No, I saw it. I've never seen someone detail when they started "using the internet professionally" before but I do remember those days, I would have been smoking cigarettes on the back porch with Dennis Hayes around then. He was losing lots of money and I hadn't made any yet. I never intended to try to make this some competition of legitimacy or knowledge, I didn't realize how little I cared about the topic until hotter heads prevailed - so to speak. I do think there are a lot of nuances that get lost in the sound bites but this obviously isn't the place and I should have known that before I ever opened my mouth.

Thanks Aurich!

I learned a new word, "pedantic!"

Virtual Private Networks only secure and encrypt a network segment. If your target computer or server (proxy) that you are VPN'ing to is hosted by an American ISP that's censoring web sites, a VPN tunnel will not do you any good (because you will not be able to hit those web sites still).

So you'd need a proxy that's in another country (that also supports net neutrality). Reliable and fast proxy services are not free. So add that to your monthly bill.

VPNs are not necessarily the solution...

Internet access should be free to all and the Internet companies pay for it.

I dont have to pay to enter a target or a wegmans.... Why should i have to pay to enter amazon or facebook?

Without internet access... Amazon is not amazon.

The roads you take to get to Target are not free. We all pay for them, with things like gas taxes. Infrastructure doesn't just appear and maintain itself.

True. But I pay my ISP bill every month. Expansion and/or maintenance of the internet network should be covered with what we pay as customers. Same with roads and aqueducs, we pay via taxes.

But where I drive is my business, and my own only.

Should UPS and FedEx pay for the highways? Amazon was built on a budding innovation that wasn't created originally for E-commerce, just like the roads weren't originally built to deliver personal packages en masse. Innovation shouldn't be penalized, but it should be monitored and checked whenever harm is extended to the consumer, workers, or environment at large.

There is nothing innovative about blowing away net neutrality other than new and inventive ways to separate you from your money.

Where's the best place to sign a petition, email a representative, etc? The second post has a link, but it says it's closed for comments, making me think I can't do much of anything?

https://www.gofccyourself.com/

Net neutrality in a nutshell.

Technically they do, that's how gas taxes work, those who use them the most pay the most.

Huh. I've always found it helpful in an online forum when someone indicates they have depth in a topic. It helps me sift through opinions based on nothing versus those based on experience.

If you have a lot of nuances that support the removal of Net Neutrality, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I'm employing Occam's Razor and following the money on this one.

Thanks for posting something concrete. I've done a fair amount of research and had never turned up anything. I'll look into it.

As other have said, the point of this thread is that Net Neutrality is a good thing and shouldn't be removed. I still haven't seen a supportable argument in favor of removing it.

Carefully think through what you're asking for here. Like many proposals, this sounds reasonable on the surface.

But what would really happen if Amazon paid for your Internet access? They're not going to pay for you to visit Pinside, or anywhere but Amazon. Why would they? Amazon in direct competition with Pinside for revenue.

Longer term, do you think for one second that Amazon's prices will remain low if they could cut out anyone but the big players? Or that the big players won't collude and raise their prices if they know they can lock out other competitors?

Hmmm, sounds like this is what we'd get if Net Neutrality is abolished, doesn't it?

It would be trivial for ISPs to block or throttle VPNs across the board. They would view anyone doing what you propose as a thief, getting access to websites you didn't pay for. (Just like the MPAA and RIAA labeled every peer-to-peer file sharing program user a thief).

You and Glarrownage are working together on this aren't you?

You started it:

---

I do understand the stakes very well but there's really no point in trying to move you off this level of FUD.

One of these things is not like the other.

Still waiting for a coherent reason to be against Net Neutrality.

I'M NOT AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY. No amount of clowns pestering will coax an argument out of me that net neutrality is a bad thing. I also don't believe we inevitably need to say goodbye to Pinside, Jesus. You guys blow my fucking mind with your grasp of the issue. Just please, stop trying to paint me into your corner.

So you have said you are "not against net neutrality", yet you come onto this thread and attack pinsiders who are for net neutrality:

Then when challenged and asked to provide a case against net neutrality, you redirect and pretend you don't care about the topic:

Yet you continue to post. Which of course begs the question, why are you still posting in this thread? As I said in an earlier post, you are intentionally trying to cloud the issue.

I'm going ask you one last time, in fact I'm begging you, please enlighten us with a solid case for the consumer or even online business owners (like Pinside) as to why net neutrality should be removed. Please provide us with the nuance and detail you have referenced on multiple occasions.

Thanks for the link, great article! Sadly, this does not surprise me in the least.

Yet you continue to malign me. I've had my ethics, intentions and experience all questioned in this thread and I've told you repeatedly I wish I hadn't said a god damn thing. Please stop begging, have some self respect and leave me alone.

Stay on point, lest this thread be locked. The more people understand what's a stake, the better.

Got it!

IMG_0621 (resized).JPG

How do you feel about the widespread use of license plate scanners?

Worked for me when I clicked it... taking me to a "new filing"... I already filled out this form back with John Oliver made the call from his Last Week show. So I can't follow thru. the https: did fail for me ... so try without the secure socket.

It appears to be back up now. From what I've read, the FCC suspended comments after their supposed DDoS attack. I guess they've reopened the comments.

Well, interesting topic also. But so far, I have not yet encountered any roadblocks. Meaning, so far, I can drive where I want regardless of if my plate is scanned or not.

I was going to go into the Express Lanes tangent here, but so far there are alternative roads to take if I don't want to pay the extra fees for the express lanes.

Both paragraphs above do not seem to relate to Net Neutrality very well.

EDIT: Also, there is no expectation of any privacy when you're driving with a license plate. Police can run your plate all day long.