Week of 12/18/17: FCC and Net Neutrality

Home Forums Weekly News Week of 12/18/17: FCC and Net Neutrality

This topic contains 10 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Dylan J. Tulloch 7 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2056

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    This week’s articles are “Netflix rips net neutrality repeal: ‘This is the beginning of a longer legal battle’” by Brett Samuels, “Don’t Be Afraid of the Net Neutrality Repealby Leonid Bershidsky and “What’s Next After the Repeal of Net Neutrality” by Cecilia Kang. These articles discuss the vote by the FCC to repeal net neutrality. They discuss the benefits and negatives of the vote and how it will likely impact the next phase of technological development and consumer use of technology. What are your thoughts on net neutrality? Are you supportive of the vote or against the FCC’s decision? Come discuss on our forums with other HP MUNC members.

    Please keep all discussion civil.

    #2060

    Anonymous

    No idea if this is true, I saw some article before that AT & T was like pretending to be for Net Neutrality but in actuality they weren’t. Seems possible that the future of the internet is a market where companies say “we will keep net neutrality in place” and behind you back speed up or slow down or charge you money for access to certain sites regardless of what they say in PR meetings. Also since Dylan is the only one to use these I wonder what you feel on have an internet segmented and sold off, especially how it could be used to censor, especially right wing ideas seeing as major tech giants are typically leftist in their leanings.

    #2061

    Zeyue Li
    Participant

    Welp Net Neutrality is relatively new so not much changed. Honestly consumers are protected by competition; no one’s going to charge extravagant prices, or they’ll go out of business.

    #2062

    Anonymous

    @ ZEYUE LI THE WRONG PERSON
    Well see the issue is most companies have a monopoly on one area, so you can only choose from one company to buy internet, OOOOOPS, turns out the free market doesn’t solve everything :D,

    #2063

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    @Zeyue Li I get your point that perhaps competition will keep prices down, but how do we prevent ISPs from stifling the growth and innovation of new companies. If massive corporations can pay to prevent newer, younger companies from getting their content onto the web then how will we ever even have any real competition or innovation in the tech sector.

    #2064

    Anonymous

    Elan you must remain impartial

    #2065

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    I meant to do this but I had to study for a German Final. Anyway, net neutrality is communism and communism is bad (valid over-simplification). I’m kind of tired right now and not sure if this will make any sense. It will likely sound more like idealistic rambling, but here we go.

    If you know me, you know that I hate government intervening in the market. Net neutrality is a fancy government term for government intervening to prevent certain companies (like Verizon) from acting as they would like as to benefit other companies (like Google). By removing the government from this field of the market, like most other fields, a fairer economy can be instituted by the companies involved in it. Why would it be fair to let these companies control the markets you might ask. Well I’ll tell you annoying child who interrupted me, it is fairer because the government is not playing favorites. Laissez-Faire economics (or free market capitalism, yas!!!), you can’t go wrong with it unless you’re messing up Laissez-Faire. America has had its flirtations with this idea, however never truly implementing it, or even really trying, but regardless, imagine if the government stopped picking favorites within certain markets, then the markets could flourish at full independence from government favoritism.

    Speaking of those companies from earlier, I have heard quite a few individuals say that net neutrality was to combat the big companies from taking too much control. I have some (many) objections to that. One, it implies that big companies are inherently evil or bad. This is not the case naturally, many large companies do great work weather directly through charity or indirectly through scientific advancement, developing the community, or extending their community’s culture and societal ties to others. In short, the most progress individual groups have ever taken in any field have been large enterprises, not governments or small companies. Second, there are large companies on the side that supports net neutrality. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon support net neutrality. But I guess it’s ok for you to agree with these companies because they aren’t greedy large corporations like Verizon and Comcast. These two points are so very hypocritical of each other and the argument behind net neutrality. ‘Removing net neutrality will only stand to help the big companies, also thanks to Facebook for supporting our cause,’ ugh… it’s almost pitiful the lengths that some people go to stretch an argument, almost.

    Derp-a-derp-derp. Derp.

    I realize that many issues in modern politics including this one are issues because many people have differing world views and approach existing data in different ways that result in them seeing different outcomes. This seems to be an extreme case in which we all want a freer internet, but we have a different definition of what that is and how to come by it, which is why I find most of politics to unfortunately be futile.

    Anyway, have a good night and a merry Christmas all of you blithe souls.

    #2066

    Anonymous

    @dylan

    I don’t think google should get favoritism, in most cases they too are probably making decisions not for the greater good. The thing you seem to misunderstand about corporations is they typically don’t have good intent, but instead an intent for profit. I’m sure the only reason google has outreach programs to struggling countries is just for good and not as a marketing stunt (sarcasm). The role in my opinion for government is to sponsor innovation that may help but not necessarily bring profit. If I recall the technology for the internet was originally developed by government sponsored programs. Think about nuclear fusion, an expensive tech with no profit for possibly 30 years, still it may be the future of energy.

    Also to counter your free market ideals for the internet, some would argue that the internet is basically a utility, which I believe may have been part of net neutrality, companies shouldn’t be allowed to sell you dangerous water and then charge hundreds extra just to get normal drinking water. Same with most utilities like power and INTERNET, to exist in the modern era existing without them is near impossible.

    Also if anything you should enjoy net neutrality, It keeps your ideals safe. Basically without it I could see censorship by service providers becoming a reality. Google already has things like the filter bubble, imagine if version blocked fox news or Comcast slowed down NBC to the point of unusability online. Btw, censorship debate tomorrow so this is topical. The more power we give to companies like this the greater potential there is for us to be manipulated by them. In my opinion you must have stabbed your own eyes out if your so blind as to see the government as a nuisance that can do no good, only there to hold the common man down, yet view companies (even though you protested a dislike for facebook which I shall remind you is a company) as bastions of good, propelling the world forward with only good in mind. An issue I run into debating with you in person a lot is how idealistic you view the world, except when it comes to things you dislike. I agree with the tenants of the free market therefore capitalism is a perfect system, but I don’t like paying taxes therefore the government is a vile entity. I’m trying not to get personal but your arguments hinge a lot on an assumption that corporations can be trusted, yet we can’t trust are own citizens with things like free healthcare, then they will just get lazy, even though corporations are made of citizens.

    Now I have to go study for a math test

    #2067

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    There is one thing that is shown a lot in your argument there: greed. Even when critiquing it you say that citizens can’t be trusted with free healthcare because they would be greedy but also say earlier that corporations are entirely profit based. I would be concerned if a company had motives aside from profit. When companies begin to do things in order to say spread propaganda (DON’T READ TO FAR INTO IT, IT’S AN EXAMPLE) while even taking a loss to its profits, then I become suspicious. If a company secures contracts with sectors of the government to perform a certain action, if it is to make money, then good for them. The main principles behind the idea of capitalism is that greed exists, so why not use it to make something out of that. Again, the greatest innovations have been made by companies, not governments. Dutch East India, Apple, British East India, Colt, and Saudi Aramco just to name a few, made huge and important innovations, changes, or developments that made the world better. I’ll wait for you to tell me the most important innovation created by a government without the help of a company or forbidding companies from doing it. It becomes much harder when you eliminate the companies that governments so often contract or when the governments banned companies from doing it like nuclear energy.

    Also, you’re kidding yourself if you believe that so many people including yourself do not have an ideological thought process behind governing, I would say that everyone does, that is how politics work. You believe something will work but you may not be able to prove it definitively until you implement it. Another side note, you frequently used the wrong your/you’re. How is that I am in honors and you are in AP again (just kidding, it’s scheduling)?

    Anyway, I need to go to school, so servus.

    #2068

    Anonymous

    One, short hand typing for me typically means I don’t use ‘ so you’re becomes your (it’s faster to type)

    Two to think we would be were we are without government is kinda dumb. Also I’m on my phone and don’t want to type a lot but I think you misconstrued my arguments. Also as a Christian you should believe in compassion, companies are motivated by greed which is a deadly sin. I’m not sure if you are but some people are against abortion or gay marriage based on religious principle. Therefore why would this not apply to something like greed as your governing principle. Just pointing that out.

    Also you seemed to ignore every point about censorship and internet as a utility, probably cause you know I’m right in that regard.

    #2069

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    No, the internet is not a utility. It is more of a luxury that makes life nicer.

    The abortion argument is one built around the idea that the fetus is a living human and should not be able to be disposed of so easily. Not sure what that has to do with religion but whatever. Also, I really do not care about gay marriage, not at all, to the point where indifference can’t begin to cover my feelings on that topic.

    Also, I do believe in compassion, but I happen to recognize a separation between church and state and the freedoms that can grant others. I do not wish to tell someone that they cannot do something just because my religion finds that to be a sin. There is a reason that I do give money to charity, volunteer my time and skills, etc to try to help others, however, I do not think that the government should mandate this. (Prepare to have a talk about feelings and that sort of stuff) Compassion and kindness can only truly come from within. If a government forced me to give ten dollars to salvation army, I would start to resent them. However, they don’t, so I don’t mind giving them a little bit of change to help others. My point is that people should still be free to do what I may consider a sin so much as it doesn’t harm another.

    I am not saying that we should have no government, some government is obviously necessary, I just believe that the line has been overstepped by quite a bit and you take that to mean that I hate government. I do believe that government has a legitimate purview, it happens to be that our government has gone well beyond those limits.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.