More from Tulsi: Net neutrality to be repealed

[leilanidude]

Private companies want to bill you for the internet
-------
No. They bill you for the access to, the internet.

[glinda]

quote:

---

Originally posted by punaticbychoice

ISP's are a requirement for life, and therefor a utility, and therefor, must be fully available,
without discrimination to all.

---

Methinks, they should be a government service, i.e. taken over by government and the motive for profit removed entirely. I also think that about our electric utilities, we should have a nonprofit running them at the very least.

Unfortunately that idea, in a time when our government (national) is being run by mad men with a totally insane figurehead put there by a foreign power, is untenable. Someone said focused on what can be done. Yes, and at this moment it is very important to rally behind our representative's call for signatures against this assault on net neutrality. But OMG I am praying Mueller has his ducks in order!

[Rob Tucker]

Keep it local folks...

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[leilanidude]

should be a government service, i.e. taken over by government and the motive for profit removed entirely.
-----------
Can you imagine the cost associated with doing this once the Hawaii government employee unions get involved?

They will make corporate profits look minuscule in comparison.

[PaulW]

I agree with you punaticbychoice, it is a local matter thanks to TulsiG.
I just think it's better if other politicians don't get dragged into this, it only leads to shouting.

BTW there seems to be some confusion about what net neutrality is. It does not mean internet access for all.

[PaulW]

I agree with you punaticbychoice, it is a local matter thanks to TulsiG.
I just think it's better if other politicians don't get dragged into this, it only leads to shouting.

BTW there seems to be some confusion about what net neutrality is. It does not mean internet access for all.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

No. They bill you for the access to, the internet.

When we have free choice for who we can do business with on the internet, that's true.
However, when corporations limit our choices as if they built and own the internet, which taxpayers built, then yes, they are in effect billing us for the internet.

Loss of net neutrality is corporate theft from taxpayers, pure and simple.
Net neutrality levels the playing field for citizens in remote areas, like Puna. It allows residents who live down an isolated cinder road* on a relatively small island to connect, compete, and interact with the rest of the world.

* some isolated cinder roads, which is better than none

[punaticbychoice]

HOTPE @ 10:44:42-
Yes, exactly.

[kalakoa]

they are in effect billing us for the internet

They already billl us for the internet. They also bill Google/Facebook/Hulu/etc for the internet. The problem is, if you don't consume services offered by the ISP (example: streaming a Warner movie over your Spectrum connection), then they're somehow "losing" money even though both ends of the connection are already paying.

Ironically, once the ISPs start picking and choosing who gets how much of what content, they will no longer be able to argue "common carrier" status, and thus will be liable for any wrongdoing (hate speech, copyright violations) that happens to traverse their networks.

Historically, the internet is designed to be resilient by routing around damage. In this case, the side effects will probably include innovators leaving the US, which is not going to "Make America Great" (again or ever). Considering that most of these "innovators" are also hiding also hiding their money beyond the reach of US taxation, there might be little if any short-term economic damage...

[terracore]

Net neutrality has nothing to do with bringing the internet to rural locations. Like most of these issues it isn't as black and white as people think. At one point over 20% of internet traffic was made of bittorrents, basically the widespread distribution of mostly copyright material. Having owned an internet company myself, I cringe at the thought of having to financially subsidize bittorrents at the expense of slowing down mom & pop (tax-paying) businesses so illegal downloads aren't treated any differently.

But at the end of the day, I acknowledge that the internet has evolved into being a "utility", and how would I feel if the electric company charged me a different rate than business or industrial customers, or had different rates during different times of the day, or if people had solar panels etc.

What? Most electric companies DO that?

Now I'm confused again.

At least water utilities can't restrict consumption, bill businesses, agriculture, and residential users differently, or force people to spend thousands of dollars to hook up to their systems against their will.

What? They do THAT too?

I signed Tusli's petition, but then immediately felt deflated that it was just a scheme to solicit donations.

ETA: eliminated repetitive grammar