Robocop Helps Save Net Neutrality.

People as in "We the people" in that doc that those people with wigs made. Did you know one in three Americans only have access to one ISP provider. Did you know all of the "Internet" infrastructure in the US is held and by 3 companies which block out most competition through litigation, not good old fashion competition. Did you know that we have some of the slowest outdated, internet in the developed world and it would be in our ISPs companies best interest to make it slower and more expensive using throttling tactics. <a href="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ckos7vbU--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/uusdwsq4qwxjgzmhry9o.png" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ckos7vbU--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/uusdwsq4qwxjgzmhry9o.png</a> No special interest group lobbyist person is trying to convince you of anything, just having a convo. I love the free market and people normally hate me for saying that, but as a person in Tech I would like a better plan for the future of our county's infrastructure before I would sign off on killing net neutrality. In my opinion destroying it is like getting rid of a parent's restrictive rules over a child, the problem the top three ISPs are still behaving like children. Don't think I want them to fail, I want them to prosper. The big three are a huge portion of the bloodline of this economy, I just don't think they are ready yet. Killing it now is like throwing the kid in the pool, it will work out in the end, but I hate to watch the kicking and screaming along the way. Also I definitely want to hear you side as well, this isn't a one sided, one size fits all issue and this is kind a craptastic place to talk so DM me on twitter or linkedIn (@feralCode) if you want to talk more

I don’t understand your last point about profits usually being used for expansion or R&D. Any good business will spend money in a way to benefit its owners/shareholders. Businesses would only invest in expansion/R&D if it benefits the business to do so. It isn’t some sort of inherent obligation nor should it ever be for a business to invest profit in any specific way regardless of how it may or may not benefit a business. If a restaurant decides to spend all of its profit as bonuses to its owners then there is nothing wrong with that. That may result in its employees leaving if they never get a Christmas bonus or raise but that’s the risk the business owner takes if they don’t assign and distribute profits to anyone but themselves. An ISP has all the rights to keep all the profits for its owners as well rather than invest some of that into R&D. The potential consequence is that it may fall behind competition in terms of how to offer better quality service and ability to embrace/compete with new technological developments/standards from the open source world but again those are risks the owners have the right to take. Again, by allowing the government to set prices the problem is the American consumer then loses their ability leverage vendors against each other. You can’t leverage anything against the government. This is ok if the government acts in a benign manner but it never regulates in a benign manner forever. Eventually, all government activity gets influenced by politics. There’s several examples of this such as the Federal Reserve, which was the government’s attempt to centralize the regulation of the banking industry by fixing the price of interest rates on bank loans. That has gotten progressively politicized over the decades since it was established into law and today these interest rates are used to help elect politicians into office.

I’ve looked at the arguments for Net Neutrality for a long time and they always hinge on the premise that a healthy competitive environment is riskier than allowing government to set prices. They always bring out various examples of when ISPs tried to fix prices on consumers in a way to deny them the ability to switch providers easily. I used the example of when one provider (Verizon) developed its own proprietary instant messaging service. But these attempts to fix prices by commercial providers always get thwarted by a healthy competitive commercial environment. And that is the government’s only job is to preserve this competitive environment not step in and assume the internet as a social good that needs price regulation. Here’s the thing, if you believe that Net Neutrality is a good thing then you also agree that various other socialist concepts like an independent central bank such as the Federal Reserve to be a good idea as well...and we’ve all seen how the FederalReserve has, over time, contributed to major economic disasters and is beyond correction. Or you would definitely be pro-Patriot Act as well because fundamentally it is the same concept as Net Neutrality and for a much more critical purpose such as national security.

Yes, protecting Net Neutrality is the number 1 prime directive!

As a network Engineer doing both WAN and LAN and a believer in Net Neutrality I could just hug RoboCop right now :) - This is a blast! Keep up the good work!!!! @Daniel Humire - I suggest you glance over <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality</a> it will provide some clarity as to why Net Neutrality actually is a good idea you might also want to try searching the term "Why Net Neutrality" and you'll find some quite persuasive arguments as to why Net Neutrality is something you will want in the long run.

Einar Petersen

I love you too.

This is dope! I like the message and the entertainment factor. You look good as RoboCop CBG19!

Or in short, if the government starts doing you wrong, you can’t start leveraging another “competitor”. There is no competitive market with the government controlling prices. No one competes with the government.

You're the hero we all need Comic Book Girl 19!!!!

Artemis

Um no. There’s countless examples of ISPs trying to impose proprietary messaging systems or proprietary apps that lock customers down to fixed pricing without the ability to leverage competition. In all cases, these impositions were thwarted by regular good old fashioned competitive alternatives either via open source options or competing ISP. Sorry bro no one “owns” the internet in its entirety not the government and not the ISPs. And what “people” are you referring to? The special interest groups that lobbied the senate?

We are all aware of ISP and telecom pricing strategies and it has nothing to do with supply & demand, accessibility or quality of service. That's why, at-least for now, people choose the government. They are the lesser of the two evils. I hear you from a commerce side, but most of those profits have been shared with share holders rather than expansion or R&D.

Net Neutrality is dumb. You’re just allowing the government to set pricing rather than ISPs. Doesn’t matter that for the moment it has had a benign effect on commerce ultimately it is uncorrectable.