I Am Addicted to the Internet

@Keisayo [quote]It might happen. It might not.[/quote] I don't believe that's a good enough excuse/reason for giving government control over internet access. Simple as that.

[quote]But if you look at countries without net neutrality, especially Portugal, which has Internet packages like cable packages, where different sites have different prices to access[/quote]

You mean like Netflix? Amazon Prime Video? That's going to happen with or without net neutrality, so it's irrelevant to whether net neutrality is a good idea or not.

[quote]obviously the fee market doesn't always work.[/quote]

What you're describing isn't the free market. The free market is the voluntary exchange. A company has every right to voluntarily set whatever price it wants. You have every right to voluntarily agree to the price or refuse it. Competition keeps prices down and forces innovation.

[quote]Also, nothing really stops them from hiking prices up as a whole besides a loose agreement without any consequences should the government not step in. [/quote]

Free markets do. If every company jacks up their rates, one company will get the bright idea to lower their rates and get all the customers. That'll force the other companies to lower their price. Being in the same ballpark price-wise isn't some under the table agreement, it's consumers deciding what they're willing to pay and companies adapting to that.

[quote]To be perfectly candid, I wasn't too concerned until I was on Tumblr and realized the site, which is owned by Verizon, was deleting all posts pro-net neutrality after 20 hours.[/quote]

I have no idea what Verizon is doing with Tumblr, I don't use the site. But if they own the platform, they can set the rules. Also, see below.

[quote]So this could be just one odd example, but if that isn't corporate censorship, I don't know what is.[/quote]

Just as Facebook, Twitter, SW, and every other site can. Facebook deletes content that promotes rape and bans the user for whatever length of time FB deems appropriate. That is corporate censorship, and FB has every right to do it because it is their platform.

And as opposed to government censorship? When corporations censor, you have choices. You can go to a different ISP, a different site, a different whatever. You aren't forced to abide by any corporation's rules. When governments censor, you have no choice, no options, no control. You are forced to abide by those laws and regulations, and those laws and regulations are enforced with the threat of violence. Even when government has good intentions, it manages to screw up. See the Internet Indecency Act, which was an attempt at curbing online porn but only manage to shutdown some breast cancer awareness sites. Bravo.

@Sicarium
Before Title II, the internet was so “free and open” that…

Comcast blocked P2P file sharing services (EFF).
AT&T blocked Skype from iPhones (Fortune) and, later, wanted FaceTime users to pay for a more expensive plan (Freepress).
MetroPCS blocked all streaming video except YouTube (Wired).
In today’s media market where the same huge companies make and deliver content, Commissioner Pai wants us to trust that corporations won’t use their dominance to bury competitive content or services.

Also, unaddressed was how the proposed deregulation would affect a lot of people who don't get much news coverage, aka anyone poor, which means a lot of POCs, students, and as a bonus, people living apart in general.

A company could decrease prices, sure, but the whole point of a monopoly or trust is to keep prices collectively up so every major company in the trust makes more profit. The assumption is that Internet has become such a crucial part of many people's lives that Internet is now an inelastic "good," so price changes will not affect demand as much as it would affect things that aren't as necessary.

Also, I didn't mean like Amazon Prime. I meant packaging multiple social medias together in bundles, which aren't made by the companies themselves, but the ISPs providing their services. So instead of paying a monthly Internet rate for a certain bandwidth and latency, you'd be paying an extra, say, $5 for a social package including Twitter/Facebook/IG, and then if you wanted video streaming, that'd be like another $5 add-on. I found this article that explains this and more about who the rollback of regulation would hurt (small businesses and the poor, unsurprisingly).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/net-neutrality-rollback-could-create-a-tiered-internet/

There's also the lesser-known argument that it would also hit people with mental illness, people in abusive households, and teenagers especially hard, since many use open sites currently to cope and find solace when they can't offline. Not every parent is willing to pay extra for social media, and statistically a lot of people who rely on social media to ease symptoms tend to be poorer. I can tell you right now that my own parents said they support the proposed deregulation for the express reason of forcing me to rely more on them for "emotional support" and less on the Internet. I have a job and my own account, so I can move out and stay afloat supporting myself by living at school for now. Not everyone is that lucky.

@Keisayo [quote]Before Title II, the internet was so “free and open” that…[/quote]

Interesting little factoid, Title II was passed in 1934. Did it ever cross your mind that a law passed 30 years before even the first steps of the internet, and 60 years before the internet was widely available, might not be the best tool to regulate and control the internet? And that's assuming regulating and controlling the internet is a good idea to begin with, something I reject completely.

[quote]Comcast blocked P2P file sharing services (EFF).
AT&T blocked Skype from iPhones (Fortune) and, later, wanted FaceTime users to pay for a more expensive plan (Freepress).
MetroPCS blocked all streaming video except YouTube (Wired).
In today’s media market where the same huge companies make and deliver content...[/quote]

And? Like I said earlier, it's their platform. They can set the rules of using their platform. Just like everyone else. Don't like it? Go to a competitor. The companies that do those thing will lose customers if customers decide it's an issue. Consumers will decide, government is not needed.

[quote]Commissioner Pai wants us to trust that corporations won’t use their dominance to bury competitive content or services.[/quote]

False. Trust the free market. That is not the same thing.

[quote]Also, unaddressed was how the proposed deregulation would affect a lot of people who don't get much news coverage, aka anyone poor, which means a lot of POCs, students, and as a bonus, people living apart in general. [/quote]

That is completely irrelevant beyond an excuse for you to interject identity politics. I completely and totally reject identity politics. This isn't about your desired power structure.

[quote]A company could decrease prices, sure, but the whole point of a monopoly or trust[/quote]

Strawman. Nobody is talking about a monopoly or trust. Net neutrality doesn't protect against a monopoly or trust, so it's an irrelevant distraction.

[quote]Also, I didn't mean like Amazon Prime.[/quote]

Of course you didn't, because it doesn't fit your narrative. However, conceptually, it is no different and it is exactly what you described. So, net neutrality doesn't fix the supposed problem you're arguing against.

[quote]I meant packaging multiple social medias together in bundles, which aren't made by the companies themselves, but the ISPs providing their services.[/quote]

You have a lot wrong here. So, social media companies are, actually, companies. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. ISPs do not provide social media services. Which is why they're ISPs and not social media.

[quote]So instead of paying a monthly Internet rate for a certain bandwidth and latency, you'd be paying an extra, say, $5 for a social package including Twitter/Facebook/IG, and then if you wanted video streaming, that'd be like another $5 add-on.[/quote]

That's your assumption, and I've dealt with it multiple times. It's a non-existent issue. And if it ever does happen, the free market (consumers) will deal with it if the free market (consumers) decide it's an issue.

[quote]I found this article that explains this and more about who the rollback of regulation would hurt (small businesses and the poor, unsurprisingly).[/quote]

I'm not going to read an article just for the sake of repetition. I've dealt with this several times. And I dismiss identity politics scare tactics.

[quote]There's also the lesser-known argument that it would also hit people with mental illness, people in abusive households, and teenagers especially hard, since many use open sites currently to cope and find solace when they can't offline.[/quote]

Fear mongering looking for an emotional reaction. If you have a rational argument, make it. But if you need to rely on emotional tactics, that's the first sign that you don't really have an argument, otherwise you wouldn't need to manipulate people on an emotional level.

[quote]Not every parent is willing to pay extra for social media, and statistically a lot of people who rely on social media to ease symptoms tend to be poorer.[/quote]

The same strawman and fear mongering as above.

[quote]I can tell you right now that my own parents said they support the proposed deregulation for the express reason of forcing me to rely more on them for "emotional support" and less on the Internet.[/quote]

Good for your parents. Irrelevant to the topic at hand though.

[quote]I have a job and my own account, so I can move out and stay afloat supporting myself by living at school for now.[/quote]

So you acknowledge that your previous point, such as it was, was completely irrelevant.

[quote]Not everyone is that lucky.[/quote]

People aren't as helpless as you imagine them to be. Conversely, you're not in the superior position you seem to think you're in.

Your entire post was a waste of [b]your[/b] time. You didn't articulate the logic and reasoning behind your support. What you did do was make emotional appeals and argue against strawmen. That simply isn't good enough to convince people who don't already agree with you. It's great for virtue signalling and getting validation from your bubble (which I view as a waste of effort), but it's not going to convince anyone new.