Could Trump Destroy Net Neutrality?

show more
Comments (34)
Sorted by:
  • [ – ] FrancisGo reply I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but corporations obviously have a vision for the future, which is not friendly to small businesses on YouTube or anywhere on the net. We've all posed the question of what advertisers have to gain by trying to turn YouTube into Television when Television if failing. The answer might be, "Yeah. We know advertiser friendly content is not the most popular, but when it's the only game in town, you won't have a choice really." I wish that we could abolish corporations all together. I know they used to have a place in the balance of power, sort of a necessary evil, but with modern technology, we only really need small businesses with access to world-class infrastructure. If the government provides the infrastructure, the small businesses will thrive and take care of the rest. These corporations have run the music industry into the ground, ruined the film industry, helped to undermine global stability, messed up the pharmaceutical industry,...more and so on. Realistically, we can't abolish corporations, but maybe we can propose legislation of our own to limit their size and scope. I mean, we already have anti-trust laws, but now we need something else, to prevent them behaving like a cartel.
    • [ – ] bNormal parent reply The solution to corporations is the destroying of existing laws, licensing requirements, and regulations which they can afford to bypass.
      • [ – ] TheDreamFlow parent reply The only power you have is how/where you spend your money
        • DriftingThruTime parent reply DreamFlow is correct and the fact that corporations and companies are after profits means we control them with our transactions. If YouTube turns into a TV station, that is their choice and the government shouldn't interfere. Vid.Me and other video sites will provide the services YouTube stopped supporting. Same with lanes. Keep the government out of it, and providers that do not throttle will use this difference as a marketing point to get business. I say drop Net Neutrality and keep the US Government out of the internet.
    • [ – ] pjalmighty42 parent reply They tried that before...It ended up being even more corrupt, brutal, and totalitarian, than Coporatism was... (Last time I checked, has been responsible for 100M+ deaths (and counting) since that insipid ideology spawned))
      • FrancisGo parent reply You realize the communists weren't fighting corporatism, right? They were trying to stop the free market--which is not that different from the future the corportists want. That's why you don't see them attacking the Left anymore. lol
      • [ – ] FrancisGo parent reply I'm not talking about communism. I'm just talking about not having giant corporations behaving like a cartel. You can have capitalism without corporatism, provided you put checks and balances in place.
        • [ – ] pjalmighty42 parent reply Fascism. The left had been trying on this suit since the 1930's...
          • [ – ] FrancisGo parent reply I hope everyone reads my first comment through to the end, where I said: Realistically, we can't abolish corporations, but maybe we can propose legislation of our own to limit their size and scope. I mean, we already have anti-trust laws, but now we need something else, to prevent them behaving like a cartel.
            • freerangehobo parent reply What we need is some real teeth in our existing laws. Too many times have I seen slaps on the wrist when big corporations commit crimes against humanity. Rather than adding more laws, the existing ones need brutal enforcement . At the very least, jail the corrupt judges and lawyers who make it easy for the lawbreakers to slide , by accepting bribes and promises of high-paying positions in the ranks of the offending corporations , like, for instance, Monsanto.
            • tmnsoon parent reply The best way to limit their size and scope is to allow smaller companies to compete with them with minimal restrictions. There's a reason large companies like regulations -- because they end up writing them.
    • tmnsoon parent reply You do realize that "corporation" and "large company" are not synonymous, right? A corporation is how a government can recognize a company in a way which shifts liability from the owners of the company to the fictional corporate entity.
    • TheDreamFlow parent reply Your only power is how/where you spend your money
    • FrancisGo parent reply Here are steps for commenting to the FCC. Make sure that when you enter your name as a filer you hit enter afterword. That through me off for a few seconds. lol: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/27/how-to-comment-on-the-fccs-proposal-to-revoke-net-neutrality/
  • BizznessBee reply So... people want the FCC to remain in control of the internet with a Trump administration? What? We've had 20 years free of FCC rule, and the internet has unprecedented growth globally. The FCC is the single greatest entity the US government has for suppressing free speech. Why is it suddenly a good idea to change all this? ISP monopolies do not exist because of a lack of FCC oversight, they exist because of state and federal telcom regulations that provide protection from competition. Why do you think Google Fiber is having such a hard time getting setup in many states?
  • [ – ] coolbreeze88 reply trump is actually pretty vocal against media consolidation in that he want to block the at & t and time warner merger., so he makes it clear he for free and open markets free from cronyism. he may not be a full blown Roosevelt style trust buster, but its a good first step.
    • [ – ] whatthefunk parent reply Lol What la la land do you live in. He WILL eventually lock everything down. They have to cover their tracks for all the crimes they're committing. To stop the flow of information. Obummer is barely getting out unscathed. It will get worse instead of better. The net is their biggest enemy right now.
    • Christian_Ice parent reply Trump is a cretin that doesn't know what he talks about. "Obamacare is bad! Single Payer is good! Let's privatize health care even more!". Really, random words from a toddler.
  • [ – ] blazedu reply the end of net neutrality is the end of the internet itself. Prioritizing some websites while being able to restrict others based on the ISP provider is just like censorship.
    • [ – ] tmnsoon parent reply Not if you have multiple ISPs to choose from.
      • [ – ] blazedu parent reply but then what? If it comes to it, the ISPs that remain unbiased will be coerced to do so or will be called the enablers of white supremacy, fachism, nazism, so forth and so on. Look what happened with a fucking cartoon frog. Same with youtube. these lunatics won't stop at anything.
        • [ – ] tmnsoon parent reply Coerced by whom exactly?
          • blazedu parent reply well, coerced in the sense that if they aren't with the deep state agenda they'll be forced to be with the agenda, be it by changes in the board or a little incentive by funding. The idea of a fair and competitive market, especially in the most important sectors like the internet service providers, is just not real in the present.
  • On_the_Other_Hand reply ISP is not a free market. I have no choice in my area to switch services if Comcast should throttle Netflix because they want me to watch their streaming service Hulu. This reason alone should be enough to protect net neutrality. This is the only protection I have from ISPs monopoly. I know I am far from the only one in this boat. It's funny because I am normally saying let the markets decide, but in this case there are not any free markets, just brokered territories. -Mike
  • [ – ] crissymoss reply Companies wouldn't just do that? What about facebook trying to put their own internet in India, an entire county beholden to facebook and having to get all their information through facebook. BUT IT'S FREE, cried Zuckerburg. And India said no because net neutrality is important.
  • hasher411 reply Net Neutrality will drive smaller ISP's out of business. The smaller ISP's keep the bigger ones inline because they provide an option for consumers other then having an only one monopolized corporate provider system only available.
  • yougotwinsometime reply Youtube is trash
  • [ – ] bNormal reply It would be nice if you included instructions as to how to use the fcc website to address this problem.
  • [ – ] SkullyKTA reply Sooner or later Net Neutrality is going to be taken over by the FCC, and then the FCC is going to take over our constitutional rights to freedom of speech. As far as I can tell, Trump doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, if anything at all, so the problem is NOT him -- it's Thomas Wheeler. He's the man running the FCC, after all. :D
    • SkullyKTA parent reply On second thought, I stand corrected: the current FCC head honcho is Ajit Pai. That being said, it's Pai that is in charge, not Wheeler. Just thought I'd correct myself since Vid.me's comment system doesn't yet allow one to edit one's own original comments. Here's to hoping they will soon, though! Cheers. :)
  • LeonLaGrey reply Ajit Pai is one of the worst picks that Trump I brought in, This just tells me the Republicans don't know what they are doing when Net Neutrality is lifted I'm sorry this is not fair and free for the internet for corporations screws around with internets speeds by my ISPs. I use the internet all the time, its part of my life and business and I hate to see the internet go down terribly by someones decisions. I just called my local senators please everyone lets get active and call your local representatives.
  • [ – ] OxAcientOrder reply The negatives of Net Neutrality far out weighs the positives.
    • [ – ] Christian_Ice parent reply Interesting title, but you didn't mention any.
      • [ – ] OxAcientOrder parent reply The move means the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which is responsible for interpreting numerical addresses on the Web to a readable language, will move from U.S. control to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a multistakeholder body based in Los Angeles that includes countries such as China, Russia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. This means china will be in charge of ethics. It would also mean more Sharia complaint
        • [ – ] Christian_Ice parent reply I am not sure if you refer at "net neutrality" talking about the current system or the one that some crazy corporate puppet wants to implement. My previous answer was longer and more detailed, too bad you deleted your comment, I don't feel like writing the details again.
          • OxAcientOrder parent reply They don't have edit in this vidme i wanted to add Russia to the line. Because they would've played a big roll in this new network. Also removed a part about how Obama gave over this net system to the United nations which is dominated by Sharia law.
    • Christian_Ice parent reply and...it's sad but we have to specify what you mean by "net neutrality", because, to me, is what we have now and ISP providers are trying to destroy...to ISP providers is how their proposition is for.
  • [ – ] KrizGaming reply Internet is one of the top reason why Trump is a president. Therefor he should protect it as a lion protect its females. It's madness greatest medium ever created is at stake and he is doing nothing to stop it. I know he is old but how can he not see how powerful of a tool free Internet is.
    • [ – ] houseofmirrors parent reply It is a common ploy to take advantage of a free an open resource to gain power and then work to clamp down access to that very resource, to secure power once it's achieved.
      • XGuyy parent reply He wont fuck with it we memed him into the presidency . Plus, all the independent journalism sites would go ape shit over that .
    • blindfire parent reply He likely doesn't have any idea about it. He trusts his advisors and leans on them heavily. If they tell him something, he often goes with it. He filled his cabinet with effective people, but just because they're effective at one thing does not make them good people who care about our lives.
  • [ – ] houseofmirrors reply The more important flip side here is that if ISPs are not obligated by law to treat all data the same, then moral busybodies on the religious right and the regressive left alike will insist that the ISPs have the moral obligation to throttle or cut off websites that promote wrong think. Just imagine the furor that was directed at YouTube for hosting PewDiePie videos, except this time directed at Comcast for allowing access to YouTube, or Breitbart, or Info Wars. With net neutrality, ISPs are legally required to ignore such nonsense. Without it, they are vulnerable to Social Justice tactics.
    • [ – ] tmnsoon parent reply ...and the government isn't susceptible to SJW tactics?
      • houseofmirrors parent reply In this case it is less so, I think. Social Justice does not have the numbers to win at the ballot box, and basically every time they get into a position to try the electorate as a whole smacks then back down. As long as the FCC demands all content be treated equally they have zero room to stage an attack on the corporations.
  • ReWired reply The Jason Stapleton Podcast (ep 595) recently explained a position against net neutrality--I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but it was interesting to hear another point of view explained.
  • [ – ] hasher411 reply ComputingForever, As a WISP I can tell you that you are on the wrong side of this one, and are flat out wrong!
    • [ – ] jakndexter12 parent reply Can you tell me why he wrong
      • [ – ] hasher411 parent reply Net Neutrality will drive smaller ISP's out of business. The smaller ISP's keep the bigger ones inline because they provide an option for consumers other then having an only one monopolized corporate provider system only available.
        • [ – ] houseofmirrors parent reply In what way does requiring that all data be treated equally prevent smaller ISPs from competing with larger ISPs? Are there not other regulations that are more damaging to smaller ISPs and that even more ensure the primacy of the established players?
          • hasher411 parent reply Another thing you have to realize is that for the most part all Internet connections are privately owned. How would you like it if you owned a toll road and the government told you that you had to allow everyone using it to go as fast as they want, even in the corners? And that you had to allow over waited semi’s on your blacktop road that was not designed for it! Smaller ISPs don’t have as much money as the bigger ISPs, but with the flexibility smaller ISPs can produce innovation in areas that drive the market and in turn keep the bigger guys from just stagnating which is what happens in an area where they hold a monopoly.
          • hasher411 parent reply This is just part of it but when I started out the only alternative was dialup, and if you lived in a rural area sometime you could only get 28 kb per sec. Dialup also had rules that wouldn’t allow you to do what was called camping (leaving your connection on when not using it) So when I started 11 years ago I offered 256 kb with always connected, not tying up your telephone land line, unlimited data service for $29 with no contract or equipment to buy. I had to buy my bandwidth (T1) from someone like AT&T for $1500.00 per month back then. I had a lot of rural customers that just wanted to get email and visit website at a relatively fast speed but starting around 3pm connection speed would get so slow because some kids who had just gotten home from school would start downloading massive (with some downloaders simultaneously) amounts of music. Then YouTube came out and taxed the bandwidth even more. So providers had to prioritize the traffic so that the users that were just trying to ...moreget their email or go to a banking website would get priority. If a customer didn’t like it they could just switch ISPs.
  • NinjaPoolboy reply STOP ACTING LIKE WE ALWAYS HAD NETWORK NEUTRALITY! We have had New Neutrality for like 0.00000000000001% of the time the net has existed and we have never had so call problems that you act like are an eminent doom of happening.
  • NinjaPoolboy reply You support so called network neutrality. Yet hate when the EU wants to make regulations... STFU, you have no idea what net neutrality really is or you would realize its a farce meant to bring in more regulations. Net neutrality is not good. WE NEVER HAVE HAD Network Neutrality until like a year ago. I agree with most the stuff you talk about but when it gets to Net neutrality you go full SJW bananas.
  • sandia_mesa_mlh reply Like I would say, it's more important to maintain an open internet than it is for AT&T, T-Mobile, Comcast etc. to make profits. - Sean King
  • winstonsmith1914 reply Trump has turned into a fraud.
  • Makai reply I've been looking into our problems and possible solutions. It seems that the people's difficulties began with establishment of the "federal reserve" which is not federal at all, it is run by the private big banks :. controlling the economy. The big banks now own much of industrial/corporate America and the military/industrial complex with fairly recent (see citizens united) control/bribery of our politicians :. controlling OUR country & us. FTS! We are in a bad spot and almost impossible to get out. It will take some time, but we need polits who are honest and will work at getting our republic back to our control. Extinguish the "Fed"! Examples of some congress folks with grit are: B. Sanders, E. Warren, Durbin, J. Reed, Booker and Whitehouse (Sp). We need to elect honorable reps. I could go on & on but I hope you get the idea. This is not a consp. theory!
  • GoMGTOW reply Geez, why don't they just hand over the fucking stock market and the Fed while their at it.... This would entirely give company's the advantage to crush any and all competition and rake in the cash while fucking over the rest of us. Let's call it what is... A censorship monopoly.
  • [ – ] Game_Idea_Guy1 reply We don't see companies down throttling competition because current they can't legally do it. Remove Net Neutrality and it will be made fully legal to hinder competition because you want to promote your own product of a similar type. That's what they would be opening ISPs up to. Hell, this could even make it more difficult to be able to check website of other service providers to see if you would like to switch to a different service because their pricing model might better suit you.
    • [ – ] tmnsoon parent reply Currently how do you know if a website is "artificially throttled" or not? You can speculate, but there is no real way of knowing for sure because the networks are very complex. The only way to know is to have the government in the ISPs monitoring everything that is going on. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government monitoring my Internet traffic...
      • [ – ] Game_Idea_Guy1 parent reply I don't either, but I doubt that they aren't already. But one way to know it is happening would would to compare how fast certain types of websites open and operate. And if the ISP you are using has a similar service to the one you are trying to utilize, if theirs opens quickly and without a hindrance while your preferred site doesn't (outside of them citing that they are having an on-site type of issue) then it would be plausible that they are being down-throttled by the ISP.
        • [ – ] tmnsoon parent reply But the route used to get from A to B would likely differ between ISPs -- one ISP may choose a slower route that's cheaper and another may use a more expensive route to that website which is faster.
          • [ – ] Game_Idea_Guy1 parent reply What you're talking about right here isn't the same as what I am talking about. I'm talking about how a singular ISP will/could allow traffic to be utilized. Your statement points to the comparison of how fast two separate ISPs service is. The maximum speeds your ISP will allow you is usually known by the user ahead of time depending upon their plan. There isn't much anyone do about that than possibly changing their plan or provider. That isn't what this is about, it's about the ISP being to hinder your service no matter what speeds you are supposed to have because they may have another item or service they may want to see thrive over something that is possibly superior to their own. Let's take Comcast for example with their Xfinity service. They also are proprietors of NBC content (as evidenced by them sporting the NBC logo on their service vehicles). If NBC has a video service out to watch their on demand shows that is similar in style to say Hulu or Netflix, but they aren't getting...more the traffic that they would like to see versus their competition, Comcast could hypothetically drop speeds for streaming content from Netflix and Hulu while leaving speeds to the NBC content alone. It's a way to block out competition or at the very least, make their content seem more desirable rather than putting their resources into creating better content. Now, if Comcast just happens to have a slower speed in an area to access Netflix than say Verizon does, that isn't an equivalent. Verizon has no control over the speeds of Comcast's network, they aren't forcing that network to run slower in favor of their own, they are just doing what they can to make their network as fast as it can be.
            • Game_Idea_Guy1 parent reply I missed a point, and I want to correct that. (@Vidme hope that comment editing comes soon) Now barring in mind the last example, if Comcast is aware of Verizon having a faster service than them in said area, they could make traffic to the Verizon website be extremely slow for someone who may be interested in checking out Verizon's service while they are still with Comcast. Or any other small ISP as well. This can give a bad impression of the service that you are looking into as most would likely blame the site first and question if the company could provide them with the service they want while being stable. Removing Net Neutrality opens too many different possibilities that could be very harmful to the over structure of the internet.
  • SpeakingOfGames reply I don't think it will be trump per say the FCC themselves don't seem to have their heads screwed on right
  • Betelcrux reply 0:52 Dang.
  • OsakaGhoul reply Net Neutrality is a big concern, but i don't think it will go through around the world even if it did in U.S
  • RayOfHope reply So I am going to petition the corporate controlled government to control the corporation?
  • FrostyGalaxy reply Yes he could
  • bononoz1 reply Now I hate him even more than I already did.
  • SamEarl13 reply Considering how annoying some internet providers are already this would be destructive to people that already have slow internet. Its like how Sky recently blocked a bunch of 'file sharing' sites under the guise of some sort of web shield. And doesn't anyone remember all the times that companies have already been accused (and a few cases proven) of throttling speeds already.
  • chait2096 reply Completely unfair
  • tmnsoon reply https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4
Download the Vidme app!