# Net neutrality **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics\ **Created:** [December 16, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879 "2017-12-16T19:55:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/21 "2017-12-16T22:07:04Z")
The point being that the market would sort these things out naturally… which is why it’s never been a problem… and if it ever actually becomes a problem, we’ll revisit it at the time, but otherwise I’m happy to see less and less unnecessary regulations over absolutely everything ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 10:36pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/22 "2017-12-16T22:36:54Z")
Maybe they’ll use some of their new resources to regulate the up front price gouging and secret rebate scheme in pharmaceuticals instead ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/25 "2017-12-16T23:55:05Z")
I get all of my ideas from occupy democrats and infowars ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/27 "2017-12-17T00:05:19Z")
Well that will save a lot of money for the 1% which is all I care about ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/28 "2017-12-17T00:07:41Z")
In all seriousness though, this is the end of the internet as we know it. The porn is gone, forums like ours are crawling with the thought police now. Pregnant women are being forced by rich white men to carry their babies to term. AR15s are being handed out to mentally ill people. The westboro Baptist church is now in charge of the whole internet. God help us ---
**Author:** ![Thomas](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/thomas/32/1719_2.png) [@Thomas](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Thomas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:08am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/29 "2017-12-17T00:08:15Z")
BTW - Netflix and Youtube account for pretty close to half of the total internet traffic. ---
**Author:** ![Thomas](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/thomas/32/1719_2.png) [@Thomas](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Thomas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:09am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/30 "2017-12-17T00:09:37Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > The westboro Baptist church is now … They are vile. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:10am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/31 "2017-12-17T00:10:28Z")
And it’d be completely unreasonable for an isp to charge an extra couple bucks for the video streaming plan for people who want to use Netflix, Or offer a couple dollar discount to people who don’t demand that capability if that’s what keeps them competitive, and if they don’t strike that balance right, then they’ll lose business to the competition… ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/32 "2017-12-17T00:51:10Z")
Now if only we had a functioning system like this in pharma… There instead he fda picks winners and losers and is easily influenced by power players and does absolutely nothing to protect consumers from the rebate racket ---
**Author:** ![docslotnick](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/docslotnick/32/75_2.png) [@docslotnick](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/docslotnick)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/33 "2017-12-17T01:42:08Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > Now if only we had a functioning system like this in pharma… Obama gave us net neutrality and he gave us ObamaCare, which begat big Pharma that we know today. One down, one to go. ---
**Author:** ![Thomas](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/thomas/32/1719_2.png) [@Thomas](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Thomas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/34 "2017-12-17T01:58:05Z")
> [@docslotnick](#): > > and he gave us ObamaCare The ObamaCare was never sustainable from the start. ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/35 "2017-12-17T02:06:42Z")
Well in fairness there were a lot of problems in pharma before Obamacare… that said, it did seem that they went as far out of their way as possible to avoid helping that situation with that legislation ---
**Author:** ![Beacher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a6a055/32.png) [@Beacher](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Beacher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/36 "2017-12-17T14:51:48Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > And it’d be completely unreasonable for an isp to charge an extra couple bucks for the video streaming plan for people who want to use Netflix, Or offer a couple dollar discount to people who don’t demand that capability if that’s what keeps them competitive, and if they don’t strike that balance right, then they’ll lose business to the competition… Packages, plans, and rates have zilch to do with the principle of net neutrality. “The internet isn’t free” is a red herring. What’s at stake here is the ability of powerful companies to restrict, sometimes with bias, what consumers have access to. Your ISP may decide that The New York Times is too liberal, and suddenly it takes forever to load on your computer, or you don’t have access at all. As one Canadian commentator said, “The sky won’t fall. You’ll just see less of it.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/sam/32/10595_2.png) [@Sam](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/38 "2017-12-17T18:36:01Z")
> [@Beacher](#): > > Packages, plans, and rates have zilch to do with the principle of net neutrality My understanding is that you are incorrect. The concept of neutrality is that all data must be treated exactly the same by ISPs. So under net neutrality I also can’t call my isp and say “hey I have young children and I’d like porn, smut, and filth free internet service” they’d just not be able to help with that at all under neutrality would they? Neutrality means they are required to treat all data exactly the same. The internet seemed to function just fine for me before these regulations. So in thomas’s Netflix / Comcast example Comcast could also conceivably now tell their customers “we are going to charge you an extra dollar a month to have Netflix access because it uses 30% of our bandwidth” but at this point it’s just competition that’ll rule the day… ---
**Author:** ![Beacher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a6a055/32.png) [@Beacher](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Beacher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/39 "2017-12-17T20:29:59Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > My understanding is that you are incorrect. The concept of neutrality is that all data must be treated exactly the same by ISPs. So under net neutrality I also can’t call my isp and say “hey I have young children and I’d like porn, smut, and filth free internet service” they’d just not be able to help with that at all under neutrality would they? They would. What they _can’t_ do is throttle or block content to _all_ users, unbeknownst to those users. Maybe the American understanding differs from that of most of the rest of the world. The last link below (ScienceNordic) seems particularly level-headed to me. > **[All you need to know about net neutrality now it's been repealed](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/net-neutrality-what-is-it-repeal-latest-meaning-define-trump-internet-rules-why-explained-a8563616.html)** > > ISPs are set to gain a huge amount of control over what you can and cannot access online > **[Net Neutrality Explained: What It Means (and Why It Matters)](https://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-neutrality-explained-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/)** > > A free and open Internet? Sure. How to go about it? Well, that's the issue. > **[Net Neutrality: What the Public Gets Wrong](https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-law/net-neutrality-what-the-public-gets-wrong/1451929)** > > OPINION: Repealing “net neutrality” in the US will have no bearing on Internet freedom or security there or anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Thomas](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/thomas/32/1719_2.png) [@Thomas](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Thomas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/40 "2017-12-17T21:13:18Z")
> [@Beacher](#): > > Maybe the American understanding differs from that of most of the rest of the world. I may be missing something. Are we not talking about the American recent decision of the FCC? Or perhaps you are discussing the concept itself as potentially applied world wide? ---
**Author:** ![Beacher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a6a055/32.png) [@Beacher](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Beacher)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/41 "2017-12-17T21:45:29Z")
> [@Thomas](#): > > Are we not talking about the American recent decision of the FCC? We are. As are the linked articles. They are not talking about packages or fee schedules made available to individual subscribers or consumers. ---
**Author:** ![Thomas](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/thomas/32/1719_2.png) [@Thomas](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Thomas)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/42 "2017-12-17T21:47:32Z")
@Beacher I don’t understand your previous comment then. No disrespect intended but if this is the American FCC decision then would it not be the American understanding of such which is relevant? ---
**Author:** ![Boerenkool](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/forum.fudiabetes.org/boerenkool/32/6307_2.png) [@Boerenkool](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Boerenkool)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/43 "2017-12-17T22:00:35Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > So under net neutrality I also can’t call my isp and say “hey I have young children and I’d like porn, smut, and filth free internet service” they’d just not be able to help with that at all under neutrality would they? Difficult. That depends on how strict the net neutrality laws are. My country used to have very strict laws till the EU issued somewhat softer net neutrality regulations. The national railways, for example, trying to provide a safe environment for children, used to block porn and other stuff on their free wifi network. Nope, said the authorities, you cannot do that because of net neutrality. Blocking websites that consume lots of data, like youtube, was a difficult issue too. There are one or two small ISPs that used to offer filtered internet only. Everyone who bought their service did that voluntarily. Nowhere in this country are they the only ISP and they’re more expensive then regular ISPs. So nobody can say there was a lack of choice. Due to net neutrality they had to create a complex system in order to continue providing some sort of filtered internet despite there being no risk of them ever becoming a monopoly. That’s ridiculous in my opinion. If people voluntarily want to buy internet from an ISP that explicitly states they offer filtered internet only, they should be able to do that. Seriously, why would I care? This should be possible in a free market. ---
**Author:** ![Beacher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a6a055/32.png) [@Beacher](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/Beacher)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879/45 "2017-12-18T15:10:22Z")
> [@Thomas](#): > > I don’t understand your previous comment then. I was being facetious, since some people were focusing on pricing rather than on what a provider chooses to restrict or not provide without letting the customer know about it. [Previous page](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/net-neutrality/2879.md?page=3)