Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

16
  • 10
    "your competition" There is no competition. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 12:35
  • 12
    no service provider in their right mind will be stupid enough to deliberately block certain sites They've already done it. That's why there was such a strong push to put the existing regulations in the first place. It wasn't out of a fear that the ISPs might start doing this, it was because they actually did it. So apparently the ISPs aren't in their right mind. That, or, as mentioned, there simply is no competition, so they know that consumers can't do a thing about it when they do things like this. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 13:10
  • 3
    if they are private then I'm completely against FCC doing anything. The government regulates what happens with private property all the time -- the FTC, for example, or the ATF, DEA, FAA, etc. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 13:43
  • 1
    You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next guy, but what about someone with a startup who can't afford to pay his ISP as much as an Amazon or Google? The ISP would be free to throttle traffic to/from his site(s) at will, in favor of higher-paying domains. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 13:44
  • 1
    @Matt Cox Half way into your post you mention competition of providers.... except as Josh Caswell pointed out, there is no competition. So all your "i will not raise my voice", this and that hodgepodge is absolute crap. There is a massive monopolization of the internet in the US, with 2 or 3 major ISPs. Put down the waffle and get your facts straight. Cant fix stupid. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 16:03
  • @Josh Caswell No Competition? Good. Make it an anti-trust case, don't try to spin it into some sort of freedom of speech and bill of rights issue. Cause it isn't. Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 2:34
  • @Servy Which sites are we talking about here? And is it a ban based on IP? Can't people just use VPN or Proxy? Can't people swtich ISPs? What are the news reports? From creditable sources? Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 2:35
  • @freginold Because you smoke weed, you don't mind going down the drains and pick up meth right? How's your private property being regulated? It didn't happen to you, at least not to the extend that you can no longer ignore it right? Therefore you are happy? How much tax do you pay? How much of the tax you paid went to where you wanted? Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 2:38
  • 1
    @Javia1492 All the ISPs formed up some sort of alliance to block certain sites? The same set of sites? Please provide the creditable evidence. And how that cannot be circumvented via using VPN or proxy? What did those sites do to get on the radar like that? What you said is outright laughable. And other than a lack of economic incentive, what stops another billionaire from becoming ISP#4? Maybe it's because most RATIONAL consumers don't think it's a big deal? You are right, I can't fix your stupidity, but I can try to fix your ignorance on economics. Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 2:48
  • 2
    @MattCox What "partisan crap" are you talking about? A lack of net neutrality affecting small businesses is not a party-line issue. As for Um Virgin Islands? Hong Kong?... do you not understand how a company located there would still need to go through US-based ISPs to access US-based customers? Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 13:17
  • 4
    @MattCox The most famous example is the case of Netflix, where comcast dramatically throttled all traffic from Netflix to their customers until Netflix paid them a whole bunch of money to stop doing it. You could throttle the traffic by IP, DNS, or any other criteria you would so choose. If people start using proxies for everything then the providers will start putting pressure on those proxies, throttling or simply not serving them. People can't just switch ISPs because there is typically one, or possibly two, for any given location. Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 13:22
  • @MattCox How's your private property being regulated? Are you kidding? Ever heard of zoning laws? How about legal purchase age? Gun carry laws? Vehicle emissions regulations? Any of these ring a bell? Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 13:24
  • 3
    @MattCox So i have to use a VPN or a proxy to go to a website using a service I am paying for? Very good logic. Nobody knows which sites would be blocked, however, if you also assume nothing will change, you're pretty naive. So.. the reason another billionaire hasnt become ISP#4 is because most rational consumers dont think its a big deal...? The relation between a billion to rational consumers has no connection. Rational consumers dont have a choice here. Please, continue to "educate" me with your apples and oranges logic. Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 13:28
  • 2
    @MattCox Make it an anti-trust case... A lack of competition is not necessarily indicative of an anti-trust issue. Specifically in this case, there are other reasons for lack of competition. You should read up on the issue before trying to shout down other people's viewpoints. Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 15:43
  • 2
    @MattCox It's not as simple as that. Your dismissive attitude and lack of insight on this subject are indicators that either (1) you don't care very much about it -- in which case you must be very bored to keep commenting -- or (2) you don't handle being disagreed with very well. If it's the second option, you should spend some time learning more about the subject before taking such an aggressive stand. Commented Jul 14, 2017 at 3:02