# Need argument help re: net neutrality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2018, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470 "2018-07-07T15:02:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/61 "2018-07-16T21:50:07Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But, can’t we agree, either objectively, or majorly subjectively that say, we will promote Netflix and reputable streaming services from 7pm-12am and throttle the hell out of Pirate Bay or BitTorrent during those times so that more customers can watch legal movies? No, for many reasons. It’s not the prerogative of any private ISP to decide what is legal or legitimate and what is not. It may be the prerogative of government, but if so, the solution to a Pirate Bay kind of issue is to have a court of competent jurisdiction take down the offending operation, not to engage in technical games with Internet routing to try to make them inaccessible. Think of Internet routing as sacred in the same sense as the First Amendment, the right to speak and to hear without interference, and you get the idea. What has actually happened in practice is that it’s not the source that was targeted, but the particular data stream type, such as BitTorrent. And the problem with that is that there’s nothing illegal or illegitimate about the BT protocol, which is simply a protocol for sharing information that has legitimate uses. Even worse, the attempts to throttle BT were affecting mainstream multiplayer gaming, whose packets were in some cases being misidentified as BT. This is now a major industry and a major form of mainstream entertainment and no small matter. In general, there is no end of ways that ISPs can be abusive if allowed to meddle with your data streams based on arbitrary criteria that surely and inevitably will serve their interests and not yours. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/62 "2018-07-16T21:56:45Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > But they’re not, that’s the thing. Would you be okay with ISPs telling you that you can’t stream your cameras to the internet during 7pm-12am because people are trying to watch Netflix? > Yes, that’s basically what people that are for NN want. But you have to take it further than Netflix, it needs to apply to all traffic, not just things that you feel are important. What one person thinks should get priority, another person has no interest in. > Nope. All traffic needs to get treated equally. If Pirate Bay or BitTorrent are illegal, that’s one thing. If they’re legal to use, then they needed to get the same priority as Netflix or FoxNews or PornHub or Vonage or Facetime. So if my city operates a public pool, it should equally operate a public pornography store because: 1. both are legal; 2. it should not matter that more people want a pool than a pornography store; and 3. the value judgment that a pool is better than a pornography store carries no weight. Again, I’m not trying to fight you, but it seems that we make these judgments in society all of the time. We allocate resources where the people, through their elected representatives, decide that they are best used. I get to drive in the HOV lane if I am carpooling. I go through airport security quicker if I’ve paid the TSA pre-check fee and passed the check. Why can’t society as a whole, and again, not for corrupt or monopolistic reasons, say that we (a majority) like content A and give it priority, and demote content B because we don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/63 "2018-07-16T21:59:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What has actually happened in practice is that it’s not the source that was targeted, but the particular data stream type, such as BitTorrent. And the problem with that is that there’s nothing illegal or illegitimate about the BT protocol, which is simply a protocol for sharing information that has legitimate uses. Even worse, the attempts to throttle BT were affecting mainstream multiplayer gaming, whose packets were in some cases being misidentified as BT. This is now a major industry and a major form of mainstream entertainment and no small matter. Somewhat similarly, an ISP (in Canada?) didn’t like what a particular website was saying about them. They blocked the server that the site was hosed on and the collateral damage was that people that used that ISP lost access to almost 800 other websites as well. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/64 "2018-07-16T22:01:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, for many reasons. It’s not the prerogative of any private ISP to decide what is legal or legitimate and what is not. It may be the prerogative of government, but if so, the solution to a Pirate Bay kind of issue is to have a court of competent jurisdiction take down the offending operation, not to engage in technical games with Internet routing to try to make them inaccessible. Think of Internet routing as sacred in the same sense as the First Amendment, the right to speak and to hear without interference, and you get the idea. > > What has actually happened in practice is that it’s not the source that was targeted, but the particular data stream type, such as BitTorrent. And the problem with that is that there’s nothing illegal or illegitimate about the BT protocol, which is simply a protocol for sharing information that has legitimate uses. Even worse, the attempts to throttle BT were affecting mainstream multiplayer gaming, whose packets were in some cases being misidentified as BT. This is now a major industry and a major form of mainstream entertainment and no small matter. > > In general, there is no end of ways that ISPs can be abusive if allowed to meddle with your data streams based on arbitrary criteria that surely and inevitably will serve their interests and not yours. But the government can pass a law to stop any abuse by the ISP. It is also free to find the middle ground between banning BitTorrent outright and giving it equal status with all other data: it could allow it to be throttled at certain hours; how like alcohol sales are prohibited at certain hours. It would be like if you argued, “Look, if alcohol is so bad either ban it, or let four year olds buy it. We cannot have any other solution.” ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/65 "2018-07-16T22:10:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So if my city operates a public pool, it should equally operate a public pornography store because: > > 1. both are legal; > 2. it should not matter that more people want a pool than a pornography store; and > 3. the value judgment that a pool is better than a pornography store carries no weight. > > Again, I’m not trying to fight you, but it seems that we make these judgments in society all of the time. That has nothing to do with anything. I don’t know why you would suggest that. You don’t want people to fight your hypothetical, but as stated they really can’t even be discussed. The best answer I can give you for that question is that no, a pool doesn’t have to be in the porno business. A public pool doesn’t have to sell everything that’s made, simply because it exists and is legal. A business (government owned or otherwise) selling you physical things is different than information on the internet. The post office, however, has to deliver my Penthouse, even if they think it’s morally corrupt. What’s more, they can’t decide to bring my Penthouse next week to try to get me to stop subscribing to it. They can’t even bring it to me next week for no reason other than my neighbor is getting Rolling Stone and NatGeo and they want that to go through faster. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/66 "2018-07-16T22:21:34Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > That has nothing to do with anything. I don’t know why you would suggest that. You don’t want people to fight your hypothetical, but as stated they really can’t even be discussed. > > The best answer I can give you for that question is that no, a pool doesn’t have to be in the porno business. A public pool doesn’t have to sell everything that’s made, simply because it exists and is legal. A business (government owned or otherwise) selling you physical things is different than information on the internet. > > The post office, however, has to deliver my Penthouse, even if they think it’s morally corrupt. What’s more, they can’t decide to bring my Penthouse next week to try to get me to stop subscribing to it. They can’t even bring it to me next week for no reason other than my neighbor is getting Rolling Stone and NatGeo and they want that to go through faster. I’m not saying that they have to sell porn AT the pool, but I see what you are saying. I guess my problem is better illustrated as such: You say that the government should require an ISP to furnish whatever information requested at whatever time so long as it is legal. By the same token, why should government close public parks at night or ban the sale of alcohol at certain times? If it can do the latter, why can’t it say that BitTorrent has some redeeming quality (just like alcohol) but we don’t want it interfering with quality things, so we will restrict it to certain times? Whether you agree or disagree, isn’t that generally the power of government? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/67 "2018-07-16T22:38:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But the government can pass a law to stop any abuse by the ISP. But what do you consider abuse? What should the government consider abuse? > [@](#): > > It is also free to find the middle ground between banning BitTorrent outright and giving it equal status with all other data: Any (well, most) middle ground means restrictions on the internet. That’s what we’re trying to avoid. > [@UltraVires](#): > > You say that the government should require an ISP to furnish whatever information requested at whatever time so long as it is legal. Pretty much, yeah. > [@](#): > > By the same token, why should government close public parks at night or ban the sale of alcohol at certain times? Because parks are dangerous in the middle of the night, people vandalize parks at night, people go to parks at night specifically to do things they shoouldn’t be doing etc. Banning alcohol at certain times gives me a fighting chance of not getting killed by a drunk driver. > [@](#): > > If it can do the latter, why can’t it say that BitTorrent has some redeeming quality (just like alcohol) but we don’t want it interfering with quality things, so we will restrict it to certain times? Whether you agree or disagree, isn’t that generally the power of government? We have freedom of information and don’t want to be censored. However, we don’t have freedom to get shitfaced drunk or wander through pitch black parks that could have wild animals, people driving recklessly etc. Or said differently, who decides what should and shouldn’t be allowed or what service should be throttled when or any of these things? Should we see what Tipper Gore is up to this week? The government protects us from others, to a certain extent it protects us from ourselves or the environment, what it doesn’t do is throttle the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/68 "2018-07-16T23:58:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But the government can pass a law to stop any abuse by the ISP. You mean like an FCC ruling that stops abuse by the ISP? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/69 "2018-07-17T01:32:33Z")
I want to add something to what I said above. The difference between throttling certain internet services and closing parks or not allowing alcohol to be sold at certain times are two very different things. By and large, parks are closed at night, alcohol is restricted at certain times and other things like that for safety reasons. ISPs want to throttle the internet to squeeze more money out of you, period. They really don’t care what that stream of data going from a server to your computer is when it’s all put back together and decoded by a program, but they know that if they tell people ‘video costs an extra $10/mo’ or ‘emails are 1¢ each’ they’ll pay it, they don’t have a whole lot of choice. It all reminds me of Lily Tomlin saying ‘we don’t care, we don’t have to, we’re the phone company’. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/70 "2018-07-17T04:03:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m almost on board with net neutrality because of the nature of the internet and how such a scheme has lead to this technological revolution. But before I turn in my conservative card on this issue, I just have these handful of remaining questions bouncing around. > > Why should we treat every packet of data the same when we all know that every packet of data is not the same. Suppose I have a temporary low bandwidth issue. I would want my outside security camera to keep working and put a halt to my daughter downloading her 15,214th duck lips face pic of the day. If my ISP says that they can do that for me, why should that be illegal? I just wanted to point out that this really shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal issue at all, and you don’t have to “turn in your conservative card” to support net neutrality. If, for example, your ISP happened to be headed up by a bunch of latte-sipping, pinko, liberal sjw’s, do you really want them to be able to slow down or even block user access to Brietbart, Fox News, Free Republic, or any other sites that provide alternative views that go against their own political views? That’s not an internet I’m much interested in. This is one problem that could potentially arise without sensible N/N rules in place, but, to me at least, it’s the most important. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/71 "2018-07-17T05:06:09Z")
> [@sweepkick](#): > > I just wanted to point out that this really shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal issue at all, and you don’t have to “turn in your conservative card” to support net neutrality. > > If, for example, your ISP happened to be headed up by a bunch of latte-sipping, pinko, liberal sjw’s, do you really want them to be able to slow down or even block user access to Brietbart, Fox News, Free Republic, or any other sites that provide alternative views that go against their own political views? That’s not an internet I’m much interested in. > > This is one problem that could potentially arise without sensible N/N rules in place, but, to me at least, it’s the most important. Right, but the reason it’s become such a clearly delineated conservative/liberal issue is because net neutrality necessarily involves government regulation, while its opposite essentially gives free rein to private carriers to structure their businesses for maximum fun and profit even if it’s to the detriment of the consumer. And since conservatives instinctively hate regulation and love unfettered free enterprise, especially when it gives them lovely campaign contributions, the two sides align more or less as one might expect. The same question has been asked about the partisan divide on climate change. Shouldn’t conservatives be in favor of energy independence and the technological innovations that come with clean energy initiatives? Sure, but that’s overridden by the same old stuff: meaningful policies require regulation, and they threaten powerful vested interests who like to elect conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/72 "2018-07-17T06:26:25Z")
> [@sweepkick](#): > > I just wanted to point out that this really shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal issue at all, and you don’t have to “turn in your conservative card” to support net neutrality. > > If, for example, your ISP happened to be headed up by a bunch of latte-sipping, pinko, liberal sjw’s, do you really want them to be able to slow down or even block user access to Brietbart, Fox News, Free Republic, or any other sites that provide alternative views that go against their own political views? That’s not an internet I’m much interested in. > > This is one problem that could potentially arise without sensible N/N rules in place, but, to me at least, it’s the most important. Do the opponents of net neutrality actually believe that ISPs should be able to block or charge additionally for certain sites like that? IOW, if you want Fox News, that’s an extra $2.99/month? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/73 "2018-07-17T10:51:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why can’t society as a whole, and again, not for corrupt or monopolistic reasons, say that we (a majority) like content A and give it priority, and demote content B because we don’t like it. Same reason we don’t hide all the books we don’t like in the basement of the public library. Content B books in dusty, darkened closets while the happy Content A books sit upstairs in the handsomely appointed reading room. ETA: as a specific response to your question quoted above-- where would you put content like “Mein Kampf”? The acceptable pile or the non? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/74 "2018-07-17T12:21:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Do the opponents of net neutrality actually believe that ISPs should be able to block or charge additionally for certain sites like that? IOW, if you want Fox News, that’s an extra $2.99/month? Yes. (or, at the very least, that the ISPs can do anything they want with the data that’s traveling through them. Block FoxNews, sure. Charge an extra $20 a month for Amazon, ok. I also want to point out that I really believe NN should be a thing, but it’s difficult for me since, in general, I don’t have a problem with ‘for profit’ businesses doing things to make money, but this one just doesn’t sit right and I’ll continue to argue for NN) ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/75 "2018-07-17T12:31:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why can’t society as a whole, and again, not for corrupt or monopolistic reasons, say that we (a majority) like content A and give it priority, and demote content B because we don’t like it. But that’s not what’s happening here. “Society as a whole” isn’t deciding this. Your ISP is. In fact, they’re using what society as a whole likes to separate you from your money in an almost supply and demand…type way. Think of it like Enron and the rolling blackouts. They can create less supply and charge you more. Foe example, society as a whole likes youtube, now the ISPs may charge you more for it. Society as a whole likes facetime, in the past some ISPs blocked it. Why does the ISP have to give anything priority, just pass the data from one side to the other side, that’s what their job is. They’re not my babysitter, it’s not up to them to decide what I can and can’t see on my monitor (or how long it’ll take to get there). And, on top of all that, what society as a whole likes, has nothing to do with the individual. Giving priority to what the majority likes leaves all the others behind. As I said earlier, what I don’t like and think should have a lower priority could be your favorite thing to do on the internet. With all that said, I think you have to get this ‘priority’ stuff out of your head. As far as NN is concerned, work under the assumption that the ISPs have more than enough bandwidth to send everyone all the data they could want with the only limiting factors being (and allowed under NN) the tier you chose which generally consists of your speed and/or a data cap. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470/76 "2018-07-18T17:04:14Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Same reason we don’t hide all the books we don’t like in the basement of the public library. Content B books in dusty, darkened closets while the happy Content A books sit upstairs in the handsomely appointed reading room. I mean, of course we do. Or does your local library carry porn? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-argument-help-re-net-neutrality/817470.md?page=3)