Those who support this have absolutely no idea what they are doing. Net Neutrality is opposed since 2008 and i know it.

The current net neutrality rules mean Comcast cant block you from visiting sites they don't like, can't increase your charges arbitrarily, and cant charge different fees for different levels of use.

Why is that bad?

As for FCC and decency regulations. Why don't you post something current there have been changes since the original rules.

Here is a summary of the FCC regulations from 2015.

Please tell me what is bad about them:

https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

I don't see any evidence you understand how the regulations will affect me, or you or other consumers.

Comment from another thread about this topic, minus the concerns for government censorship:

You're basically just saying you're cool with monopolies we have as long as the government have "controls" in place for them (key word here), not the fact that they have those monopolies and destroy competition. We need competition in the markets, not shit companies, with the illusion of control mechanisms. That's counterproductive, just like when you go and "vote" for the next CEO of the US Corporation.. The free market will always beat government regulations. Corporate monopolies love regulations because it always strangles their smaller competitors.

That's the real discussion we should be having, but the masses are ignorant.

What is your point. Are you saying you are fine with monopolies as long as there are regulations. The regulations are no longer there and or are being ignored.

Put your reading comprehension hat on, and re-read.

1. someone is claiming someone is saying monopolies are fine as long as they are regulated.

2. then says we need competition not shit companies with an illusion of control (I have no idea what that means, do you) the writere calls that counterproductive and linkes it to Boards of Directors electing their CEOs. (?) Then says the free market is better than regulations, then says Corporate monopolies love regulations because it strangles compeitiors.

It is extremely contradictory.

I asked you if you agreed. Do you? I also asked if you know what it means since it contradicts itself.

It is either a misinformed comment or a junk comment.

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Context: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6x2nay/here_is_a_reminder_that_net_neutrality_or/dmclg8t/.

How was I suppose to know it was your comment? Care to explain the contradictions?

There are no contradictions in what I said. Is English not your first language? What I'm saying is, is not really what it's about and a bigger discussion is needed. It appears, everything is black or white to people like you...

Does that mean you are fine with monopolies and believe they are sufficiently regulated?

I'm not fine with monopolies, what I'm saying is that the discussion should be free markets and the monopolies that we have, which are able to do what they are doing, which subsequently requires the government to step in. Regulations, create monopolies inadvertently. Problem, reaction, solution. Win-win for both. How are you not understanding this?

I think you are talking about regulatory capture, not regulation itself.

I don't see the contradictions. The user started by refering to someone elses point of view to begin their point. This makes no difference to Putin_loves_cats point.

If the rich companies can lobby the government most effectively because they have most money then they dictate policy yes?

They can then choose to make this policy work very well for them and shit for any other business; Putin_loves_cats thinks this is bad because it removes competition and creates a monopoly. This is a rational point of view because a company with no business can market an overpriced product of little value and customers have no other option except not to buy.

The illusion of control is created by these regulations that are dictated by the lobbying corporations. The politicians can turn to us and say "don't worry, we've put these special regulations in place to stop anyone taking advantage of the public who we serve" when in fact the regulations exist to allow just that.

The point about "voting" for the CEO of the US corporation was a sarcastic point about the government not being a government at all but rather a proxy for corporate control.

Since i've explained how these regulations can be detrimental it shouldn't take much to understand why a free market might be better.

It wasn't a junk comment at all. Might have needed reading between the lines a little but it didn't take much. No contradictions.

There is no such thing as a free market. A "free market," is an entirely unregulated mark that also leads to monopoly and becomes a seller controlled market.

The only difference between an unregulated market and a market that is created by regulatory capuure is, none.

We are already are in a seller controlled monopolistic system.

I'm not so great at economics but i think i understand what you mean, you're right that a free market isn't an answer. I suppose in practical terms unregulated markets and regulatory-captured-markets (?) aren't different because there are those who clearly have had an agenda to control the market and this would have happened regardless.

If i think about my opinion i wouldn't want the removal of regulations but i would want overhauls of many to see if they influenced the market in favour of any company that became a monopoly and if that was done in an unconstitutional way.

Maybe revert that and allow previously supressed companies to fill the void left by the removed company. Both the regulations and the companies remain if are in accordance with the constitution. I'm being idealistic but if i was given the chance that's how i'd like it to be.

One of the arguments that was used to gain regulatory capture was that U.S. companies had to be allowed to become bigger in order to compet with "state owned monopolies," in the global market, as if the Soviets and China at the time had anything to market.

Here and in your linked thread you are adamant about this narrow definition of net neutrality in a certain context and your points are quite nuanced, almost legalese. I don't even know what your point is except to label it as censorship. Could you give a layman version of your argument?

Ok, when you put it that way, I agree, though I suspect there is more to the story. For example, if it is defeated, will it prevent censorship, but allow access providers to sell tiered service (a la comcast and Netflix). I am probably way off, but I was not under the impression censorship is the crux of net neutrality.

I'm not sure i fully understand it but this is what i got:

We already had the Net Neutrality bill which provided "net neutrality". Corporations want to change this bill; they've dressed this up with the facade of "giving companies freedom from the US government to censor what they want".

Opposing this is the side which believes that the government should have the freedom to tell the companies that they do not have the freedom to censor what they want.

I prefer less censorship so i don't like the changes. If someone could give me a more nuanced, informed perspective that'd be very appreciated.

you're getting fucked, America, by your congress

I wonder what this means for the rest of the world though?

One of the arguments that was used to gain regulatory capture was that U.S. companies had to be allowed to become bigger in order to compet with "state owned monopolies," in the global market, as if the Soviets and China at the time had anything to market.