Getting rid of net neutrality is morally wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Churchman25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Churchman25

Guest
I feel like the u.s. government getting rid of net nuetrality is seriously wrong. The reason why is because this will affect alot of lower income families. Also companies such as Comcast will now be able to charge more money to access certain content.

Also the new director of the FCC has defunded the broad band program for lower income families. these legislation changes will effect alot of people in a bad way.

Please leave comments below
 
Last edited:
I don’t know too much about this whole net neutrality thing but if it is immoral now, was it immoral back in, say, 2014 when there was no such law?

Walmart could raise its prices right now. Would that be immoral? Should we set a minimum price for everything? Or just the internet?
 
And why did Comcast not raise it’s prices during that period?
 
no but if it limits access to content from low income families how is this not immoral. a good example is say the us government came in and said you can only buy a certain amount of food for an individual in say a month that would be immoral because that persons ability to feed them selves would be limited. The same is with net nuetrality the government will be limiting a certain minority and that is low income and alot of other americans to have access to the internet. Because alot of people wont be able to afford the service charges that are coming.

They will also be able to charge you every time you go onto certain sites. As for pre 2015 adding this law was a step in the right direction. Removing it is like backtracking and will cause issues.

Also if removing it is not immoral why are companies like Google thinking aboutaking legal action at the FCC for this?
 
I mean…the internet isn’t exactly a necessity…and as far as I know, they’re only getting rid of Obama era add ons…that weren’t there prior to 2014…
 
The differences is the great majority of that time was during the dial-up era where there were hundreds of ISPs to choose from. Since like… 2004 on you can’t really get away with dial-up for what people need the internet for. I guess you could get two modems and shotgun an ISDN line. But eh.

The way the internet worked has fundamentally changed since then. I don’t know about the morality of what happened, but eliminating net neutrality will only serve to strengthen the virtual monopolies that rule the internet these days.
 
Last edited:
Being able to binge watch your favorite show on Netflix is not a God given right. There’s decent arguments both ways for why net neutrality is good/bad, but saying it immoral because it might mean poor people can’t afford something isn’t a good argument. A company has absolutely no moral obligation to make sure that people of all income brackets can afford their product if it’s not a necessity.
 
Entwhistler said:
And why did Comcast not raise it’s prices during that period?
Click to expand...
Comcast raises it’s prices during every period. 😝

I don’t trust Comcast really even a little bit to have anyone’s best interests in mind, but I don’t trust Google or Facebook or the companies that are protesting the repeal either. Honestly, Google and Facebook already “curate” content for the public. Where are the regulations for them to be neutral?
 
Precisely. Google and facebook claim to be these good guys, lobbying for net neutrality, when they throttle back and screw over content creators on their platforms that do not agree with their values. It’s the classic “pot calling the kettle black”
 
I definitely have mixed feelings about it. While I want the government to have as little control as possible, without competition, I feel consumers could be hurt. I almost feel that it should be controlled like a public utility due to the required infrastructure. I keep hearing anti net neutrality people pointing out how its removal will increase competition. That doesn’t really work here due to the required infrastructure. Where I live, Comcast owns the cable lines. Another company can’t come in and use the same lines which means that any other company would have to lay brand new lines in areas that already have existing Comcast lines. That just won’t happen.

Hopefully, 5G wireless will be available soon making this all moot. Once that’s available, it will be faster than cable/DSL connections and won’t require the cable/line infrastructure.
 
Bataar said:
Hopefully, 5G wireless will be available soon making this all moot. Once that’s available, it will be faster than cable/DSL connections and won’t require the cable/line infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard this yet. That is something to look forward to. I’d love to have options. I have only one option for internet right now. And it gets more expensive all the time.
 
Net neutrality, nor subsided broadband, is a moral issue. These are policy issues, for which there may be numerous morally neutral solutions.

An issue is a moral issue only if it has direct bearing on one or more’s salvation.
 
These days, internet access seems to be a necessity to get a college education or a job. Before I had WiFi access it was a total hardship for school. Lack of affordable internet access is also a a very big issue for rural communities because of the way it has changed and become woven into so many processes of modern life.
 
College?
I think if someone can afford college they probably can afford internet.
If they have a full ride, then they probably should also be able to be granted housing at the college campus, which should have wifi, via other scholarships and grants that should be obtainable if they have good enough grades and reputation for a full ride.
But if they cannot, then there are always places with free WiFi, like many McDonalds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top