Saving Net Neutrality

[about_average]

So opposition must be based in technology? Can it not be based in honest, time-proven Liberal values of liberty and property? Are we to become Fascists comrade? Are we to say, you can develop it, you can build it, you can own it, but for the greater good, we will control it, you now have a new partner (shades of organize crime, both honest and political).

ISP's developed, built and own a minuscule fraction of the content on the Internet.
They have zero monetary investment in it, yet they want to be able to control it.

It would be like you having a trucking firm that delivers goods that you produce but when you try to make deliveries across a bridge the person who owns the bridge lets every one of your competitors' trucks across but only lets across every 5th truck of yours because you refuse to pay more than the standard 2-axle toll for your 2-axle delivery trucks.

The same as if you have a small store front business but the local mob will only let your customers buy 2 of the 10 items they want because you won't pay the "sales tax" to the mob.

Oh my gawd!!! The capitalist apocalypse!!!! IT'S ALL OVER NOW!!!!

I'd agree about the getting what you pay for.

I don't see why they can't shit on Linux though.

I'm paying for 80Mbps access. If they shit on linux I'm not getting what I pay for.

Can't get Dial up anything here, satellite only, I've got the best shit and it still sucks.

Ok, if you can't get a land line where you live I'll give you that. There will always be a few outliers.

 

[richard_daily]

Because it doesn't.

Less restrictions over what providers are allowed to offer doesn't restrict decision-making by the consumer.

The only thing that lowers decision-making by the consumer is government restrictions on what goods and services providers are allowed to offer.....which is exactly what net neutrality is.

No.

Ending net neutrality means that corporations can decide what parts of the internet you can see.

That's less choice, not more.

 

[Que]

ISP's developed, built and own a minuscule fraction of the content on the Internet.
They have zero monetary investment in it, yet they want to be able to control it.

It would be like you having a trucking firm that delivers goods that you produce but when you try to make deliveries across a bridge the person who owns the bridge lets every one of your competitors' trucks across but only lets across every 5th truck of yours because you refuse to pay more than the standard 2-axle toll for your 2-axle delivery trucks.

The same as if you have a small store front business but the local mob will only let your customers buy 2 of the 10 items they want because you won't pay the "sales tax" to the mob.



I'm paying for 80Mbps access. If they shit on linux I'm not getting what I pay for.

Ok, if you can't get a land line where you live I'll give you that. There will always be a few outliers.

Your analogy sucks. What with it not being at all analogous to the subject at hand.

You're suggesting that all providers are using the highway equally and that's completely not the case. The analogy should be some vehicles are Yugos and some are double tractor trailers. The double tractor trailers both take up more physical space on the road, they drive slower, impeding traffic and their weight tears up the road, causing the need for better, more expensive infrastructure.

 

[Que]

No.

Ending net neutrality means that corporations can decide what parts of the internet you can see.

That's less choice, not more.

CONSUMERS decide which evil corporation's policies and practices survive, comrade. People who have the internet primarily for example to view Netflix would instantly drop that service if they didn't get Netflix or if Netflix didn't work properly on that service provider.

The problem (if there is one) is the barriers to entry into that market, and those barriers are all government.

 

[richard_daily]

CONSUMERS decide which evil corporation's policies and practices survive, comrade. People who have the internet primarily for example to view Netflix would instantly drop that service if they didn't get Netflix or if Netflix didn't work properly on that service provider.

The problem (if there is one) is the barriers to entry into that market, and those barriers are all government.

No, consumers do NOT decide. Not with the end of NN.

Please explain how that happens?

In many areas, there is one, or maybe 2 ISPs. Many rural areas still don't have anything but dialup. With NN ending, those companies will not be seeking to increase your choice, they will be looking to curtail it (and profit).

If both are deciding what content you get to see, what are consumers going to do to stop that, other than having Net Neutrality? Please be specific.

You seem to be ignorant of how the world works, and you live in a capitalist fairytale.

Ask small town folks how that worked out for them with Walmart.

Do they now have more choice for where to shop, or less?

 

[BobBalouski]

In many areas, there is one, or maybe 2 ISPs.

And for those of you who can't find those "one, maybe 2 ISPs" in those "many areas", here's an authoritative website listing "2682 internet service providers in the US" over 27 pages:

The Complete List of Internet Providers in the US
https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

Need to break it down to just the "20 Top Internet Service Providers" currently in the U.S.? Here you go:

• Comcast Xfinity
• AT&T Internet
• Verizon Fios
• Charter Spectrum
• HughesNet
• Exede InternetCenturyLink
• Frontier
• Cricket Wireless
• Mediacom
• Cox Communications
• Sprint
• Windstream
• T-Mobile
• WOW
• Dish Network
• Cable ONE.
• Suddenlink
• U.S. Cellular
• Google Fiber

https://www.practicalecommerce.com/20-Top-Internet-Service-Providers

Perhaps some should learn to employ the actual words they think they mean instead of just regurgitating dogma to pimp their subjective point?

 

[Que]

No, consumers do NOT decide. Not with the end of NN.

Please explain how that happens?

In many areas, there is one, or maybe 2 ISPs. Many rural areas still don't have anything but dialup. With NN ending, those companies will not be seeking to increase your choice, they will be looking to curtail it (and profit).

If both are deciding what content you get to see, what are consumers going to do to stop that, other than having Net Neutrality? Please be specific.

You seem to be ignorant of how the world works, and you live in a capitalist fairytale.

Ask small town folks how that worked out for them with Walmart.

Do they now have more choice for where to shop, or less?

Who said consumers want "choice(s)?"

Consumers want the best values for their dollars spent. Consumers in small towns (most places) choseWalmart. consumers don't want some random choice to exist that they don't choose they only want what they want and not some nebulous thing called choices.

How many choices do you think you would get with the collectivism that you favor? Generally there's one government store to buy stuff at.

 

[about_average]

Your analogy sucks. What with it not being at all analogous to the subject at hand.

You're suggesting that all providers are using the highway equally and that's completely not the case. The analogy should be some vehicles are Yugos and some are double tractor trailers. The double tractor trailers both take up more physical space on the road, they drive slower, impeding traffic and their weight tears up the road, causing the need for better, more expensive infrastructure.

Too bad you don't have a clue about the topic.

Amazon Prime movies are not Yugos compared Netflix double semi's, or vice versa.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

So opposition must be based in technology? Can it not be based in honest, time-proven Liberal values of liberty and property? Are we to become Fascists comrade? Are we to say, you can develop it, you can build it, you can own it, but for the greater good, we will control it, you now have a new partner (shades of organize crime, both honest and political).

Net neutrality is fascist.

 

[about_average]

And for those of you who can't find those "one, maybe 2 ISPs" in those "many areas", here's an authoritative website listing "2682 internet service providers in the US" over 27 pages:

The Complete List of Internet Providers in the US
https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

Need to break it down to just the "20 Top Internet Service Providers" currently in the U.S.? Here you go:



Perhaps some should learn to employ the actual words they think they mean instead of just regurgitating dogma to pimp their subjective point?

Says the person who doesn't know what the phrase "in many areas" means.

 

[BobBalouski]

Too bad you don't have a clue about the topic.

Says the person who doesn't know what the phrase "in many areas" means.

You seem to adore doing that a lot, just posting that someone is ignorant, that they don't know what they're talking about, like you're trying to convince your mirror that it's any different. Does even your own mirror ever buy such a cheap sell job?

 

[BotanyBoy]

No.

Ending net neutrality means that corporations can decide what parts of the internet you can see.

That's less choice, not more.

No it doesn't, it means they can charge you for it.

So far About Average has brought up the only valid point here.....if you pay for XX speed....you should get XX speed, terms and conditions apply of course.

No, consumers do NOT decide. Not with the end of NN.

Please explain how that happens?

Yes they do, by not giving a shit company their money.

You can be just like all the Wal Mart haters who drive twice as far to give Whole Paycheck Foods 38x as much money for the same fuckin' shit as the degenerates who shop at Wal Mart.

 

[richard_daily]

And for those of you who can't find those "one, maybe 2 ISPs" in those "many areas", here's an authoritative website listing "2682 internet service providers in the US" over 27 pages:

The Complete List of Internet Providers in the US
https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

Need to break it down to just the "20 Top Internet Service Providers" currently in the U.S.? Here you go:



Perhaps some should learn to employ the actual words they think they mean instead of just regurgitating dogma to pimp their subjective point?

You're a real dumb ass.

Show me where it states that all of those ISPs operate in all markets.

 

[richard_daily]

Yes they do, by not giving a shit company their money.

You can be just like all the Wal Mart haters who drive twice as far to give Whole Paycheck Foods 38x as much money for the same fuckin' shit as the degenerates who shop at Wal Mart.

So if both companies that provide shit internet both agree to throttle your bandwidtch, what do you do?

Please be specific.

I'm in a major metro area. I have exactly 3 choices for internet. All of them are almost certainly going to throttle without net neutrality.

How do you recommend I fix that?

Again, please be specific.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So if both companies that provide shit internet both agree to throttle your bandwidtch, what do you do?

Please be specific.

I'm in a major metro area. I have exactly 3 choices for internet. All of them are almost certainly going to throttle without net neutrality.

How do you recommend I fix that?

Again, please be specific.

You pay or you don't.

It's very simple....this is how capitalism works.

If you want uninhibited free flowing internet you have to pay a service provider for it.

If not then you get throttled because you didn't pay for it or you just don't give them your money and either buy into a competing satellite service or go without.

 

[richard_daily]

You pay or you don't.

It's very simple....this is how capitalism works.

If you want uninhibited free flowing internet you have to pay a service provider for it.

If not then you get throttled because you didn't pay for it or you just don't give them your money and either buy into a competing satellite service or go without.

So I pay, they still throttle.

What's my recourse?

 

[BobBalouski]

Getting what one commercially pays for more naturally falls under the jurisdiction of the federal agency specifically created to address scamming, when and if it occurs; the very same agency which had jurisdiction over all such trade scamming before Obama Title II'd the Internet in 2015 making it a utility concern of the FCC alone.

The repeal of so-called "net neutrality" returns federal authority to enforce consumers get what they pay for back to the Federal Trade Commission, allowing the Federal Communications Commission to more focus on its own specialties: communication issues, not enforcement of fair trade practices.

Be warned, though: even during these last two years of so-called "net neutrality", when everything was supposed to be so fair and equal, when "net neutrality" is somehow credited with insuring getting the XX speed you paid for, all you have to do is read what your Internet provider says about that to realize there's no legal guarantee of listed speed at all, regardless of so-called "net neutrality".

 

[BotanyBoy]

So I pay, they still throttle.

What's my recourse?

1) Go re-read the fine print!

2) Stop giving them money and give it to a service provider who actually provides service.

3) file charges for false advertising and/or failure to render services.

 

[BobBalouski]

So I pay, they still throttle.

What's my recourse?

Obamanet, what else?

 

[Macdaddy23]

You have a man running the FCC that sounds like a damn terrorist wanting to screw the internet. Hell leave the damn net alone as everyone uses it. It always has to do with money.

 

[richard_daily]

1) Go re-read the fine print!

2) Stop giving them money and give it to a service provider who actually provides service.

3) file charges for false advertising and/or failure to render services.

There isn't one.

I can't file charges, because they're not breaking the law, now that Net Neutrality is gone.

So you haven't solved my problem.

Try again.

 

[BobBalouski]

You have a man running the FCC that sounds like a damn terrorist wanting to screw the internet. Hell leave the damn net alone as everyone uses it. It always has to do with money.

Good thing the man running the FCC before him had nothing to do with money, I mean besides personally raising over $700,000 for the political campaigns of the President who then awarded him the FCC Chairmanship in 2013, and who used his political $$ appointment to pave the way of that President's demand that the FCC bring the Internet under its Title II authority.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There isn't one.

If you don't like the services offered then go without.

I can't file charges, because they're not breaking the law, now that Net Neutrality is gone.

If they aren't giving you the service you paid for in the agreement you signed when you got the service?

Yes you can, it's called failure to render services.

Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with that.

So you haven't solved my problem.

Try again.

Your problem being you have to pay for what you use?

Only solution to that is to be a good little statist and send your totalitarian bureaucrats and storm troopers out to seize control over the means and markets in the name of equality.

 

[about_average]

You pay or you don't.

It's very simple....this is how capitalism works.

If you want uninhibited free flowing internet you have to pay a service provider for it.

If not then you get throttled because you didn't pay for it or you just don't give them your money and either buy into a competing satellite service or go without.

It's not the consumer who says, I want Netflix at my full bandwith.
It's the ISP who says to Netflix, "You have to pay us to not throttle your content."
In principle that will enable ISP's to put Netflix out of business if they want to because people won't subscribe if they can't stream movies.

It's exactly like the analogy I made

It would be like you having a trucking firm that delivers goods that you produce but when you try to make deliveries across a bridge the person who owns the bridge lets every one of your competitors' trucks across but only lets across every 5th truck of yours because you refuse to pay more than the standard 2-axle toll for your 2-axle delivery trucks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's not the consumer who says, I want Netflix at my full bandwith.
It's the ISP who says to Netflix, "You have to pay us to not throttle your content."
In principle that will enable ISP's to put Netflix out of business if they want to because people won't subscribe if they can't stream movies.

It's exactly like the analogy I made

Which is why the urbercorps that stand to get throttled unless they pay their fair share are so against the repeal against net neutrality.

If Netflix or whoever wants to stay in bidniz, sounds like they will have to pay up.

EDIT: You're right it is like your analogy...I don't see the problem.