Saving Net Neutrality

[about_average]

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.

You and your neighbors contract with a delivery company (the only one that services your area) to make deliveries to your residences and businesses.
However, the delivery company decides they don't like one of the companies you buy stuff from (the only company that carries something you need), so they let everything you order from that company sit in their terminal for two weeks before delivering it to you. Even while making other deliveries to you and your neighbors.

I know you're full of shit if you claim you'd be fine with that because capitalism.

why would that be a problem. Google prioritizes search results in the first three are people who paid Google to put that in front of your eyes.

Google doesn't hide the results of others just because they put some at the top. though they may hide some for other reasons.
Everyone who uses the internet, at least in the US, has a plethora of alternate search engines they can use if they don't like google.
Search engines aren't given local area monopolies by the government like broadband providers are.

 

[about_average]

Some of them came up with pretty convincing arguments (that competition between ISP's might lead to a decrease in fees or inovation).

Convincing? The only people making the claim appear to be people completely ignorant of the fact that there is little to no competition for broadband service in the vast majority of localities because of extremly high barriers to entry.
ISP's love it like that. They're the ones who lobbied against net-neutrality, do you think they are going to suddenly start letting markets open? They weren't before net-neutrality, what makes you think they'll change now?

 

[Rightguide]

What this means is simple. We are going back to how the Internet was before 2015, when the communist Barack Obama tried to give the government complete control of the Internet...like he did with your healthcare, we know how well that worked out. We are simply reverting to the rules made for the Internet under Bill Clinton.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You and your neighbors contract with a delivery company (the only one that services your area) to make deliveries to your residences and businesses.
However, the delivery company decides they don't like one of the companies you buy stuff from (the only company that carries something you need), so they let everything you order from that company sit in their terminal for two weeks before delivering it to you. Even while making other deliveries to you and your neighbors.

I know you're full of shit if you claim you'd be fine with that because capitalism.

Well, that shit happens anyhow with USPS so *shrug*.

The NO-netneutrality boogie man didn't shut me down before 2015, it won't shut me down next week either.

The ISP's don't want to shut me down to prove the fear mongering (D)'s right. They want to give me service so that I give them 99.99/mo and as long as they provide service, they'll get it.

BUT since that is simply IMPOSSIBLE because ISP's are such evil demonic entities they want to end the internet for everyone but Trump and his Nazi army.....who knows.

I'm betting they give service and take money. But we shall see.

 

[BobBalouski]

It seems strange that some of the same folks who insist private Internet companies shouldn't be permitted by government to censor/throttle however they wish don't have any issues with private websites censoring/throttling users however they wish. What's the practical difference? This private website certainly employs censorship/throttling exactly as they like. Another instance: Twitter's new rules go into effect Monday, December 18, and they're enlarging their censoring/throttling powers to include monitoring their users' off-Twitter online activities as grounds to censor/throttle/ban outright on Twitter itself.

Isn't Twitter currently drawing more and more attention, more and more calls for government action against what many insist is Twitter's monopolistic practices? Facebook, too? Google itself? Instead of individuals simply exercising the greatest practical power of protest against private companies they insist do wrong, individual nullification, they demand government make those bad guys do business the way they want those businesses to do. Hypocritical cries from the right already call for government intervention against Twitter because of those rightists' claims of Twitter's bias against them. Leftists are raising the alarm now about Twitter's new rules going into effect Monday and already clamor, too, for government intervention to stop a private company from doing business however they legally see fit.

And you know this is going to happen within days: posters will undoubtedly use Twitter's new draconian rules as a prime example of the harm repealing net neutrality is already bearing (when, in reality, it has nothing to do with yesterday's repeal of Title II "net neutrality" government control at all).

More government control or less government control: in the America of total emotional politicization today, that is practically what every issue boils down to, no matter its actual legal irrelevance, and certainly with total disregard for the purposely limited powers the Constitution endows federal government with.

 

[richard_daily]

Well, that shit happens anyhow with USPS so *shrug*.

No it doesn't.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No it doesn't.

Yea...it does.

It once took me a week and talking to the district supervisor to get the punk sum' bitch at my branch to go in the back and dig my package out of the back pile.

Not the first time I've had issues with USPS packages.

 

[Liar]

It seems strange that some of the same folks who insist private Internet companies shouldn't be permitted by government to censor/throttle however they wish don't have any issues with private websites censoring/throttling users however they wish. What's the practical difference?

If a website or other online information service does not deliver a service to my satisfaction, it takes me a click of a button to switch to one of it's many readily available competitors.

Second, this is about consumer protection.

Most of the time I'm not even a paying customer to begin with. What are your rights re. Twitter, a private company that lets you use their services for free and whose actual cutomers are advertisers and venture capital?

In places where there is true and active competition between ISPs, for instance where there's municipal fiber and an Open Access market, or in the rare instances with parallel infrastructure (I am lucky enough to have both cable broadband and a fiber option in my condo), that might work for ISP's. And I imagine it might also work better in a more wireless future if 5G manages to deliver on the hype.

But yeah, that's not practical reality for the vast majority of consumers, which is why infrastructure is often treated as a utility, regulatory wise.

 

[Liar]

Yea...it does.

It once took me a week and talking to the district supervisor to get the punk sum' bitch at my branch to go in the back and dig my package out of the back pile.

Not the first time I've had issues with USPS packages.

Was that due to USPS policy or USPS incompetence?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Was that due to USPS policy or USPS incompetence?

Incompetence on the part of a USPS employee.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Apperently Europe has no net neutrality. They charge you for options what to connect to.,,,,

Canada net neutrality are firm. And the US, well, hoping they won't disappoint with this change, coz, its only the beginning of that debate; it ain't over.

 

[Liar]

Incompetence on the part of a USPS employee.

So, not at all the same thing then.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So, not at all the same thing then.

Same effect.

 

[richard_daily]

Yea...it does.

It once took me a week and talking to the district supervisor to get the punk sum' bitch at my branch to go in the back and dig my package out of the back pile.

Not the first time I've had issues with USPS packages.

I don't think you understand the conversation.

Throttling certain sites isn't "misplacing a package for a week".

The post office doesn't decide to let some of your mail through, based on who's sending it, which is what you were actually claiming.

I think all that's been proven here, is that you don't actually understand the words and concepts that other people are saying.

 

[Liar]

Apperently Europe has no net neutrality. They charge you for options what to connect to.,,,,

Um...

The EU has net neutrality regulations what does the job in most cases.

They are a bit lax for mobile, which is why you might see some operators trying to get away with excluding favored services from data caps. But things like trottling is a strict no-no.

Dunno about non EU Europe though.

 

[Liar]

Same effect.

If you withdraw money from an ATM or if you rob a convenicence store, is that the same ting? It has the same effect -- you get cash in your hand.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't think you understand the conversation.

Oh I do I'm just enjoying playing with the plethora of analogies people keep coming with to try and convince me that freedom is horrible and will result in boogieman ISP's FORCING me to pay them for nothing because they will not provide service anymore, censor the internet, hold my email hostage and I'll NEVER get to talk to granny on face time again!! OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

LOL....sure guys.

 

[richard_daily]

Oh I do I'm just enjoying playing with the plethora of analogies people keep coming with to try and convince me that freedom is horrible and will result in boogieman ISP's FORCING me to pay them for nothing because they will not provide service anymore, censor the internet, hold my email hostage and I'll NEVER get to talk to granny on face time again!! OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

LOL....sure guys.

So you don't actually understand the conversation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you withdraw money from an ATM or if you rob a convenicence store, is that the same ting? It has the same effect -- you get cash in your hand.

Nawwww...no no nope..that's totally wrong.

You lose cash when you withdraw money from an ATM because you're the sucker getting robbed.

You gain cash when your the one doing the robbing.

There is a MAJOR difference there in who is robbing who.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you don't actually understand the conversation.

I do understand the conversation.

I just don't care to parse words within analogies and bullshit in an effort for you to try and sell me on something that as a liberal and a capitalist I'm ideologically opposed to.

 

[richard_daily]

I do understand the conversation.

I just don't care to bullshit about something in an effort for you to try and sell me on something that as a liberal and a capitalist I'm ideologically opposed to.

You don't understand the conversation.

You simply think: capitalism good, no matter what, all the time.

You're no different from a fundamentalist of any religion, your god is always right.

 

[BobBalouski]

If a website or other online information service does not deliver a service to my satisfaction, it takes me a click of a button to switch to one of it's many readily available competitors.

Google rules over approximately 65% of all search in the US. Bing is next with around 22%. Yahoo is next, but they switch-off between contracting with Google or Bing, and sometimes both at the same time, to provide Yahoo-branded search results. Google also commands approximately 90% of the US mobile search market. You were posting about "other online information services" and "many readily available competitors"?

And, Facebook? How "many readily available competitors" does it realistically have? Twitter? How many other forum services are actually competitive with it?

Now, compare that absolute dearth of competition to that of just the Top 20 US internet service providers leading a list of "2,682":

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

Also, each of the 50 states already legislate their own Internet service provider laws, so they deal with ISPs anyway they politically like, according to the politicization of whatever courts are inevitably brought in to deal with all the inevitable lawsuits. Why won't you grant that the citizens of those states can deal with their own Internet issues at least as apt as you deem yourself can possibly decide for all of them and everyone else in the US, too?

Second, this is about consumer protection.

And yesterday's repeal of FCC Title II "net neutrality" returned Internet "consumer protection" concerns back to the federal agency specifically created to address "consumer protection" in the US - the Federal Trade Commission.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You don't understand the conversation.

Yes, I do understand the conversation.

If I didn't I wouldn't have been using it to fuck with you so badly.

I get your analogy...I get AA's analogy....I don't care, I'm still pro-freedom.

You simply think: capitalism good, no matter what, all the time.

That's not true either, I think there are legitimate roles for the government.

I just happen to think micromanaging ISP's or really any other industries for that matter however isn't one of them.

You're no different from a fundamentalist of any religion, your god is always right.

How many times have I told you that I'm not a partisan but an ideologue??

If it's not a DIRECT threat to the public I'll always err on the side of liberty over state oppression, always. Because liberal.

Be it in the name of egalitarianism or hierarchy, I find both to be wholly un-american and consider them evil as evil gets when forced. Because liberal.

You have NO problem at all with at least some level state oppression/violence as long as it's in the name of egalitarianism...because leftist right?

 

[richard_daily]

Yes, I do understand the conversation.

If I didn't I wouldn't have been using it to fuck with you so badly.

I get your analogy...I get AA's analogy....I don't care, I'm still pro-freedom.

No, you're pro-capitalism, whihc isn't freedom in any way, shape, or form. Ask the people of Bhophal if they feel "free".

That's not true either, I think there are legitimate roles for the government.

Yeah, handing out your welfare check.

I just happen to think micromanaging ISP's or really any other industries for that matter however isn't one of them.

So you buy the BS that this will "increase innovation", because its your religion.

How many times have I told you that I'm not a partisan but an ideologue??

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

It's a duck!

If it's not a DIRECT threat to the public I'll always err on the side of liberty over state oppression, always. Because liberal.

You are ok with corporate oppression. Again, because it's your religion.

Be it in the name of egalitarianism or hierarchy, I find both to be wholly un-american and consider them evil as evil gets when forced. Because liberal.

You have NO problem at all with at least some level state oppression/violence as long as it's in the name of egalitarianism...because leftist right?

I don't believe in any state oppression or violence, because leftist.

Find a single post of mine where I have ever advocated for anything of the sort.

However, your right wing heirarchy-loving buds are all about telling people what to do in the bedroom, and they love the death penalty, and jailing poor folks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, you're pro-capitalism, whihc isn't freedom in any way, shape, or form.

It's the very definition of it guy.

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

That's why it's at the center of freedom oriented political ideologies such as liberalism and libertarianism.

You are ok with corporate oppression. Again, because it's your religion.

Corporations don't have the authority to oppress anyone.

All they can do is offer goods and services for exchange. That's it.

I don't believe in any state oppression or violence, because leftist.

Find a single post of mine where I have ever advocated for anything of the sort.

Of course you do! You regularly advocate universal healthcare and a plethora of other regulations and taxation.

Those things are a direct threat of violence if I don't pay up. Net neutrality is telling ISP's how to run their companies under threat of violence. That's what regulations are....promises of government violence for whatever reason, safety, egalitarianism, hierarchy.

Legal, institutionalized extortion and oppression.

When the mob does the exact same thing they call it racketeering and it's a big time felony.

However, your right wing heirarchy-loving buds are all about telling people what to do in the bedroom, and they love the death penalty, and jailing poor folks.

I do not advocate hierarchical enforcement any more than egalitarian enforcement....because liberal, and as such I find both disgusting forms of oppression.