Saving Net Neutrality

[richard_daily]

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

Nothing in that definition about freedom.

But that doesn't stop you from "feeling" the way you do.

Corporations don't have the authority to oppress anyone.

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

and murder people for profit. Then they pay off regulators to get away with it.

That's oppression.

Of course you do! You regularly advocate shit universal healthcare and more.

You think health care is state oppression and violence?

Uhh, ok.

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.

Corporations will extort and oppress you. The thing is, you are blind to that, because you're a fundamentalist.

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

What's it called when a corporation does it?

Oh yeah "good business".

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

There is no such thing as "egalitarian enforcement". That you'd even say that term is more proof that you're still having trouble with basic concepts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nothing in that definition about freedom.

Except the fact that you can't have or engage in it without being free from authority, namely government.

and murder people for profit. Then they pay off regulators to get away with it.

That's oppression.

Government failure =/= corporate oppression.

You can sit there and blame corporations for government actions/inaction all you want but it will NEVER alleviate their responsibility except in the eyes of the state worshiping leftist.

You think health care is state oppression and violence?

Uhh, ok.

No I think the governments threat to either literally or effectively end my life if I don't pay for it oppression and violence.

Oppression and violence that YOU support.

Corporations will extort and oppress you. The thing is, you are blind to that, because you're a fundamentalist.

They can't do it without the government helping or allowing them (failing at it's legitimate job)to do those things.

Something you're blind to because you're a state worshiping lefty.

What's it called when a corporation does it?

Oh yeah "good business".

Try government corruption and or organized crime....which not surprisingly almost ALWAYS work together.

There is no such thing as "egalitarian enforcement". That you'd even say that term is more proof that you're still having trouble with basic concepts.

Yes there is it's usually called socialism.

Government ownership/control (enforcement) in the name of egalitarianism.

 

[Liar]

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?

Just because one service is the one that most people choose to use, out of their own free will, it doesn't mean it doesn't have readily available competitors. If Google does something I dislike, I can use alternatives like Quora, Ask, Bing, Yandex or DuckDuckGo immediately.

If Facebook pisses me off, I can keep in touch with friends and familly online with other websites and services. Heck, LinkedIn basically has the exact same features. You can't seriously argue that Facebook is the only website that lets you do that. Or I'll just email them like in medieval times. Or I'll buy a web hotel and host my own forum.

If Messenger irks me, I can use Whatsapp, or Hangouts, or Skype, or a myriad other similar services.

If I think Apple Music suck, I can use Amazon Prime, Deezer, Google Play Music, Napster (it's a legit stream thing now), Pandora, Spotify, Tidal...

Twitter? There's Plurk, Mastodon, Diaspora, GNu Social, Ello, Twister, Identi.ca and Slack. Of the top of my head.

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

Uh huh. How many of the ISPs you listed are readily available to switch to for an average household?

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?

You do know that the new FCC order contains provisions to prevent states from excerting much control in this regard... Right? Now some state, I think it was Washington, have said "screw you Pai, we're doing it anyway, see you in court". So we'll see how that turns out.

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.

The quote you ripped out of context there was about Twitter and that you are not a paying customer of Twitter, hence you have no consumer protection vis-a-vis Twitter. It does not adress whether the FTC or the FCC is the better agency to regulate the ISP market.

 

[BobBalouski]

Just because one service is the one that most people choose to use, out of their own free will, it doesn't mean it doesn't have readily available competitors. If Google does something I dislike, I can use alternatives like Quora, Ask, Bing, Yandex or DuckDuckGo immediately.

If Facebook pisses me off, I can keep in touch with friends and familly online with other websites and services. Heck, LinkedIn basically has the exact same features. You can't seriously argue that Facebook is the only website that lets you do that. Or I'll just email them like in medieval times. Or I'll buy a web hotel and host my own forum.

If Messenger irks me, I can use Whatsapp, or Hangouts, or Skype, or a myriad other similar services.

If I think Apple Music suck, I can use Amazon Prime, Deezer, Google Play Music, Napster (it's a legit stream thing now), Pandora, Spotify, Tidal...

Twitter? There's Plurk, Mastodon, Diaspora, GNu Social, Ello, Twister, Identi.ca and Slack. Of the top of my head.


Uh huh. How many of the ISPs you listed are readily available to switch to for an average household?



You do know that the new FCC order contains provisions to prevent states from excerting much control in this regard... Right? Now some state, I think it was Washington, have said "screw you Pai, we're doing it anyway, see you in court". So we'll see how that turns out.

The quote you ripped out of context there was about Twitter and that you are not a paying customer of Twitter, hence you have no consumer protection vis-a-vis Twitter. It does not adress whether the FTC or the FCC is the better agency to regulate the ISP market.

Again: all yesterday's vote was truly about was repealing Obama's 2015 edict to bring the Internet completely under Title II control in the US, which reclassified the Internet from a private enterprise information service regulated by government, to a public "utility" fully under total federal agency, government control dictate. Proponents of the repeal are almost exclusively pro-private enterprise, while opponents, just as naturally, almost exclusively favor socialism more. Why else do you think Obama handed the FCC chair to a guy who personally raised over $700,000 for his presidential campaigns? Can you tell me precisely where in the U.S. Constitution it endows any branch of the federal government any power whatsoever to stick its nose in what the Tenth Amendment specifically commands isn't any of their business?

You wish to argue that total federal government control over the free and open Internet isn't socialist? Have fun.

Getting federal government out of free and open Internet business is the first step; doing the same with state government is next. The top government entity that should concern itself at all with free and open Internet business concerning its free citizens is at the county level, and, even better, at the municipal/city level. The glorious law of subsidiarity naturally applies. Of course, since all kinds of cypherpunks are already working on it, soon there won't be any physical Internet lines for any government to practically interfere with at all: Internet 2.0 is coming.

 

[Not Normal]

I just read http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/12/15/CdcVb/man-explains-dangers-of-net-neutrality-detailed-twitter-rant?utm_content=inf_677_53_2&tse_id=INF_df0a24b0e1df11e786aad3298b3272c2 well informed and simple to understand piece on why net neutrality is important for capitalism.

I'm sure plant man will say everything about it is false, but I think it's pretty on point.

 

[BobBalouski]

I just read http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/12/15/CdcVb/man-explains-dangers-of-net-neutrality-detailed-twitter-rant?utm_content=inf_677_53_2&tse_id=INF_df0a24b0e1df11e786aad3298b3272c2 well informed and simple to understand piece on why net neutrality is important for capitalism.

I'm sure plant man will say everything about it is false, but I think it's pretty on point.

China maintains that communism is important for capitalism, too.

 

[BobBalouski]

How do socialists react when they don't get their mob rule, "net neutrality", statist government demands? I mean, besides all the death threats, other threats of violence and outright racist hate speech attacks still up for all to read on Twitter against Ajit Pai (despite Twitter immediately banning numerous right/conservative posters for those exact offenses which Twitter proclaims are against their rules, which they also claim are enforced equally and justly)?

Read all about how socialists love to censor/throttle simple, innocent, humorous free speech content simply and only because they don't like it. And then consider why so many thought that Obama ordering the FCC to vote in Title II supremacy over the Internet was the first move to assert the infamous "Fairness Doctrine" over the entire Internet, which, of course, President Hillary Clinton would've ordered the FCC to actually enact. Of course, don't forget to watch the stupid video that triggered so many socialists that Google/YouTube took it down:

Harlem Shook: Google Is Using Its Immense Power To Censor Content That Doesn’t Fit Its Political Goals. Everyone In America Should Be Concerned About That
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/15/g...-content-that-doesnt-fit-its-political-goals/

The only thing just as great as seeing statist federal government not getting the total power it inherently craves, is watching its childish lemmings rant and rave because they didn't get their totalitarian way, either.

 

[Liar]

Again: all yesterday's vote was truly about was repealing Obama's 2015 edict to bring the Internet completely under Title II control in the US, which reclassified the Internet from a private enterprise information service regulated by government, to a public "utility" fully under total federal agency, government control dictate. Proponents of the repeal are almost exclusively pro-private enterprise, while opponents, just as naturally, almost exclusively favor socialism more. Why else do you think Obama handed the FCC chair to a guy who personally raised over $700,000 for his presidential campaigns? Can you tell me precisely where in the U.S. Constitution it endows any branch of the federal government any power whatsoever to stick its nose in what the Tenth Amendment specifically commands isn't any of their business?

You wish to argue that total federal government control over the free and open Internet isn't socialist? Have fun.

Getting federal government out of free and open Internet business is the first step; doing the same with state government is next. The top government entity that should concern itself at all with free and open Internet business concerning its free citizens is at the county level, and, even better, at the municipal/city level. The glorious law of subsidiarity naturally applies. Of course, since all kinds of cypherpunks are already working on it, soon there won't be any physical Internet lines for any government to practically interfere with at all: Internet 2.0 is coming.

Now you're ascribing me a bunch of positions I've not expressed. All I've done is adress a specific question of yours: "What's the practical difference?"... between an entity like Twitter and one like Comcast in regards to the need to adhere to neutrality principles. I explained what the practical difference is. End of.

If you want to talk about something entirely different, like the virtues or lack thereof of socialism, talk to somebody else.

 

[BobBalouski]

Now you're ascribing me a bunch of positions I've not expressed. All I've done is adress a specific question of yours: "What's the practical difference?"... between an entity like Twitter and one like Comcast in regards to the need to adhere to neutrality principles. I explained what the practical difference is. End of.

If you want to talk about something entirely different, like the virtues or lack thereof of socialism, talk to somebody else.

Oh, I'm sorry. Please forgive me for assuming you were unquestionably pro-"net neutrality". Are you claiming now to be totally neutral yourself on the issue, or do you agree with its repeal by the FCC?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I just read http://www.distractify.com/trending/2017/12/15/CdcVb/man-explains-dangers-of-net-neutrality-detailed-twitter-rant?utm_content=inf_677_53_2&tse_id=INF_df0a24b0e1df11e786aad3298b3272c2 well informed and simple to understand piece on why net neutrality is important for capitalism.

I'm sure plant man will say everything about it is false, but I think it's pretty on point.

No not everything, but the base premise is both assumed and wrong.

The assumption is that you need net neutrality for competition to happen.

If that was true then the internet as we understand it today would have NEVER HAPPENED.

The reality is there was SHIT LOADS of competition and capitalism worked great on the internet before net neutrality.

The ONLY thing needed for capitalism and competition to happen is for the government to fuck off.

This article is just another leftist preaching that government control over the means of production and distribution of goods and services = freedom and a free market!

LMFAO....it's right up there with Daily's similar sentiment.

Voluntary exchanges of private property on an open/free market? That's oppression!!

Only the government telling you what to do, what to think, who to buy from and for how much is REAL freedom comrade!!!

Bunch of kool-aid chugging geniuses.....oh look the internet and world are still here, post net neutrality.

What ever will I do without the government dictating what services my ISP is or is not allowed to sell me??

 

[Not Normal]

No not everything, but the pro net-neutrality side of the argument operates on the assumption that you need net neutrality for competition and thus capitalism to exist.

LOL what a crock of shit. The ONLY thing needed for that to happen is for the government to fuck off.

This is just another leftist preaching that government control over the means of production and distribution of goods and services = freedom and a free market!

LMFAO....it's right up there with Daily's similar sentiment.

Voluntary exchanges of private property on an open/free market? That's oppression!!

Only the government telling you what to do, what to think, who to buy from and for how much is REAL freedom comrade!!!

Right on que

 

[BotanyBoy]

Right on que

Not my fault you posted an article that makes an demonstrably incorrect assumption as the scaffolding for a decent argument.

Shit you knew it was boo boo before you even posted it but you put it up there because it's team "Government control = freedom!" and you love the government controlling as much of everything as possible so you did anyhow.

 

[jaF0]

If it means that BB and B_B would have to pay more to post here than the rest of us, I might be for it after all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If it means that BB and B_B would have to pay more to post here than the rest of us, I might be for it after all.

I guess freedom scares you too.


Oh god what will you do now that you're not able to use the government as a goon squad to bully your iSP???

 

[Not Normal]

Not my fault you posted an article that makes an demonstrably incorrect assumption as the scaffolding for a decent argument.

Shit you knew it was boo boo before you even posted it but you put it up there because it's team "Government control = freedom!" and you love the government controlling as much of everything as possible so you did anyhow.

You're always a good source of amusement.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're always a good source of amusement.

Don't understand how.

But ok.....whatever you say bawss.

 

[Not Normal]

Don't understand how.

But ok.....whatever you say bawss.

I'm amused by both you predictability and beliefs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm amused by both you predictability and beliefs.

My predictability being a capitalist who's not buying the "Government control = REAL freedom" bit?

Beliefs being the insane notion that government control over the means and markets is in fact NOT freedom and capitalism?

Or were you referring to something else?

 

[Not Normal]

My predictability being a capitalist who's not buying the "Government control = REAL freedom" bit?

Beliefs being the insane notion that government control over the means and markets is in fact NOT freedom and capitalism?

Or were you referring to something else?

pretty much

 

[BotanyBoy]

pretty much

Right on.

Totally not sorry for being a freedom loving M'arican!

 

[Liar]

Oh, I'm sorry. Please forgive me for assuming you were unquestionably pro-"net neutrality". Are you claiming now to be totally neutral yourself on the issue, or do you agree with its repeal by the FCC?

I think the principle and praxis of net neutrality is a good one, and I think users of Internet infrastructure, be they online service providers or online service users, should have some sort of guarantees that access to data of their choice is not arbitrarily tampered with by an ISP. I find it bizarre that ISPs should be seen as information service providers. They provide infrastructure. Period.

Whether or not said infrastructure should be classified as a utlity and enforced by the FCC by Title II classification or not is another question. I have yet to see a specific explanaion about what it is about Title II that makes it so egregious. Just political buzzword fluff about "burdensome heavy handed 1930's regulation".

It sounds good in a pressrelease and when posturing politically against "Ebil Red Tape Big Guvmint Sochulizm" but means nothing without detailing exatly what the problem is. If anyone has done that, they are abysmally bad at communicating it.

Even Comcast and Verizon pinky-promise not to block or throttle content and say "we want laws from Congress that sets Net Neutrality rules". I agree with that in the long run. I disagree with removing Net Neutrality rules, imperfect as they may be, until Congress have gotten their shit together. Cause we all know how good they are at getting their shit together.

Does this make me a socialist?

 

[jaF0]

Whether or not said infrastructure should be classified as a utlity and enforced by the FCC by Title II classification or not is another question.

It already is in many cases.

All DSL service is over POTS telephone lines. I'm not sure if cable television lines are under FCC as a utility or not. Many electric utilities offer some version of internet access over power lines, so those are already regulated. I'm not sure if Cell service is considered a utility as such, but it's all radio so the FCC has that.. As far as I know, the only 'open' systems are those run solely for ISPs such as G's fiber Gigabit service. The various WISPs may not be utilities, but again, it's all radio, so the FCC is in their face also..


But this is where breaking up companies like G and Amazon come into play. ALL of their data and web backbone portions should be broken off and put under regulation. AMZ handles an awful lot of web traffic and I'm not at all comfortable with them having so much access to personal information. Then you have the other backbone providers like Level 3 that operate in the wild.

 

[Luk]

https://i.imgur.com/bJMCV3s.png?2

 

[Liar]

But this is where breaking up companies like G and Amazon come into play. ALL of their data and web backbone portions should be broken off and put under regulation. AMZ handles an awful lot of web traffic and I'm not at all comfortable with them having so much access to personal information. Then you have the other backbone providers like Level 3 that operate in the wild.

Agreed. Google and Amazon to mention two, have infrastructure parts and content/service parts. Same way that Verizon is both an ISP and has a content vertical. The proportions are different, but the same principles should apply. Not sure if ether company needs to be broken up though. One can regulate an activity alone.

Infrastructure is infrastructure, whether it's backbone or end point, whether it's a complimentary part of a larger business or it's main activity, and should adhere to the same principles.

It's funny though how Title II is painted as de facto terrible for ISPs, while Google, an end point ISP in it's own right, seem to have no issue with it.

 

[DooleyDarter]

I want to know what Al Gore thinks, he invented all of this internet stuff.