Saving Net Neutrality

BotanyBoy said:

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

Click to expand...

So, I have the services I want now. Without Net Neutrality, I won't... but you act like I'm going to have something better, yet you're admitting that I will have less options and less choice.

Sounds like you're sucking that corporate cock again.

BotanyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except that they lobbied to get those services removed... I will now have no recourse.

You're ok with that, because you are a slave to capitalism.

BotanyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the problem, has never been the problem, and isn't ever going ot be the problem.

The problem, is that without net neutrality, ISPs can dictate what I get... and if they don't want to provide me with it, they don't have to, legally.

Again, you're ok with that... Most people aren't.

If an ISP doesn't want you to have access to the VA website, they don't have to, unless Net Neutrality is in place.

Is they want to throttle your High Times access, they can legally.

If someone wants ban whatever capitalist websites you view, now they can.


You're still not showing how ending Net Neutrality gives anyone more choice, because you KNOW that it doesn't.

richard_daily said:

So, I have the services I want now. Without Net Neutrality, I won't... but you act like I'm going to have something better, yet you're admitting that I will have less options and less choice.

Sounds like you're sucking that corporate cock again.

Click to expand...

Well, then you'll save on not paying for internet then.

You might, but I doubt it with crony Chicago.

Being liberal, pro-liberty and thus capitalist, doesn't make me sucking corporate cock.

richard_daily said:

Except that they lobbied to get those services removed... I will now have no recourse.You're ok with that, because you are a slave to capitalism.

Click to expand...

No, they lobbied to be able to charge for those services.

ISP's are not wanting to end access to the internet no matter how much fear mongering Kool-Aid you've been chugging. They WANT to sell services.

I'm ok with that because I'm ideologically in favor of freedom and liberty.

richard_daily said:

The problem, is that without net neutrality, ISPs can dictate what I get... and if they don't want to provide me with it, they don't have to, legally.

Again, you're ok with that... Most people aren't.

Click to expand...

OMG you mean they will get to negotiate the terms of their service without the government telling them how?

OH THE HORROR!!!

Clearly....look at all the lemmings out there, (R) and (D) alike desperate for the Federal God State Gubbmint to tell them what to do, how to do it and even how to think. DESPERATE.

richard_daily said:

If an ISP doesn't want you to have access to the VA website, they don't have to, unless Net Neutrality is in place.

Is they want to throttle your High Times access, they can legally.

If someone wants ban whatever capitalist websites you view, now they can.

Click to expand...

But because they want to make money instead of crashing their companies and the entire industry to back up (D) fear mongers, they probably wont.

richard_daily said:

You're still not showing how ending Net Neutrality gives anyone more choice, because you KNOW that it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I did, I think more service options = more consumer choice.

You seem to think government limiting service options = more consumer choice.

It's almost a direct reflection of my thinking the voluntary exchange of goods and services on an open/free market = freedom and you think totalitarian state control over the distribution of goods and services and the means of production = freedom.

I'm a liberal, a right wing capitalist.

You're deep left wing...by all appearances a big fan of the uber state and highly socialistic.

Neither of us is going to change our minds.

I'm of a mixed mind on this.

I have DirectTV and occasionally they get in a pissing contest with some channels and the channels are deleted for a while. If the analogy of cable/satellite tv is apt to the internet, then it seems the ISPs should have the same flexibility the tv providers do.

On the other hand, the internet was created by, and initially developed by the government at the expense of the tax payers. We should get something for that investment.


It sure seems that the tax payers pay to develop or invent something, then have to pay again to use it.

这个决定有很多悲伤。 互联网最初希望以平等的方式提供给所有人。 今天，人们担心互联网将成为最有利于富人和最靠近电信市场的人。

BotanyBoy said:

But because they want to make money instead of crashing their companies and the entire industry to back up (D) fear mongers, they probably wont.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that it would not be in Verizon's financial interrest to prioritize traffic from a video service owned by Verizon? Are you saying doing so would crash Verizon and the entire industry? Your words.

Liar said:

Are you saying that it would not be in Verizon's financial interrest to prioritize traffic from a video service owned by Verizon? Are you saying doing so would crash Verizon and the entire industry? Your words.

Click to expand...

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.

although how I can see how kitchen look a bit like corporate extortion when the ISP charges Netflix because they are using that is peace highway to get to their Mutual customer. Let's assume for the sake of discussion though the net neutrality is dead and is be successfully twist Netflix arm and get some money out of Netflix do you imagine that shortly after net neutrality is brought back by a future Democrat Administration that Netflix is then going to drop their subscriber fees because they've saved the money that they were using to deliver that content?

there are two parts to any particular digital stream there's the person requesting it and the person pushing it from the other stream it's not at all unreasonable for an ISP to decide in their business model that they're going to charge both people on each end of that stream whatever they think the market will bear.

your example above with stray into antitrust territory when there are actual conflicts of interest in self-dealing. In those instances there's a whole different tool box that fits could use.

My question was to BB who said that the ISP probably wouldn't do it because it wouldn't make them money and risk "crashing" them. I assume he meant because of bad PR... or something?

Not whether or not it was a problem. You're right that it might fall into antitrust territory.

Or consumer protection territory, depending on how well the ISP have made it clear to it's clustomers that they reserve the right to arbitrarily trhottle.

Que said:

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.

although how I can see how kitchen look a bit like corporate extortion when the ISP charges Netflix because they are using that is peace highway to get to their Mutual customer. Let's assume for the sake of discussion though the net neutrality is dead and is be successfully twist Netflix arm and get some money out of Netflix do you imagine that shortly after net neutrality is brought back by a future Democrat Administration that Netflix is then going to drop their subscriber fees because they've saved the money that they were using to deliver that content?

there are two parts to any particular digital stream there's the person requesting it and the person pushing it from the other stream it's not at all unreasonable for an ISP to decide in their business model that they're going to charge both people on each end of that stream whatever they think the market will bear.

your example above with stray into antitrust territory when there are actual conflicts of interest in self-dealing. In those instances there's a whole different tool box that fits could use.

Click to expand...

You don't need to use a search engine to have the internet function.

You do have to have an ISP.

richard_daily said:

You don't need to use a search engine to have the internet function.

You do have to have an ISP.

Click to expand...

There are also competing search engines readily available. Yeah I know, Bing sucks. But it's undeniably there.

Unless your ISP blocks them, that is.

Liar said:

My question was to BB who said that the ISP probably wouldn't do it because it wouldn't make them money and risk "crashing" them. I assume he meant because of bad PR... or something?

Not whether or not it was a problem. You're right that it might fall into antitrust territory.

Or consumer protection territory, depending on how well the ISP have made it clear to it's clustomers that they reserve the right to arbitrarily trhottle.

Click to expand...

the thing that I don't like about the purported problem is it does seem pretty egregious for companies to be able to extort money out of third parties that are really not a party to the contract that they have.

some of it would depend as you say on how it's disclosed to Consumers and the language that you use to Camry out agreements with the high-volume providers. If you structured it's such that the consumer gets a couple of lanes of traffic and that's all depending upon how many consumers happen to be in those two lanes doing whatever it is they're doing and you have this express lane on the side that you provide to the person pushing the content at cost to them and at theoretically no cost to the consumer. The reality is still just charge both

Liar said:

There are also competing search engines readily available. Yeah I know, Bing sucks. But it's undeniably there.

Unless your ISP blocks them, that is.

Click to expand...

Just Duck it!!

it occurs to me that what is going to happen with landline based isps is already happening with phone based internet providers.

for whatever reason consumer seem to intuitively understand that they are not going to get absolutely unfettered perfect stream all the time on their phone they have come to expect from time to time there are slo periods that they're throttle back because the number users on that particular Tower at that period. when you have hard-wired internet service you've come to expect it to be reliable and fast all of the time. In the future that's not always going to be possible there are some upper limits to what when you have hard-wired internet service you've come to expect it to be reliable and fast all of the time. In the future that's not always going to be possible there are some upper limits to what can be provided to how many consumers.

what phone companies are already doing is offering various streaming services in their packages saying that those do not count against your data limits before you personally are throttled back. The isps will probably do the same thing they will offer a net flick package or a whatever package. it will be cold branded or it will be some sort of affinity program or it will be a solely owned subsidiary. And again back to the possible antitrust issues.

The repeal today includes simply moving all block/throttling prohibition/enforcement issues back under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, exactly where those issues were before Obama ordered the FCC to Title II the Internet in 2015. Why would anyone imagine those issues won't be effectively dealt with by the FTC?

https://www.rt.com/news/412966-egypt-banana-shyma-singer/

埃及香蕉吸吮视频会不会中断吗？

BobBalouski said:

The repeal today includes simply moving all block/throttling prohibition/enforcement issues back under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, exactly where those issues were before Obama ordered the FCC to Title II the Internet in 2015. Why would anyone imagine those issues won't be effectively dealt with by the FTC?

Click to expand...

Because they weren't and that's why the desicion to move to Title II classification was made?

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Some lawsuit was involved iirc. But that's the abridged version.

Amoebah said:

https://www.rt.com/news/412966-egypt-banana-shyma-singer/

埃及香蕉吸吮视频会不会中断吗？

Click to expand...

说英语，娘。

Liar said:

Because they weren't and that's why the desicion to move to Title II classification was made?

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Some lawsuit was involved iirc. But that's the abridged version.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they were, and every throttling case that's gone before the courts, whether under pre-2015 FTC jurisdiction or post-2015 FCC Title II jurisdiction proves decisions depend upon how a court politically considers the (the recent AT&T same court decision reversal in a matter of months being a perfect example), just as how this entire issue has become political, just as American politics has become totally partisan in total.

On the universal political scale, individual liberty anchors one end and socialism the other. Every individual's politics, whatever the individual political issue, is weighed upon that perpetually immutable scale. This issue is absolutely no exception because it all truly boils down to the very core of personal, partisan politics: whether one favors even more collective government control over the Internet, or whether one favors less collective government control over the Internet. It's no "more complicated than that."

Richard_P_Feynman said:

说英语，娘。

Click to expand...

很快，你将不得不说中文。 我正在帮你

Amoebah said:

很快，你将不得不说中文。 我正在帮你

Click to expand...

*忽视*

You two



得到一个房间

I can't believe the morons who are defending anti-net neutrality, it seems like they are pulling arguments out of their asses because anti-net neutrality must = anti-Obama.

AngeloMichael said:

I can't believe the morons who are defending anti-net neutrality, it seems like they are pulling arguments out of their asses because anti-net neutrality must = anti-Obama.

Click to expand...

The current administration and congress are hell bent on EVERYTHING Anti-Obama.

Its fucking ridiculous.

BobBalouski said:

Except for the fact that they were, and every throttling case that's gone before the courts, whether under pre-2015 FTC jurisdiction or post-2015 FCC Title II jurisdiction proves decisions depend upon how a court politically considers the (the recent AT&T same court decision reversal in a matter of months being a perfect example), just as how this entire issue has become political, just as American politics has become totally partisan in total.

On the universal political scale, individual liberty anchors one end and socialism the other. Every individual's politics, whatever the individual political issue, is weighed upon that perpetually immutable scale. This issue is absolutely no exception because it all truly boils down to the very core of personal, partisan politics: whether one favors even more collective government control over the Internet, or whether one favors less collective government control over the Internet. It's no "more complicated than that."

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Net Neutrality was a non-problem in search of a solution............still is.

preesa said:

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

But I'm perplexed by the arguments that anti-net neutrality is about promoting freedom and liberty and American values.

Click to expand...

False meme's.

It's a pay per bandwidth business for everyone not a content provider and it's the backbone carriers that set the rates, AND, quite frankly, they don't give a rat's ass as to whose bits are flowing through their cables.............you just pay per gigabit.

Some ISP's are also backbone entities, and if they want to gouge the customer they're just opening the door to competition.

Liar said:

Are you saying that it would not be in Verizon's financial interrest to prioritize traffic from a video service owned by Verizon? Are you saying doing so would crash Verizon and the entire industry? Your words.

Click to expand...

No I'm saying it would be in Verizon's financial interest to sell service instead of playing the corporate boogie man for all the "Net neutrality is a civil right!!! If we lose it the only thing we'll ever see on the internet again is the Trump re-election site." idiots fear mongering bull.

That if it were anywhere near as bad as what they claim then the industry will shit the bed....but thankfully the ISP's want to make money so it's far more likely they will sell access, not block it.

But you know....Hitler and the Nazis!! Totally took away everyones right to internet today.