Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:21 pm

Tongue in cheek headline, but in all seriousness, other than perhaps the Right's "death tax", has there ever been a policy so self-evidently self-serving that its advocates had to rely on clever marketing to pretend otherwise? After all, who could be against "neutrality"? Neutrality is great...right?

Except did you ever notice that the loudest advocates of net neutrality are all heavy bandwidth users, and that Net Neutrality rallies are always, ALWAYS concentrated on the web? Have you ever seen, even one time, say, a Net Neutrality rally in the streets of a major city? No? Weird, isn't it?

http://theweek.com/articles/743365/net-neutrality-dead-good-riddance

Indeed, from Teen Vogue to The Washington Post to GameInformer.com, liberal opinion is united in its support of net neutrality. But on its face, net neutrality is absurd. The idea that internet service providers should be forced to provide unlimited access to content transmitted indiscriminately whether it is old episodes of Sesame Street, pornographic videos of simulated rape, or a column at The Week, makes as much sense as saying that a brewing company should be able to suck up all the water in a river so long as people like drinking it. We do not force bookstores to stock certain volumes or restaurants to prepare every conceivable dish. The prospect of a segregated internet in which much of the crap now gumming up the works remains legal but available only to those willing to pay a premium to access it is a welcome one.


And that right there is the crux of the issue. Net Neutrality advocates want others to subsidize their unlimited bandwidth under the monniker of "Internet freedom". Would anyone be so brazen as to suggest others subsidize their heavy driving habits by insisting upon a set monthly rate for gasoline? Their heavy drinking habits by insisting upon a set monthly rate for alcohol? Or even more specifically, that premium channels like HBO all instantly become "free" because hey, it's not fair we don't have "TV freedom" or "TV neutrality"? And yet, we see this kind of behavior all the time from Net Neutrality advocates, who have to disguise their selfishness as an opposition to ISPs and corporate greed.

Except....

By placing companies like Comcast and Verizon under Title 2 regulations and treating them like utilities, Net Neutrality advocates are the biggest advocates of Comcast and Verizon that the world has ever seen! When was the last time your local water utility or power utility company felt like it had to compete or demonstrated some game changing innovation? If you answered never, then congrats because that's the new standard that Net Neutrality advocates have been creating for the Comcasts and Verizons of the world. So when they accuse others of being in the pocket of ISPs, point out to them that Title 2 regulations effectively shield Comcast and Verizon from effective competition for pretty much...forever.

Speaking of corporate shills, is anyone a bigger corporate shill than a Net Neutrality advocate? Do they even pretend otherwise at this point? After all, their talking points are identical to Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Netflix's talking points, aren't they? Why would Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Netflix want unlimited subsidized bandwidth? Hmm....it's a real head scratcher.... :scratchchin:

So we've got some of the most profitable corporations in the entire world, who also happen to be amongst the heaviest bandwidth users in the entire world. But rather than acknowledge that unlimited streaming capabilities isn't a "thing" (because infrastructure costs money), they've decided to enlist the help of Net Neutrality advocates to shill for them to insist ISPs provide them unlimited subsidized bandwidth. C'mon, you must be exaggerating? Is Net Neutrality really just a means for wealthy bandwidth users and corporations to help themselves to unlimited bandwidth that gets subsidized by everyone else?

Actually, yep, pretty much. But don't take my word for it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/#6c248b651c4d

The story begins back in March, when the strictly legal debate over the FCC’s limited authority over broadband ISPs first turned toxic with inflammatory statements from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on the company’s blog.
The 2010 rules, even if reinstated, were too “weak,” Hastings wrote. “A stronger form of net neutrality is required,” he insisted, to “prevent ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix” and other dominant content providers. To protect the Internet, he wrote, the FCC must force ISPS to provide Netflix “sufficient access to their network without charge.”


Poor Netflix. It's too bad they're struggling to make ends meet these days. Good things they've enlisted an army of "Net Neutrality" advocates (who totally, totally AREN'T corporate shills) to do their bidding. Once combined, they dress up their selfishness under clever marketing slogans so nobody has to think too hard about the issue...brilliant! Net Neutrality has always been a sham by self-serving parties. You'd expect that from a company like Netflix or Facebook though. What's sadder is the Net Neutrality advocate that becomes a corporate toadie simply because they don't want to pay slightly more a month to download and stream old episodes of "Party of Five" all day long.

Really?!? Yes...really.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent

Ajit Pai and the FCC want it to be legal for Comcast to block BitTorrent.
This is what happens when you’re honest about killing net neutrality


Yes folks, if Net Neutrality goes away, one day the poor folks who download porn through BitTorrent all day long might actually have to pay for the luxury of doing so! The horrors!

In all seriousness, what we need is competition. Perhaps some anti-trust action against Comcast, Verizon and the like is appropriate. So let's look into that!

But it looks like we've now gone back to that horrible, horrible time of the pre-Net Neutrality days...all the way back to....2015. Yep, 2 years ago....when your Internet was fine and the world didn't end.
Net Neutrality is dead. And let's hope it stays that way.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:34 pm

It makes sense heavy bandwidth users are louder complainers, because they use the service the most. Interestingly, while annoying, net neutrality rules never prevented ISPs from charging overages or implementing data caps. So that point is a red herring. Net neutrality laws weren't needed before 2015 the way there was no seat belt laws during the Civil War. ISPs abused their position and people rightfully saw need for regulation to correct potential future abuse.

This is just the anti-consumer protection right-wing using the bully pulpit of conservative "not-the MSM" media to do the bidding of their masters. Comcast thanks you...and will raise your bill to express their gratitude.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:17 pm

N867DA wrote:
It makes sense heavy bandwidth users are louder complainers, because they use the service the most. Interestingly, while annoying, net neutrality rules never prevented ISPs from charging overages or implementing data caps. So that point is a red herring. Net neutrality laws weren't needed before 2015 the way there was no seat belt laws during the Civil War. ISPs abused their position and people rightfully saw need for regulation to correct potential future abuse.

This is just the anti-consumer protection right-wing using the bully pulpit of conservative "not-the MSM" media to do the bidding of their masters. Comcast thanks you...and will raise your bill to express their gratitude.


Your arguments amount to the very things I already disproved in my initial post, so thanks for implicitly acknowledging how shallow the arguments for Net Neutrality really are.

In all seriousness, I used to be pretty on the fence on the topic. But I can sincerely say that Net Neutrality was the one subject where the more that friends of mine tried to make the case for it, the more I realized how terrible those arguments were. Normally you become more sympathetic to an argument when its proponents make a case for it. In the case for Net Neutrality, it's always been the opposite for me. It's such a transparently obvious case of self-serving bullsh*t dressed up in faux moral righteousness that the more its proponents talked, the more turned off by those arguments I became.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a movement that wants it and its favored corporations (ie Netflix, Youtube, etc) to be given carte blanche to unlimited bandwidth/services at no additional expense for the simple reason that they feel entitled to it. That's a pretty untenable position which requires a lot of misdirection.
Last edited by FreequentFlier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
csavel
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:19 pm

The real danger of net neutrality is that an ISP can make a deal with a company to allow faster downloads, for instance Comcast can allow hulu on the fast lane and throttle netflix. So for the consumer netflix will become unwatchable. And since in most places in the US, you really have little choice about what ISP to use, it isn't like you can switch companies.

As N867DA says, it isn't about hogs downloading netflix and not paying for it, it is about your ISP deciding what you can and can't view and at what speeds. Imagine Whatsapp or skype being blocked because Verizon will allow you to use ONLY verizon for Internet calling, or barring that, charging whatsapp or skype a pretty penny to use their cable - or be throttled back to 1996. Net Neutrality wouldn't be as big a deal if you could switch to anohter ISP - which is almost impossible in the US.

Here is an example of how losing Net Neutrality worked in Portugal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neut ... cc-2017-11
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
af773atmsp
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:32 pm

I hate how people think it will kill the internet and the end of the world is near, but I also think it's stupid to kill net neutrality. Gotta stick up for the big companies I guess, but like I said it won't be the internet apocalypse.
DC10-40,MD88,A319,A320,A332,717,722,733,737,738,752,ATR-72,736,788
SY,DL,FI,FL,BA,EI,NW,MG,DY,EZY,F9,WN,SN,ET,SK
Too many airports to fit in signature.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:34 pm

csavel wrote:
The real danger of net neutrality is that an ISP can make a deal with a company to allow faster downloads, for instance Comcast can allow hulu on the fast lane and throttle netflix. So for the consumer netflix will become unwatchable. And since in most places in the US, you really have little choice about what ISP to use, it isn't like you can switch companies.

As N867DA says, it isn't about hogs downloading netflix and not paying for it, it is about your ISP deciding what you can and can't view and at what speeds. Imagine Whatsapp or skype being blocked because Verizon will allow you to use ONLY verizon for Internet calling, or barring that, charging whatsapp or skype a pretty penny to use their cable - or be throttled back to 1996. Net Neutrality wouldn't be as big a deal if you could switch to anohter ISP - which is almost impossible in the US.

Here is an example of how losing Net Neutrality worked in Portugal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neut ... cc-2017-11


What you are arguing for in your initial paragraph is more broadband competition then, not Net Neutrality.

What you are arguing for in your second and third paragraphs is a perfect example of what I mean when I say I become less sympathetic to Net Neutrality when its proponents make their arguments. What is happening in Portugal is....bundling, which is an offering I and many others would love to have! Just like I can currently choose to have HBO or NFL Network today (or not), it certainly would not be the worst thing in the world (and actually would be preferred!) if I could pay for products I wanted, and didn't have to pay for products I didn't want.

Your Portugal example is a perfect example of Net Neutrality advocates implicitly acknowledging that Net Neutrality is a means of everyone else subsidizing their heavy bandwidth use. Not everyone wants that HBO/NFL Network packages, but Net Neutrality advocates want to force everyone else to sign up for the Internet equivalent. Why? Not because of "neutrality" or "internet freedom", but because the Net Neutrality advocates want the equivalent of the HBO/NFL Network package, and they want everyone else to pay for it.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:44 pm

:checkmark:

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can’t prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 pm

When you make a topic something it is not to hide your intentions.

Bandwidth and amount of data transferred is not related to net neutrality. An ISP can and could always offer contracts limiting the bandwidth or the data amount, now they can additional decide which data is transferred with which speed. So your ISP has a partnership with netflix and this streaming service works with full speed while others like youtube or Amazon Video are slowed down to make them less attractive or even unusable.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:05 pm

Dutchy wrote:
:checkmark:

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can’t prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.


People have been charged more for decades to access premium channels like HBO, NFL Network or Showtime.

By Net Neutrality logic, this is tyranny.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:08 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
:checkmark:

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can’t prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.


People have been charged more for decades to access premium channels like HBO, NFL Network or Showtime.

By Net Neutrality logic, this is tyranny.


It is all about competition. How easy is it for a newcomer to access the cable?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:15 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
:checkmark:

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can’t prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.


People have been charged more for decades to access premium channels like HBO, NFL Network or Showtime.

By Net Neutrality logic, this is tyranny.


Your example is wrong. Going by your example it would be like the cable provider working with HBO would offer that in HD quality and reduce all other premium channels to SD.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:40 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
By placing companies like Comcast and Verizon under Title 2 regulations and treating them like utilities, Net Neutrality advocates are the biggest advocates of Comcast and Verizon that the world has ever seen! When was the last time your local water utility or power utility company felt like it had to compete or demonstrated some game changing innovation? If you answered never, then congrats because that's the new standard that Net Neutrality advocates have been creating for the Comcasts and Verizons of the world. So when they accuse others of being in the pocket of ISPs, point out to them that Title 2 regulations effectively shield Comcast and Verizon from effective competition for pretty much...forever.


I think this is a very good argument FOR net neutrality.

I am not a gamer. I do have a Hulu subscription that I watch through Roku when I am bored. I would say I use less than average bandwidth. Treating Comcast and Verizon and others like utilities, beholden to us and not shareholders, makes things better.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technol ... index.html

The only real "innovation" that electric companies have is putting power lines under ground. The only real "innovation" water companies have is composite or flexible pipes. Internet is a whole different field but something we all use and benefit from.

I am all for net neutrality because I want to see the benefits from R&D. I want fast, reliable fiber optics everywhere. There are side benefits that I can not even think of right now without enough coffee that come with net neutrality. Without NN, the internet becomes a way for companies to milk us all for cash because they can. Without NN, why should smaller companies bother with researching or helping make communities better? It would cost too much. Verizon, Comcast, et al. don't want to do it because ideas cost too much and take away money from shareholders. It is just a bad idea to kill net neutrality.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:48 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
:checkmark:

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can’t prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.


People have been charged more for decades to access premium channels like HBO, NFL Network or Showtime.

By Net Neutrality logic, this is tyranny.


There are a couple of problems:

Cable is a whole different animal.
HBO, Showtime, and NFL offer streaming to laptops, computers, and mobile devices for a price. This is where NN comes in, not cable in general.

Without net neutrality, ISP like Comcast, can slow access to HBO, Showtime, or NFL Network. They can limit the internet bandwidth. People will get fed up with have slow or no access to those sites and go back to watching them on regular TV where the cable company can charge whatever they want.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:29 pm

seb146 wrote:
Without net neutrality, ISP like Comcast, can slow access to HBO, Showtime, or NFL Network. They can limit the internet bandwidth. People will get fed up with have slow or no access to those sites and go back to watching them on regular TV where the cable company can charge whatever they want.


They can. But they won't. The streaming content ship sailed years ago. Customers will not accept an ISP that throttles their streaming content. The ISPs know that, which is why all of the major telecos announced last week that they have no intention of throttling anyone.

Furthermore, you have some wireless telecos exempting streaming content and even including it in their packages. This has always been a totally unfounded fear.

Dutchy wrote:
It is all about competition. How easy is it for a newcomer to access the cable?


Who says they need to? Cable isn't the only way to deliver data. And if content providers are stuck using cable to reach certain customers, they should invent a way to use less bandwidth.

Title II reclassification was always the brute-force, anti-innovation, anti-competition way to solve a non-existent problem.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:52 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Tongue in cheek


I'd prefer you choke on it.

This is not a good move.
This allows providers to decide that your IP packets don't have to go anywhere. just drop them.
This allows providers to place resources into unreachable black holes ( even if just because your competitor paid more money
for his traffic or specifically to dump your traffic.)
A tool booth at every road intersection and denied access under an umbrella of not paid to we don't like your face would be the equivalent.

I you like that I would gift you a timeline traversal ticket to 1984.
Murphy is an optimist
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8278
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:09 pm

The issue is not treating all content same. The issue is providing the promised last mile service.

At the time AT&T blocked FaceTime, I was on a 20 GB/month Mobile Share Value plan and I was hardly using less than 10GB/month. What right AT&T has to block an app as long as I am within my quota limits.

Same with home internet service, I have a 100 GB internet connection. Why should my ISP throttle any content? Whether four people watch Youtube, Hulu, NetFlix all the time or I put a 100GB file copy in a loop, irrelevant to ISP.

I understand people are spoiled watching videos on mobile devices all the time, that is their personal choice.
All posts are just opinions.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
Tongue in cheek


I'd prefer you choke on it.

This is not a good move.
This allows providers to decide that your IP packets don't have to go anywhere. just drop them.
This allows providers to place resources into unreachable black holes ( even if just because your competitor paid more money
for his traffic or specifically to dump your traffic.)
A tool booth at every road intersection and denied access under an umbrella of not paid to we don't like your face would be the equivalent.

I you like that I would gift you a timeline traversal ticket to 1984.


In other words, we're returning to the pre Net Neutrality Internet regime of....2015, which was apparently a dystopian totalitarian nightmare.

I see we've reached the hysterical shrieking stage of this debate.

Do Net Neutrality advocates have any good arguments at all? Seriously, even a single one?

They always fall into 3 buckets:
1) trying to dishonestly and disingenuously justify why they (or Netflix) should be continuously subsidized by others via unlimited bandwidth.
2) something something "you're a paid shill for Comcast" something something. (Even as they push title 2 regs which cement Comcast as a natural monopoly utility immune from competition forever)
3) something something "this will be a dystopian nightmare" something something. (Even though there was no Net Neutrality for decades up until...2 years ago, and yet the Internet survived and thrived)

Seriously, those are the 3 types of arguments that Net Neutrality advocates always make. And they are all TERRIBLE arguments.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:20 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
The issue is not treating all content same. The issue is providing the promised last mile service.

At the time AT&T blocked FaceTime, I was on a 20 GB/month Mobile Share Value plan and I was hardly using less than 10GB/month. What right AT&T has to block an app as long as I am within my quota limits.

Same with home internet service, I have a 100 GB internet connection. Why should my ISP throttle any content? Whether four people watch Youtube, Hulu, NetFlix all the time or I put a 100GB file copy in a loop, irrelevant to ISP.

I understand people are spoiled watching videos on mobile devices all the time, that is their personal choice.


For the same reason you are not "entitled" to unlimited gas for your car, or unlimimited beer on the weekend, or HBO, or Showtime, or NFL Network, or NBA network, or NHL network, etc, etc.

You are trying to justify your entitlement and as usually the case when I debate with Net Neutrality advocates, it demonstrates (yet again) that at the end of the day, the "argument" for Net Neutrality is just disingenuous blathering for selfishness, and why the laws of economics (which apply to everything else) shouldn't apply to the Internet, because there is a very loud and obnoxious contingent of heavy internet users who feel entitled to unlimited bandwidth without conditions.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:45 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
N867DA wrote:
It makes sense heavy bandwidth users are louder complainers, because they use the service the most. Interestingly, while annoying, net neutrality rules never prevented ISPs from charging overages or implementing data caps. So that point is a red herring. Net neutrality laws weren't needed before 2015 the way there was no seat belt laws during the Civil War. ISPs abused their position and people rightfully saw need for regulation to correct potential future abuse.

This is just the anti-consumer protection right-wing using the bully pulpit of conservative "not-the MSM" media to do the bidding of their masters. Comcast thanks you...and will raise your bill to express their gratitude.


Your arguments amount to the very things I already disproved in my initial post, so thanks for implicitly acknowledging how shallow the arguments for Net Neutrality really are.

In all seriousness, I used to be pretty on the fence on the topic. But I can sincerely say that Net Neutrality was the one subject where the more that friends of mine tried to make the case for it, the more I realized how terrible those arguments were. Normally you become more sympathetic to an argument when its proponents make a case for it. In the case for Net Neutrality, it's always been the opposite for me. It's such a transparently obvious case of self-serving bullsh*t dressed up in faux moral righteousness that the more its proponents talked, the more turned off by those arguments I became.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a movement that wants it and its favored corporations (ie Netflix, Youtube, etc) to be given carte blanche to unlimited bandwidth/services at no additional expense for the simple reason that they feel entitled to it. That's a pretty untenable position which requires a lot of misdirection.



Not really.

You didn't address any of the concerns raised; you provided a poor analogy and peppered in a few insults.

No one is against making heavy users of ISP networks pay more. This already exists--Netflix pays Comcast for their heavy usage, and many ISPs charge end users if they exceed a cap. All legal. What shouldn't be legal is if an ISP has the power to determine which content providers end users can use. When the internet was in its early days this wasn't something that could be monetized, but around 2010 ISPs started to do it...hence why a law was thought to be needed. In a post Net Neutrality world ISPs have the power to do this, but promise not to. Riiiight. It seems you don't understand what net neutrality is.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8278
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
For the same reason you are not "entitled" to unlimited gas for your car, or unlimimited beer on the weekend, or HBO, or Showtime, or NFL Network, or NBA network, or NHL network, etc, etc.

You are trying to justify your entitlement and as usually the case when I debate with Net Neutrality advocates, it demonstrates (yet again) that at the end of the day, the "argument" for Net Neutrality is just disingenuous blathering for selfishness, and why the laws of economics (which apply to everything else) shouldn't apply to the Internet, because there is a very loud and obnoxious contingent of heavy internet users who feel entitled to unlimited bandwidth without conditions.


What do you mean by entitled? Asking the service I paid for is an entitlement?

I was paying $170 for two phones unlimited talk, text and 20 GB data because I was on a contract. Using 20GB is an entitlement.
I am paying for HBO, watching it is an entitlement?
I am paying for 100 GB connection, using it an entitlement?

There is no free lunch in this country.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:59 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
The issue is not treating all content same. The issue is providing the promised last mile service.

At the time AT&T blocked FaceTime, I was on a 20 GB/month Mobile Share Value plan and I was hardly using less than 10GB/month. What right AT&T has to block an app as long as I am within my quota limits.

Same with home internet service, I have a 100 GB internet connection. Why should my ISP throttle any content? Whether four people watch Youtube, Hulu, NetFlix all the time or I put a 100GB file copy in a loop, irrelevant to ISP.

I understand people are spoiled watching videos on mobile devices all the time, that is their personal choice.


For the same reason you are not "entitled" to unlimited gas for your car, or unlimimited beer on the weekend, or HBO, or Showtime, or NFL Network, or NBA network, or NHL network, etc, etc.

You are trying to justify your entitlement and as usually the case when I debate with Net Neutrality advocates, it demonstrates (yet again) that at the end of the day, the "argument" for Net Neutrality is just disingenuous blathering for selfishness, and why the laws of economics (which apply to everything else) shouldn't apply to the Internet, because there is a very loud and obnoxious contingent of heavy internet users who feel entitled to unlimited bandwidth without conditions.


But if a customer is paying for 1T speed but gets 15G speed 10 days into the month because some point somewhere buried deep in the contract? "Companies can but they won't" yeah right. Like that has ever come true....
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13031
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:58 pm

ISPs want net neutrality gone to make more money, not less. Internet access in the US is already outrageously expensive, 5 times what I pay. If you think prices will go down, I've got a bridge to sell you.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:06 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:

For the same reason you are not "entitled" to unlimited gas for your car, or unlimimited beer on the weekend, or HBO, or Showtime, or NFL Network, or NBA network, or NHL network, etc, etc.


This is an incorrect analogy. I am not entitled to unlimited gas for my car. I am, however, entitled to choose which quality of gas I want. Perhaps I have a high-performance car which needs high-performance gas in order to function at its best. I pay more for that gas, and then I am entitled to use that gas to move my car on whichever roads I choose until the tank runs dry, at which point I must purchase more. The gas station has no right to, in exchange for selling me gas, reprogram my car's engine computer to make it run as if I were buying lower-quality gas on the highways the gas station does not have a partnership with.

I pay for a certain speed of access to the internet. I am entitled to use that speed for whatever content I'd like. If I need more speed, I must pay more. There's nothing wrong with that. Where it becomes wrong is when ISPs tell me what content I can use that speed for, and for what content I must accept a slower speed than I paid for.

This wouldn't be as big of an issue if there were lots of competition in the ISP arena, or if ISPs weren't also content creators with services that directly compete against standalone entities. Unfortunately, neither of those are the case, and thus the government must step in to ensure fair competition.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:09 pm

N867DA wrote:
No one is against making heavy users of ISP networks pay more. This already exists--Netflix pays Comcast for their heavy usage, and many ISPs charge end users if they exceed a cap. All legal. What shouldn't be legal is if an ISP has the power to determine which content providers end users can use. When the internet was in its early days this wasn't something that could be monetized, but around 2010 ISPs started to do it...hence why a law was thought to be needed. In a post Net Neutrality world ISPs have the power to do this, but promise not to. Riiiight. It seems you don't understand what net neutrality is.


Some people are - in fact - against making heavy data users pay more. I agree that pay-for-use is fair, but we shouldn't pretend nobody is arguing the contrary. One of the loudest voices for "net neutrality" was Netflix precisely because they didn't want to pay Comcast. They eventually caved.

I call total B.S. on ISP content blocking between 2010-2015. I've yet to meet a single person IRL who claims to have suffered content blocking by an ISP. That includes people who use bandwidth-heavy torrent services to download content that a.) violates copyright laws and b.) competes with premium content offered by the ISP. When nobody is cracking down on that, I'm extremely skeptical that anyone's FaceTIme or Hulu has been compromised by a devious ISP.

WIederling wrote:
I'd prefer you choke on it.


Wow, hoping someone chokes because they don't agree. Typical of the pro-net neutrality camp.

Here's why the doomsayers are totally nuts: we can change the regulations back. If repealing Title II results in lots of negative consequences, then the Communications Act of 1934 is still on the books and the FCC can simply restore Title II. Or, even better, we can pass legislation not crafted before WWII.

seb146 wrote:
The only real "innovation" that electric companies have is putting power lines under ground. The only real "innovation" water companies have is composite or flexible pipes. Internet is a whole different field but something we all use and benefit from.


Do you really think operating an electrical grid is simply a matter of putting "power lines under ground?" There are billions of dollars invested annually in capital equipment and R&D that goes into power generation, power distribution, grid storage, grid management, billing & metering, and so forth.

seb146 wrote:
I am all for net neutrality because I want to see the benefits from R&D. I want fast, reliable fiber optics everywhere. There are side benefits that I can not even think of right now without enough coffee that come with net neutrality. Without NN, the internet becomes a way for companies to milk us all for cash because they can.


And what do you propose if a new technology needs a fast-lane and preferential data treatment in order to be viable? Maybe some new technology like a self-driving car should get preferential treatment versus data going to my Nest thermostat. Title II would say tough luck.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:24 pm

Mir wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:

For the same reason you are not "entitled" to unlimited gas for your car, or unlimimited beer on the weekend, or HBO, or Showtime, or NFL Network, or NBA network, or NHL network, etc, etc.


This is an incorrect analogy. I am not entitled to unlimited gas for my car. I am, however, entitled to choose which quality of gas I want. Perhaps I have a high-performance car which needs high-performance gas in order to function at its best. I pay more for that gas, and then I am entitled to use that gas to move my car on whichever roads I choose until the tank runs dry, at which point I must purchase more. The gas station has no right to, in exchange for selling me gas, reprogram my car's engine computer to make it run as if I were buying lower-quality gas on the highways the gas station does not have a partnership with.

I pay for a certain speed of access to the internet. I am entitled to use that speed for whatever content I'd like. If I need more speed, I must pay more. There's nothing wrong with that. Where it becomes wrong is when ISPs tell me what content I can use that speed for, and for what content I must accept a slower speed than I paid for.

This wouldn't be as big of an issue if there were lots of competition in the ISP arena, or if ISPs weren't also content creators with services that directly compete against standalone entities. Unfortunately, neither of those are the case, and thus the government must step in to ensure fair competition.


The way to solve is injecting more competition into the marketplace, including anti trust actions against Comcast if necessary.

Net Neutrality just cements Comcast etc as quasi utilities with little competition forever.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:31 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
They can. But they won't. The streaming content ship sailed years ago. Customers will not accept an ISP that throttles their streaming content.
The ISPs know that, which is why all of the major telecos announced last week that they have no intention of throttling anyone.


This is where you are mistaken. Customers might not accept it but if they only have one ISP to choose from there isn't much they customer can do about it.
Even if they have more then one ISP to choose from it wouldn't make in difference since they all would do they same. Thus the ISPs can throttle without risk.
It is pretty much like the petrol companies in Sweden who have a cartel regarding fuel prices. When one company raises the price all other
also raises the price and thus efficiently eliminating any real competition,

Surely you are not so easily fooled that you believe what the major Tele companies are saying before any ruling?
It would be like shooting themselves in the foot if they admitted in advance that they would start to throttle internet connections.
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:40 pm

FreequentFlier you are utterly confused as to what net neutrality is. You confuse content creators/providers with the ISPs which are merely shippers of data. NN has nothing do do with bandwidth or total quantity of data a customer uses. It simply means that all data be treated the same.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8278
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:37 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
The way to solve is injecting more competition into the marketplace, including anti trust actions against Comcast if necessary.

Net Neutrality just cements Comcast etc as quasi utilities with little competition forever.


Right, how many mergers FCC and FTC blocked to keep competition alive?
All posts are just opinions.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:01 am

Honestly, while some factions of the media have convinced a whopping 17% of Americans that abolishing Net Neutrality is a good thing, there is bipartisan support to bringing back these rules and it's worth focusing effort on legislative fixes. This may be a good thing because then people who don't understand what Net Neutrality protects against will get a small taste of it before crying for it to be put back in force.

Even John Thune (R-ND), a man I seldom agree with, is in my camp on this.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/34 ... egislation

Congratulations, America--you played yourself.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:44 am

You can sum it all up like this.

Net Neutrality means that the internet companies need to keep adding capacity. If you want a highway with flee flowing traffic, add more lanes. If there are heavy trucks on the highway, build them extra lanes so the traffic all keeps moving quickly.

Killing net neutrality means cutting the lanes up and sectioning some off for those trucks, and charging them to use those lanes. The rest have to use the reduced number of lanes and traffic on those slows down or backs up.

All the charging for different service levels is just how the ISPs see profit by allowing you, the end user, to connect to these various lanes on the highway. It's their way of making you pay more for your service when they instead should be adding more capacity. You pay more for the same aggregate of service in the end.

That's why there is such opposition. The Internet was envisioned as a free-flowing data network without any choke points or service level reductions. Even data caps (monthly metered connections) would never encounter these constricted data pipes. You pay, you connect, you use.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:45 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
The way to solve is injecting more competition into the marketplace, including anti trust actions against Comcast if necessary.

Net Neutrality just cements Comcast etc as quasi utilities with little competition forever.


Right, how many mergers FCC and FTC blocked to keep competition alive?


Not enough, but that nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality cements the leading ISP's current oligopolistic position by treating them as public utilities.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:58 am

salttee wrote:
FreequentFlier you are utterly confused as to what net neutrality is. You confuse content creators/providers with the ISPs which are merely shippers of data. NN has nothing do do with bandwidth or total quantity of data a customer uses. It simply means that all data be treated the same.


But why? Your entire premise is completely flawed. Why MUST all content be treated the same? Is HBO treated the same as your other programming? No, it's better programming because you have to pay for it. That's how it works for literally every other sector of the economy, but for some reason the laws of economics are not supposed to apply to the Internet. There is nothing socially imperative about Netflix that requires that we as a society are necessitated to provide an unlimited means to streaming content.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:04 am

Channex757 wrote:
You can sum it all up like this.

Net Neutrality means that the internet companies need to keep adding capacity. If you want a highway with flee flowing traffic, add more lanes. If there are heavy trucks on the highway, build them extra lanes so the traffic all keeps moving quickly.

Killing net neutrality means cutting the lanes up and sectioning some off for those trucks, and charging them to use those lanes. The rest have to use the reduced number of lanes and traffic on those slows down or backs up.

All the charging for different service levels is just how the ISPs see profit by allowing you, the end user, to connect to these various lanes on the highway. It's their way of making you pay more for your service when they instead should be adding more capacity. You pay more for the same aggregate of service in the end.

That's why there is such opposition. The Internet was envisioned as a free-flowing data network without any choke points or service level reductions. Even data caps (monthly metered connections) would never encounter these constricted data pipes. You pay, you connect, you use.


By your analogy, we should also do away with HOV lanes since "all traffic should always be treated equally", regardless. In any case, the best way to ensure no additional "highway lanes" get constructed in your analogy would be to treat the construction companies that would build those lanes as public utilities since there would be little to no incentive to improve service if they were governed as a natural monopoly utility.

Which is precisely what Net Neutrality does to the Internet. In a little over a decade, you went from playing "Worm" and holding down the "1" key for several seconds to type a "C" into a text message, to downloading and streaming video content on your phone. That didn't happen because Apple was being regulated like a public utility.

Tell us all about the wonderful innovations your power company or water utility demonstrated during that time.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15113
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:11 am

The ISP's want a cut of the revenues of the massive ones of social media sites, streaming sites and other high-volume ones to in part cover their operating costs for carrying them, offset revenue losses from 'cable [TV] cutters', as well as make more profits. Part of the reason the FCC made their vote was hopefully the ISP's will expand high-speed services to more places in the USA, especially in rural areas, but we know it will mostly go to profits and revenue enhancement.
As I have suggested before, like with wireless phone/data services, you should pay based on volume. Companies like Comcast did that before but with the growth in streaming, it should be done. Why should I subsidize the person downloading or streaming several Terabytes a month while I use 1TB ? If i use more electricity, I pay for it. Same after a 'base' rate all should pay more in tiers, that would be fair.
Still within those tiers ISP's cannot discriminate where you go by 'throtting' those sites they don't have a financial interest in, that is in violation of an individual's 1st Amendment rights. I would allow them to limit access to websites that are connected with criminal enterprises or are in violation of copyright laws.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:18 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
Why MUST all content be treated the same?
And the reverse of that question is why should ISPs be permitted to censor the data that flows through their system?

If all data isn't treated the same, ISPs will inject themselves into the content side of the internet instead of just being the delivery medium. That would be to nobodies benefit except the ISPs.

FreequentFlier wrote:
Is HBO treated the same as your other programming? No, it's better programming because you have to pay for it. That's how it works for literally every other sector of the economy, but for some reason the laws of economics are not supposed to apply to the Internet. There is nothing socially imperative about Netflix that requires that we as a society are necessitated to provide an unlimited means to streaming content.
HBO is treated the same as all other programming by the ISPs and that's the way it should be. The only function the ISPs have in regard to "premium" sources is to handle the billing for these companies.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:21 am

N867DA wrote:
Honestly, while some factions of the media have convinced a whopping 17% of Americans that abolishing Net Neutrality is a good thing, there is bipartisan support to bringing back these rules and it's worth focusing effort on legislative fixes. This may be a good thing because then people who don't understand what Net Neutrality protects against will get a small taste of it before crying for it to be put back in force.

Even John Thune (R-ND), a man I seldom agree with, is in my camp on this.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/34 ... egislation

Congratulations, America--you played yourself.


Eliminating the "death tax" also polls incredibly well, provided you don't provide any context and just rely on the clever marketing (i.e. like Net Neutrality). Let's move forward with full repeal!

Or...explain to grandma that her IT bills are higher than they need to be because cousin Billy insists Grandma HAS to remain in the all inclusive package because Billy wants to offset some of the costs associated with his foot fetish porn streaming to her, and the polls drop accordingly.

There's a reason the loudest Net Neutrality proponents are the heaviest bandwidth users. It's because they want something for nothing and they want everyone e else to pay for it. I provided you Reed Hastings of Netflix admitting exactly that in the original post. The average Net Neutrality advocate is wise enough to not be so honest.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:23 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
Eliminating the "death tax" also polls incredibly well, provided you don't provide any context and just rely on the clever marketing (i.e. like Net Neutrality). Let's move forward with full repeal!
If you would eliminate all these strawmen from your arguments, the simplified version of your claims would make it apparent even to you that you're just selling malarkey.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:28 am

ltbewr wrote:
The ISP's want a cut of the revenues of the massive ones of social media sites, streaming sites and other high-volume ones to in part cover their operating costs for carrying them, offset revenue losses from 'cable [TV] cutters', as well as make more profits. Part of the reason the FCC made their vote was hopefully the ISP's will expand high-speed services to more places in the USA, especially in rural areas, but we know it will mostly go to profits and revenue enhancement.
As I have suggested before, like with wireless phone/data services, you should pay based on volume. Companies like Comcast did that before but with the growth in streaming, it should be done. Why should I subsidize the person downloading or streaming several Terabytes a month while I use 1TB ? If i use more electricity, I pay for it. Same after a 'base' rate all should pay more in tiers, that would be fair.
Still within those tiers ISP's cannot discriminate where you go by 'throtting' those sites they don't have a financial interest in, that is in violation of an individual's 1st Amendment rights. I would allow them to limit access to websites that are connected with criminal enterprises or are in violation of copyright laws.


Is it "the end of TV as we know it" when my cable company charges me a premium for HBO? ALL CONTENT MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY! IT'S TYRANNY TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:13 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The only real "innovation" that electric companies have is putting power lines under ground. The only real "innovation" water companies have is composite or flexible pipes. Internet is a whole different field but something we all use and benefit from.


Do you really think operating an electrical grid is simply a matter of putting "power lines under ground?" There are billions of dollars invested annually in capital equipment and R&D that goes into power generation, power distribution, grid storage, grid management, billing & metering, and so forth.


Read up on the PG&E SmartMeter fiasco. Also, to hear you tell it, power rates should be at historic lows with all of the R&D and storage and innovation. Why do power companies keep demanding rate hikes?

DfwRevolution wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I am all for net neutrality because I want to see the benefits from R&D. I want fast, reliable fiber optics everywhere. There are side benefits that I can not even think of right now without enough coffee that come with net neutrality. Without NN, the internet becomes a way for companies to milk us all for cash because they can.


And what do you propose if a new technology needs a fast-lane and preferential data treatment in order to be viable? Maybe some new technology like a self-driving car should get preferential treatment versus data going to my Nest thermostat. Title II would say tough luck.


Give it to them. Look at the cell phone industry. It was analog. When it went digital, the bandwidth changed. When internet went from dial-up to fiber optics, there was more innovation.

How do you know Google and Apple are not working on separate streaming for self driving cars? New technology NEEDS fast-lane data treatment. But, for Comcast and Verizon throttle that because they have agreements with Yahoo instead of Apple, what then?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:17 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
Here's why the doomsayers are totally nuts: we can change the regulations back. If repealing Title II results in lots of negative consequences, then the Communications Act of 1934 is still on the books and the FCC can simply restore Title II. Or, even better, we can pass legislation not crafted before WWII.


We shouldn't have to roll regulations back later. A huge majority of Americans want Obama era net neutrality in place. Go look at the response from Americans. Read the responses from the dissenters.

But, as long as Obama is erased from history, everything is good, right?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:09 am

Yes, they are literally the worst people on earth.

Happy now?

Although maybe I will start a thread entitled “Is the person who starts a thread about people who oppose net neutrality being the worst people on earth in fact the most useless, banal, and antisocial person on earth?”
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:10 am

Selling a Dataconnection to a Customer as "internet access" when traffic is not treated neutral is simple fraud and should be treated like it.
If ISP want to sell that, they have to find a new name for themselves and their product first.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:02 am

One has to understand that it means service provider willing and able to pay the ISP will get a better end connection than other content providers. So facebook, netflix or amazon will be fast, while a.net might be loading at 56k speed.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:05 pm

seahawk wrote:
One has to understand that it means service provider willing and able to pay the ISP will get a better end connection than other content providers. So facebook, netflix or amazon will be fast, while a.net might be loading at 56k speed.


This is much less about service providers for end customers but about damages to the wider net infrastructure.
( You can change your service provider if things get icky. But you have no access to routing and filtering further on.)
Taking down net neutrality allows _any_ intermediate forwarder to filter and slow down or drop any IP (+ port combo).
Murphy is an optimist
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:15 pm

WIederling wrote:
( You can change your service provider if things get icky.


What I take from this threat is that people in free market USA often don't have that option so loved by us over in communist Europe.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8278
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:59 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
...There's a reason the loudest Net Neutrality proponents are the heaviest bandwidth users. It's because they want something for nothing and they want everyone e else to pay for it. I provided you Reed Hastings of Netflix admitting exactly that in the original post. The average Net Neutrality advocate is wise enough to not be so honest.


There are always ways to deal with abusers. Most providers already nudged unlimited users out or on tired throttled unlimited plans.

Why restrict users following the contract?

AT&T used to bully customers with the same sort of arguments as you. T-Mobile took care of AT&T with AT&T's own money it got through as merger failure payment.

T-Mobile offers free NetFlix streaming, so it is up to the competition whether they want to match or lose customers.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:28 pm

Limiting bandwith is not the same as net neutrality, as simply limiting bandwidth does not consider the content.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:19 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
N867DA wrote:
Honestly, while some factions of the media have convinced a whopping 17% of Americans that abolishing Net Neutrality is a good thing, there is bipartisan support to bringing back these rules and it's worth focusing effort on legislative fixes. This may be a good thing because then people who don't understand what Net Neutrality protects against will get a small taste of it before crying for it to be put back in force.

Even John Thune (R-ND), a man I seldom agree with, is in my camp on this.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/34 ... egislation

Congratulations, America--you played yourself.


Eliminating the "death tax" also polls incredibly well, provided you don't provide any context and just rely on the clever marketing (i.e. like Net Neutrality). Let's move forward with full repeal!

Or...explain to grandma that her IT bills are higher than they need to be because cousin Billy insists Grandma HAS to remain in the all inclusive package because Billy wants to offset some of the costs associated with his foot fetish porn streaming to her, and the polls drop accordingly.

There's a reason the loudest Net Neutrality proponents are the heaviest bandwidth users. It's because they want something for nothing and they want everyone e else to pay for it. I provided you Reed Hastings of Netflix admitting exactly that in the original post. The average Net Neutrality advocate is wise enough to not be so honest.


Dude, I'm convinced now you don't understand what NN actually is because you keep bringing up heavy usage, which is far outside the scope of NN. Billing based on usage has always been legal and Comcast actually started doing this in earnest after 2015. I applaud you for starting this thread though.

tommy1808 wrote:
Selling a Dataconnection to a Customer as "internet access" when traffic is not treated neutral is simple fraud and should be treated like it.
If ISP want to sell that, they have to find a new name for themselves and their product first.

Best regards
Thomas


To be fair, there is still a regulatory agency to complain to when things (inevitably) go sideways--the Federal Trade Commission hears complaints after the fact. The can of worms opened here is that any legislative fix will be susceptible to lobbying. The final legislative fix will demand disclosure of net net neutrality policies but bringing back what he had might not be a long shot. There is a growing wing in America that seems to think that corporations have more interest in their welfare than the government. Reagan babies wanted fewer regulations and they got them, but their kids will start wanting them back once they realize there's lead in all their toys again and the fracking company that ruined their water supply can get away with it because they paid the right Texan to roll back environmental protections.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22318
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:00 pm

N867DA wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Selling a Dataconnection to a Customer as "internet access" when traffic is not treated neutral is simple fraud and should be treated like it.
If ISP want to sell that, they have to find a new name for themselves and their product first.

Best regards
Thomas


To be fair, there is still a regulatory agency to complain to when things (inevitably) go sideways--the Federal Trade Commission hears complaints after the fact. The can of worms opened here is that any legislative fix will be susceptible to lobbying. The final legislative fix will demand disclosure of net net neutrality policies but bringing back what he had might not be a long shot. There is a growing wing in America that seems to think that corporations have more interest in their welfare than the government. Reagan babies wanted fewer regulations and they got them, but their kids will start wanting them back once they realize there's lead in all their toys again and the fracking company that ruined their water supply can get away with it because they paid the right Texan to roll back environmental protections.


You bring up an interesting point, however, this administration is looking out only for big business. The put people in charge of various agencies so the major corporations will win and We The People will lose. Same thing with net neutrality. And the FTC. And the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And the Department of the Interior. And Department of Labor.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Are Net Neutrality Advocates The Worst People On Earth?

Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:00 pm

seahawk wrote:
Limiting bandwith is not the same as net neutrality, as simply limiting bandwidth does not consider the content.


But treating all content equivalently is also an incredibly dumb argument. Do we treat HBO content similar to non-premium content? No there is an extra charge for it if you choose to watch it. And HBO content is quite good because it costs extra.

But let's stick to the internet. Why should we treat porn or cat video content equally with say Wikipedia? NN advocates make it sound like treating all content equally is some kind of immensely profound statement on its face, and yet even they don't mean what they say. You'd be hard pressed to find any NN advocates adocate for treating child pornography content equally to other content.

Sounds like tyranny.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CanadianNorth, casinterest, FGITD, Tugger, vhqpa and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos