Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
N867DA
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:35 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


I am very interested in the sources you get your news from at this point, and if it isn't too much trouble would genuinely like a list.

Do you think if your ISP is run by Democrats, they should be allowed to charge you extra for viewing conservative media? What if your ISP and HBO are owned by the same company, so they arbitrarily decide to block Showtime's new competing streaming service? Why is OK for them to make that decision? Keep in mind that most Americans have a limited choice of service providers, costs to enter the market are high due to property acquisition, labor and material costs, and there are entrenched players who have carved out geographic regions of power. If you feel Facebook, as a content provider, censors some political views you can go straight to the sources you care about or switch content providers. But if your ISP prevents access to that source then there is no recourse--it's just gone unless your ISP is willing to accept money for access.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8459
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:23 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
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. .


I think you are still confusing last mile service with premium content.

People pay for premium channels because it is not free to Cable/Dish provider. They have to pay a royalty, hence the additional charge.

My ISP is not paying Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime. I am paying them directly.

My cable provider/ISP actually encourages using the content provider's app to watch archived content with my cable subscription. I can watch CNN and HBOGO on Apple TV. I actually don't even turn on DVR because most DVRs are power hogs. Apple TV has better interface and HD quality.
All posts are just opinions.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3973
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:36 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
But let's stick to the internet. Why should we treat porn or cat video content equally with say Wikipedia?
The internet is the digital highway. If So let's translate what you are proposing towards the regular highway. By your logic we should ban recreational transport during rush hours, or allow business travellers to go 20 mph faster then someone driving to the corner store?
The first thing to remember is always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Lord Flashheart, 1989
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:54 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


HBO costs extra because HBO charges it, not because the cable company has extra costs associated with delivering it to your house. The cable company is just the middle man that takes your payment to HBO.

Cat videos and Netflix are charged directly to the customer through direct payments or commercials, bypassing the traditional middle man. The internet provider doesn't have any extra costs associated with providing them. They sold you a package for a certain amount of data, and their costs are exactly the same regardless of what the content is. It's really quite simple. The cat video to Wikipedia balance is already automatically compensated by the amount of data required for each. The former requires more data, so you can't download or stream as much of it as you could with Wikipedia. In fact, the entire thing is already skewed in favour of the internet providers. I pay for 400 mb, but I never get anywhere near using all 400 mb per second, 24/7, that I am entitled to.
It's as stupid as charging different prices at a gas station depending on what you intend to use the fuel for. You have a big car? Double price! Owners of big cars already pay more, just like heavy internet users already have to buy faster internet connections and bigger data packages to serve their needs.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:51 pm

N867DA wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


I am very interested in the sources you get your news from at this point, and if it isn't too much trouble would genuinely like a list.

Do you think if your ISP is run by Democrats, they should be allowed to charge you extra for viewing conservative media? What if your ISP and HBO are owned by the same company, so they arbitrarily decide to block Showtime's new competing streaming service? Why is OK for them to make that decision? Keep in mind that most Americans have a limited choice of service providers, costs to enter the market are high due to property acquisition, labor and material costs, and there are entrenched players who have carved out geographic regions of power. If you feel Facebook, as a content provider, censors some political views you can go straight to the sources you care about or switch content providers. But if your ISP prevents access to that source then there is no recourse--it's just gone unless your ISP is willing to accept money for access.


My position on NN is irrespective of any party in power. It's always been my contention that it is a "solution" in search of a problem.

The hysterical rantings since repeal notwithstanding, it's incredible that we're able to even have this debate when we live in these post-NN (by which I mean advent on the internet through 2015) dystopian times.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:55 pm

petertenthije wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
But let's stick to the internet. Why should we treat porn or cat video content equally with say Wikipedia?
The internet is the digital highway. If So let's translate what you are proposing towards the regular highway. By your logic we should ban recreational transport during rush hours, or allow business travellers to go 20 mph faster then someone driving to the corner store?


We prioritize highway traffic all the time. They're called HOV lanes.

Otherwise known as "tyranny", in the parlance of NN advocates.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:39 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
N867DA wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:

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.


I am very interested in the sources you get your news from at this point, and if it isn't too much trouble would genuinely like a list.

Do you think if your ISP is run by Democrats, they should be allowed to charge you extra for viewing conservative media? What if your ISP and HBO are owned by the same company, so they arbitrarily decide to block Showtime's new competing streaming service? Why is OK for them to make that decision? Keep in mind that most Americans have a limited choice of service providers, costs to enter the market are high due to property acquisition, labor and material costs, and there are entrenched players who have carved out geographic regions of power. If you feel Facebook, as a content provider, censors some political views you can go straight to the sources you care about or switch content providers. But if your ISP prevents access to that source then there is no recourse--it's just gone unless your ISP is willing to accept money for access.


My position on NN is irrespective of any party in power. It's always been my contention that it is a "solution" in search of a problem.

The hysterical rantings since repeal notwithstanding, it's incredible that we're able to even have this debate when we live in these post-NN (by which I mean advent on the internet through 2015) dystopian times.


I'm sorry but you're being willfully ignorant about a subject you've demonstrated several times to know nothing about. I'm going to stop feeding the troll.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:05 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


I pay HBO (well, i don´t, but i pay Netflix, Audible, Amazon Prime) for content, i pay my ISP for my internet access. I am not paying my ISP more to get especially HBO better, neither do i pay Netflix more so they can pay my ISP.

But let's stick to the internet. Why should we treat porn or cat video content equally with say Wikipedia?


Why not? My ISP isn´t selling porn or catvideo or wikipedia access, they are selling internet access.The internet begins at 0.0.0.0 and ends at 254.254.254.254.

NN advocates make it sound like treating all content equally is some kind of immensely profound statement on its face,


It is just as much a profound truth as i expect being able to drive a new Ford to Chicago, without having a 45 miles speed-limit unless Chicago pays Ford some extra cash

You'd be hard pressed to find any NN advocates adocate for treating child pornography content equally to other content.


So your solution to Child Porn is to make the access to it somewhat less prioritized and slower? I would much rather kill it at the source, and not just make it slower.......
And you seem to have a profound misunderstanding towards net neutrality, it is not supposed to be neutral towards the law, but towards data.
And that is where your argument falls flat on his face: If an ISP knows a server delivers child porn, they shall block the site and inform law enforcement, not just limit the speed to standard definition child porn instead of high definition.

Sounds like tyranny.


Sounds like you don´t know what tyranny is. One privat company deciding what you can or can´t access at which speed, often without a choice of ISP, is much closer to tyranny than forcing ISPs t treat data neutral.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:05 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


You do not understand the concerns of the NN suporters. The concern is that big companies will pay the ISP to prefer their data over others. So youtube videos, netflix content or youporn might load quickly while a.net or wikipedia do not, as they do not pay the ISP to prefer their data.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:07 am

seahawk wrote:
You do not understand the concerns of the NN suporters. The concern is that big companies will pay the ISP to prefer their data over others. So youtube videos, netflix content or youporn might load quickly while a.net or wikipedia do not, as they do not pay the ISP to prefer their data.


Or Imagine someone like the Sinclair TV group becoming an ISP, Breitbart and Fox would be fast, CNN, MSNBC and so on would be slow.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:35 pm

To the original poster, you completely misunderstand the issue. It is not about quantity, it is about whether you can access the information you want to.

You did not address the real issue. Things like Wikipedia will cost money and be billed separately by your ISP. Any video service that competes with their TV product will be slowed down or blocked. Any news articles that are against the company will be termed "bandwidth abuse."

This is a classic example of an essential utility service (like electricity, water). Or basic transportation. It's stuff everybody needs, deserves open access to (in a market), and without which the entire economy would collapse.

It is just like the water company, instead of just selling you water, starting a revenue-maximizing "water activity fee" telling you who you can invite to dinner and serve water in YOUR home with the water YOU paid for. The water company should not be vetoing what you cook in your kitchen, or what political candidate you vote for using the life energy you got from drinking water that day. But if we let them do that, they probably would. I think in California they psychologically abuse normal people about small amounts of water use all the time, probably to get billions of dollars from them (just guessing). Not an uncommon scam at all. It's as old as time.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:46 am

seahawk wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


You do not understand the concerns of the NN suporters. The concern is that big companies will pay the ISP to prefer their data over others. So youtube videos, netflix content or youporn might load quickly while a.net or wikipedia do not, as they do not pay the ISP to prefer their data.


I fully understand the arguments of NN advocates. The problem is not my understanding. The problem is NN arguments, which are terrible. Suggesting we treat all content equivalently and always grant all content the same priority is just a completely dumb idea. I've seen several NN advocates, on this very thread even, point to federal highways as a parallel, and yet they're seemingly oblivious to HOV lanes, WHERE WE PROVIDE A FAST LANE.

But hey, I'm just a dumb technophobe (according to NN advocates here), so I'll defer to Mark Cuban, who knows a thing or two about tech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/?utm_term=.c2893afb614d

If an Internet service provider wants to charge a content provider -- whether it's Netflix or Joe's Homemade Films -- extra to give their content a boost, are you okay with that?

There is a difference between a boost and a fast lane. I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes. We are just now entering a period where we are seeing new ways to create and use high bitrate applications.

People like to use movies and TV shows as a reference to issues that could occur on the Internet. [But] the real issue is that there will be many applications that we can't foresee today. [And] we need those applications to not just have priority, but guaranteed quality of service.

I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes.


Why in the world should we not provide a potential fast lane to applications like this, that we would prioritize over cat videos? To suggest we shouldn't ever have fast lanes is just a completely stupid idea. It's my contention that NN arguments are so terrible because their supporters have never once questioned their own assumptions. Once you take even a cursory glance at the arguments for NN, you realize how god-awful the arguments actually are.

You were deeply involved in the start of Broadcast.com in the mid-'90s and it proved to be a huge success for you. Do you worry at all about what happens to the next set of entrepreneurs with their own Broadcast.com if the FCC doesn't manage to pass -- and defend in court -- strong net neutrality rules?

The exact opposite: I worry what might happen if they do. I have yet to talk to a single entrepreneur, or investment I have, or potential investment I have, or [seen an] acquisition or sale of a company on the Internet where the issue of net neutrality has come up. No one starting a business even considers net neutrality in their business, except for those that are religious about it and ISPs and networks that have to deal with any uncertainty it introduces.


No entrepreneur (outside of those who are already NN cultists) actually starting a new online start up actually thinks lacking NN is going to hamper their business. But hey, Cuban has only started or funded thousands of online start ups. What would he know?
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:55 am

Flighty wrote:
To the original poster, you completely misunderstand the issue. It is not about quantity, it is about whether you can access the information you want to.

You did not address the real issue. Things like Wikipedia will cost money and be billed separately by your ISP. Any video service that competes with their TV product will be slowed down or blocked. Any news articles that are against the company will be termed "bandwidth abuse."

This is a classic example of an essential utility service (like electricity, water). Or basic transportation. It's stuff everybody needs, deserves open access to (in a market), and without which the entire economy would collapse.

It is just like the water company, instead of just selling you water, starting a revenue-maximizing "water activity fee" telling you who you can invite to dinner and serve water in YOUR home with the water YOU paid for. The water company should not be vetoing what you cook in your kitchen, or what political candidate you vote for using the life energy you got from drinking water that day. But if we let them do that, they probably would. I think in California they psychologically abuse normal people about small amounts of water use all the time, probably to get billions of dollars from them (just guessing). Not an uncommon scam at all. It's as old as time.


You point to many theoretical examples that have never actually happened. As is usually the case for a side that is losing, when you run out of valid arguments, you resort to scare tactics.

I have no interest in turning the Internet into a utility. The Internet survived and thrived precisely because it was not a utility. And turning the Internet into a utility only ensures the ISPs you proclaim to hate remain at its forefront, because utilities maintain the existing status quo - one which Comcast has oversized influence over.

The reality is that I'm actually more anti-Comcast than you are. I'd happily break it up via anti-trust actions. Through NN, you would resort to keeping it as is.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:09 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


As others have pointed out, you're confusing content with delivery. HBO is content- you're paying HBO for that content, not Comcast. Your monthly fee to Comcast is the fee to deliver that service.

What if you've already paid for content (e.g. a Netflix subscription) and your ISP refuses to deliver it? Not because of lack of bandwidth- you're already paying for bandwidth which you feel you should be able to allocate to services of your choice. However Comcast decides that Netflix is a competitor to whatever shitty streaming service they've come up with, so they decide to artificially throttle your connection to Netflix.

Remember, I'm ALREADY PAYING for bandwidth, at whatever rate Comcast chooses to charge. If I use a lot, they can still charge me more. Net neutrality wouldn't change that. Net neutrality has NOTHING to do with bandwidth; it's purely about ISPs ability to restrict which parts of the internet you're allowed to visit.

This isn't something theoretical either. ISPs have already done this on many occasions:

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/ ... ef-history

How you spin that into a win for consumers is beyond me.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:59 am

I see your point and I support the idea simply because it allows companies to regulate their service as they wish and the find new income. It is a market driven approach and that is good. Why should companies not be able to pay for fast internet for their content? Why should ISPs not charge extra if you want to use many high bandwidth applications?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:05 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
[I fully understand the arguments of NN advocates. The problem is not my understanding. The problem is NN arguments, which are terrible. Suggesting we treat all content equivalently and always grant all content the same priority is just a completely dumb idea.


.... and yet you haven´t brought forward a single argument why an ISP, the I stands for Internet, should be allowed to decide what "Internet" means for its customers, which sites they should be allowed to load fast and which should not. You haven´t brought forward a single argument why an ISP should be allowed to get an unfair competitive advantage by hiding part of his true price with subsidies from content providers.

If an internet provider doesn´t want to provide internet access, they should simply not do that and go out of business. But offering "internet access" and than shaping traffic to their liking is simple fraud. Simple fraudulent labeling.

I've seen several NN advocates, on this very thread even, point to federal highways as a parallel, and yet they're seemingly oblivious to HOV lanes, WHERE WE PROVIDE A FAST LANE.


ISPs are allowed to provide fast lanes, that is called "higher bandwidth". What you propose is use of fast lanes only if the car manufacturer gives money to the highway operator. 75 miles per hour only for Tesla drivers, everybody else has to drive 55. And you only know how fast your brand of car is allowed to drive on that highway after you paid the toll. You are simply drawing a false equivalency.

Why in the world should we not provide a potential fast lane to applications like this, that we would prioritize over cat videos?


The doctor is in no way forbidden to get an ISP contract that gives him high bandwidth, low latency and high availability, even with net neutrality in place. Goes a long way to show that you did in fact not understand what net neutrality is. How he uses that contracts bandwidth, low latency and high availability is his choice alone.
Will you support ISP CEOs going to prison for involuntary manslaughter if their systems fails to recognize the doctors traffic and the accident victim dies in the process?

No entrepreneur (outside of those who are already NN cultists) actually starting a new online start up actually thinks lacking NN is going to hamper their business


Wow, a business doesn´t think their business is going to be negatively effected when they get new legal ways to deliver less than they promised for the same price or charge higher for the same performance. What a shocker.

But hey, Cuban has only started or funded thousands of online start ups. What would he know?


Apparently he doesn´t know that much, because in places where both net neutrality and ISP competition are real, the US amazing lack of the latter clearly visible by how outrageously US ISPs overcharge their customers. Internet service providers trying to limit bandwidth or data usage by their customers get bitch-slapped and they leave for a provide that doesn´t. Not having customers is usually quite the obstacle to someones business. So, there is sufficient evidence that his statement is wrong, Lying about your product and under delivering performance is only "accepted" where customers don´t have choice.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:53 am

N867DA wrote:
I'm sorry but you're being willfully ignorant about a subject you've demonstrated several times to know nothing about. I'm going to stop feeding the troll.

N867DA has the right idea. FreequentFlier doesn't even appear to understand the issues he pontificates about.

You're not rebutting him. you're feeding him if you continue.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3871
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:34 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


You don't get what NN is and your dozen posts in this thread indicate this.

No one has an issue with heavy users paying more as they should same as any other utility. You use more electricity you pay, you make more long distance calls you pay, you want premium cable you pay extra. Everyone gets that. If you can show a case that a video heavy user costs an ISP more than than just the additional bandwidth they use then there is an argument.

What NN guarantees is that Comcast which owns or has an agreement with Hulu cannot throttle back a competitor such as Netflix or Youtube and charge them more.

The customer still has to pay for Netflix anyways as a cable customer pays for HBO or a sports package but it it runs slow then it is bad for the customer that it is frustrating. An ISP might have an agreement with ESPN but not Fox Sports and if I pay for both services under NN I should access them at the same speed but if my ISP has a contract with ESPN then they can throttle back Fox Sports (I the consumer pay for both).

NN tells an ISP that this is illegal and all traffic on the internet is equal and this is how it has always been. In 2015 the legislation was to ensure it stayed that way

This can also stifle internet innovation that has made the internet what it is today as up an coming startup has equal access to the internet to get their content out. Without NN a Facebook, YouTube or Amazon competitor could be shot down immediately because the big boys simply pay off the ISPs to get that fast lane and the better startup is squashed before getting a shot. This happens and you will definitely see the new tech giants setting up shop elsewhere in the world and it is not good for the American consumer.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:23 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
Flighty wrote:
To the original poster, you completely misunderstand the issue. It is not about quantity, it is about whether you can access the information you want to.

You did not address the real issue. Things like Wikipedia will cost money and be billed separately by your ISP. Any video service that competes with their TV product will be slowed down or blocked. Any news articles that are against the company will be termed "bandwidth abuse."

This is a classic example of an essential utility service (like electricity, water). Or basic transportation. It's stuff everybody needs, deserves open access to (in a market), and without which the entire economy would collapse.

It is just like the water company, instead of just selling you water, starting a revenue-maximizing "water activity fee" telling you who you can invite to dinner and serve water in YOUR home with the water YOU paid for. The water company should not be vetoing what you cook in your kitchen, or what political candidate you vote for using the life energy you got from drinking water that day. But if we let them do that, they probably would. I think in California they psychologically abuse normal people about small amounts of water use all the time, probably to get billions of dollars from them (just guessing). Not an uncommon scam at all. It's as old as time.


You point to many theoretical examples that have never actually happened. As is usually the case for a side that is losing, when you run out of valid arguments, you resort to scare tactics.

I have no interest in turning the Internet into a utility. The Internet survived and thrived precisely because it was not a utility. And turning the Internet into a utility only ensures the ISPs you proclaim to hate remain at its forefront, because utilities maintain the existing status quo - one which Comcast has oversized influence over.

The reality is that I'm actually more anti-Comcast than you are. I'd happily break it up via anti-trust actions. Through NN, you would resort to keeping it as is.


Not sure why you make all these assumptions. The internet is a utility. That's not hypothetical. Monopolies have been abused in the past. That's not hypothetical either; it is an issue of taking the time and making the effort to read history, law and economics. In the age of rail, in the 1890s, the Sherman anti-trust Act crushed the rail cartels in the Trans-Missouri (1897) and Joint Traffic (1898) decisions. Utilities are regulated precisely so they don't go around blackmailing everybody. Because they will. We still enforce that with, for example, AT&T/T-Mobile recently. Why did we block that merger? Because they would make money in a purely pernicious way - just by raising rates on customers.

Did you know that electricity cables need to provide access to multiple competing electricity providers? Why is that? Well, here is why. So one electricity company can't buy several wires and then shut a city like Los Angeles or Chicago down. There is a lot of law and history on utility and transportation anti-trust, pretty interesting stuff.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:23 pm

But why should it be illegal? Should a paid for service like netflix not be given priority over cat videos or illegal porn downloads? Should ISPs not be free to form partnerships with content providers to improve the user experience for the customers of those service providers? Should the ISP not be free to use the bandwidth as it is in their best interest? Should ISPs not be free to dig into additional revenue streams?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
Should the ISP not be free to use the bandwidth as it is in their best interest?


They are. Once they sold me that 100MBit flat it just ain't their bandwidth anymore, it is mine. I paid for it. Giving lower priority to.my traffic, because poor me uses Netflix and not Hulu is literally stealing my bandwith.

A hotel is free to do with their rooms as they please, they can charge whatever price customers are willing to pay, but once they gave the room to me, they can't turn power/heat/tv of or have the next door neighbour use my bathroom.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
But why should it be illegal? Should a paid for service like netflix not be given priority over cat videos or illegal porn downloads?


Why? If I purchase bandwidth isn't it my choice what I use it on?

Should my power company be able to restrict the amount of electricity I buy that can be used on Sony products? I've bought that electricity- I should be able to decide what to use it on.

Back to the internet- is it OK for an ISP to slow down access to, for example, Breitbart and Fox News, whilst increasing speeds for HuffPo and Salon?
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:01 pm

I think the fact that many people see the internet as a resource solely for personal entertainment and enjoyment clouds their view of why net neutrality is important.

Today, the internet is a staple for children and adolescents throughout their education. From grade school to grad school, the internet is largely necessary to complete homework assignments, access textbooks, and perform research. What happens when I need to access a source for a journal article pdf and the source is not included in my bundle? Do I have to pay extra for it? What if I can barely afford internet access as it is? Do I settle for a less scholarly source, or do I have to choose a different topic? Or should I use my federally funded financial aid to pay for the extras my ISP is profiting from?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:24 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Should the ISP not be free to use the bandwidth as it is in their best interest?


They are. Once they sold me that 100MBit flat it just ain't their bandwidth anymore, it is mine. I paid for it. Giving lower priority to.my traffic, because poor me uses Netflix and not Hulu is literally stealing my bandwith.

A hotel is free to do with their rooms as they please, they can charge whatever price customers are willing to pay, but once they gave the room to me, they can't turn power/heat/tv of or have the next door neighbour use my bathroom.

Best regards
Thomas


The end of Net Neutrality means this changed, the provider is now free to shape the data traffic as he wants and to maximize his revenue. A very pro-business decision.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:41 pm

seahawk wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Should the ISP not be free to use the bandwidth as it is in their best interest?


They are. Once they sold me that 100MBit flat it just ain't their bandwidth anymore, it is mine. I paid for it. Giving lower priority to.my traffic, because poor me uses Netflix and not Hulu is literally stealing my bandwith.

A hotel is free to do with their rooms as they please, they can charge whatever price customers are willing to pay, but once they gave the room to me, they can't turn power/heat/tv of or have the next door neighbour use my bathroom.

Best regards
Thomas


The end of Net Neutrality means this changed, the provider is now free to shape the data traffic as he wants and to maximize his revenue. A very pro-business decision.


Should your electricity provider be free to "shape your electricity use" to maximize his revenue?

Should your phone provider be free to "shape your conversation" with your wife on the phone that you already paid for? Why or why not? What if that conversation violates their corporate priorities? Is it okay if they alter your conversation?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:29 am

seahawk wrote:
The end of Net Neutrality means this changed, the provider is now free to shape the data traffic as he wants and to maximize his revenue. A very pro-business decision.


decriminalizing fraud is always good for business.Just like being a drug cartel is fine as long as you also produce helpful medication.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:20 am

Flighty wrote:
seahawk wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

They are. Once they sold me that 100MBit flat it just ain't their bandwidth anymore, it is mine. I paid for it. Giving lower priority to.my traffic, because poor me uses Netflix and not Hulu is literally stealing my bandwith.

A hotel is free to do with their rooms as they please, they can charge whatever price customers are willing to pay, but once they gave the room to me, they can't turn power/heat/tv of or have the next door neighbour use my bathroom.

Best regards
Thomas


The end of Net Neutrality means this changed, the provider is now free to shape the data traffic as he wants and to maximize his revenue. A very pro-business decision.


Should your electricity provider be free to "shape your electricity use" to maximize his revenue?

Should your phone provider be free to "shape your conversation" with your wife on the phone that you already paid for? Why or why not? What if that conversation violates their corporate priorities? Is it okay if they alter your conversation?


I am sure the Trump government will be thinking about those ideas already.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:32 am

seahawk wrote:
But why should it be illegal? Should a paid for service like netflix not be given priority over cat videos or illegal porn downloads? Should ISPs not be free to form partnerships with content providers to improve the user experience for the customers of those service providers? Should the ISP not be free to use the bandwidth as it is in their best interest? Should ISPs not be free to dig into additional revenue streams?


Problem is, you already have control over what has priority. 1 mb of Netflix fills the exact same as 1 mb of cat video. It is entirely your decision if you want to use your allocated bandwidth for Netflix or Cats. Your bandwidth is not affected by your neighbours decision to watch Cat videos, that only subtracts from his bandwidth.

You have a 100 mb connection:
If you use all 100 mb on Netflix, you get fast Netflix.
If you use 50 mb on Netflix and 50 mb on Cats and downloads at the same time, you get slow Netflix.
If you use 100 mb on Cats, you get no Netflix.

Simple.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:47 am

But this only looks at the last mile of the connection. In between all this data passes the same infrastructure, so you actually can prefer data that gives extra revenue over data that does not. Shareholders of service providers will be happy about the new revenue creating business options and the average Joe will probably end up with a worse connection or pay more.

And it seems like there are people that support this and even think it is just fair.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 am

seahawk wrote:
and the average Joe will probably end up with a worse connection or pay more.


The Average Joe will pay more anyways, the ISPs just get to hide that extra cost by shifting it to content providers, because the Average Joe will pay more for Netflix and other "Premium" services to get fast access to those. They won´t take the ISP subsidies out of their profit. And if i just get some basic 16MBit or so Internet connection and would be fine with Netflix quality being somewhat reduced sometime, Netflix will still have to pay those subsidies to the ISP. The Average Joe gets to pay for something he has consciously decided to not need and the ISP is happy for getting extra cash for something they won´t have to deliver.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:41 am

That´s winning in Trumpland...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:00 am

seahawk wrote:
That´s winning in Trumpland...


yup, giving people a good reaming has been redefined as "winning".

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:55 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That´s winning in Trumpland...


yup, giving people a good reaming has been redefined as "winning".

"Interesting" to put it mildly experiment.

Fulfill all those *Con* nut job clientele's wet dreams of whatever ilk and see what happens.

Will it bring civilization to new heights
or
will society choke on it while human meat is pedled as merchandise
and children sold for "having fun them".
Murphy is an optimist
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:28 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:

But hey, Cuban has only started or funded thousands of online start ups. What would he know?


Apparently he doesn´t know that much, because in places where both net neutrality and ISP competition are real, the US amazing lack of the latter clearly visible by how outrageously US ISPs overcharge their customers. Internet service providers trying to limit bandwidth or data usage by their customers get bitch-slapped and they leave for a provide that doesn´t. Not having customers is usually quite the obstacle to someones business. So, there is sufficient evidence that his statement is wrong, Lying about your product and under delivering performance is only "accepted" where customers don´t have choice.

best regards
Thomas


It's interesting that you keep claiming I don't "understand" the NN arguments, yet it is you who keeps conflating lack of ISP competition (real problem) with a need for Net Neutrality (fake problem).

If there was only one airline (we'll call it Comcast Airlines to be explicit), your solution would be to regulate Comcast Airlines to ensure it's charging a low enough price so that everyone could theoretically fly on it. My solution would be to create an environment (whether through anti-trust actions, deregulation, or other necessary measures) to create an actual competitive environment in which Comcast Airlines would have to innovate and compete vigorously, or else it would go bankrupt.

NN just ensures Comcast Airlines remains in business indefinitely and that innovation is stifled. My solution forces Comcast Airlines to actually compete, and requires it to innovate or cease to exist.

Lack of competition amongst ISPs is just a fig leaf for the fact that other NN arguments are so transparently stupid, when you actually take a minute to think through them. It's why Net Neutrality has effectively turned into a "branding exercise". Based on pure arguments alone, you realize there is no actual there there.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:29 pm

salttee wrote:
N867DA wrote:
I'm sorry but you're being willfully ignorant about a subject you've demonstrated several times to know nothing about. I'm going to stop feeding the troll.

N867DA has the right idea. FreequentFlier doesn't even appear to understand the issues he pontificates about.

You're not rebutting him. you're feeding him if you continue.


Says the guy who conflates lack of ISP competition with Net Neutrality arguments.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:33 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
FreequentFlier wrote:
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.


You don't get what NN is and your dozen posts in this thread indicate this.

No one has an issue with heavy users paying more as they should same as any other utility. You use more electricity you pay, you make more long distance calls you pay, you want premium cable you pay extra. Everyone gets that. If you can show a case that a video heavy user costs an ISP more than than just the additional bandwidth they use then there is an argument.

What NN guarantees is that Comcast which owns or has an agreement with Hulu cannot throttle back a competitor such as Netflix or Youtube and charge them more.

The customer still has to pay for Netflix anyways as a cable customer pays for HBO or a sports package but it it runs slow then it is bad for the customer that it is frustrating. An ISP might have an agreement with ESPN but not Fox Sports and if I pay for both services under NN I should access them at the same speed but if my ISP has a contract with ESPN then they can throttle back Fox Sports (I the consumer pay for both).

NN tells an ISP that this is illegal and all traffic on the internet is equal and this is how it has always been. In 2015 the legislation was to ensure it stayed that way

This can also stifle internet innovation that has made the internet what it is today as up an coming startup has equal access to the internet to get their content out. Without NN a Facebook, YouTube or Amazon competitor could be shot down immediately because the big boys simply pay off the ISPs to get that fast lane and the better startup is squashed before getting a shot. This happens and you will definitely see the new tech giants setting up shop elsewhere in the world and it is not good for the American consumer.


Dude, I understand your arguments. Your arguments are just bad. I have zero concern with ISPs favoring their own content. If Comcast wants to offer a cheaper package that favors Hulu over Youtube, then great. Maybe I'll consider that package.

The problem is and always has been lack of ISP competition. NN doesn't solve that - it encapsulates that dynamic forever by turning the existing players into a utility.

Again, I can't stress this enough - a lot of people, including very smart people like Mark Cuban, fully understand your arguments. Your arguments are just...really bad arguments.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:38 pm

Jonathanxxxx wrote:
I think the fact that many people see the internet as a resource solely for personal entertainment and enjoyment clouds their view of why net neutrality is important.

Today, the internet is a staple for children and adolescents throughout their education. From grade school to grad school, the internet is largely necessary to complete homework assignments, access textbooks, and perform research. What happens when I need to access a source for a journal article pdf and the source is not included in my bundle? Do I have to pay extra for it? What if I can barely afford internet access as it is? Do I settle for a less scholarly source, or do I have to choose a different topic? Or should I use my federally funded financial aid to pay for the extras my ISP is profiting from?


I would actually respect the NN advocates if only they were this honest. If they just came out and said, "I think Netflix and the like should be treated as a public good because it's reasonably priced and I like watching its content", I wouldn't agree with them, but at least there would be some logic to it.

Instead, NN arguments, as they are actually constituted, are just smothered with bad faith and straw man arguments.
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:40 pm

Flighty wrote:
seahawk wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

They are. Once they sold me that 100MBit flat it just ain't their bandwidth anymore, it is mine. I paid for it. Giving lower priority to.my traffic, because poor me uses Netflix and not Hulu is literally stealing my bandwith.

A hotel is free to do with their rooms as they please, they can charge whatever price customers are willing to pay, but once they gave the room to me, they can't turn power/heat/tv of or have the next door neighbour use my bathroom.

Best regards
Thomas


The end of Net Neutrality means this changed, the provider is now free to shape the data traffic as he wants and to maximize his revenue. A very pro-business decision.


Should your electricity provider be free to "shape your electricity use" to maximize his revenue?

Should your phone provider be free to "shape your conversation" with your wife on the phone that you already paid for? Why or why not? What if that conversation violates their corporate priorities? Is it okay if they alter your conversation?


When I talk about bad faith and straw men arguments by NN advocates (like in my post above), this is a really classic case of what I'm talking about. Why in the holy hell would a phone company care about your conversations with your wife? Unless the two of you were say, plotting terrorism, they wouldn't, and NN advocates know it. Their arguments are just loaded with bad faith nonsense like this, because at their root, the arguments for NN are just terrible.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:04 am

FreequentFlier wrote:
with a need for Net Neutrality (fake problem).


Not having net neutrality is simply fraud as long as you claim to sell internet access.

If there was only one airline (we'll call it Comcast Airlines to be explicit), your solution would be to regulate Comcast Airlines to ensure it's charging a low enough price so that everyone could theoretically fly on it. My solution would be to create an environment (whether through anti-trust actions, deregulation, or other necessary measures) to create an actual competitive environment in which Comcast Airlines would have to innovate and compete vigorously, or else it would go bankrupt.


So wrong. You solution is to allow Comcast air to kick you of the non-stop jet from JFK to LAX and put you on Comcast Eagle turboprobs with a couple of stop overs, because your rental car waiting at LAX is from Hertz and not Enterprise, while charging you the same price for the ticket.

NN just ensures Comcast Airlines remains in business indefinitely and that innovation is stifled. My solution forces Comcast Airlines to actually compete, and requires it to innovate or cease to exist.


Yeah, the can compete for Hertz giving them money as well and and use that money to undercut pricing of airlines that really sell you a ticket

Lack of competition amongst ISPs is just a fig leaf for the fact that other NN arguments are so transparently stupid, when you actually take a minute to think through them. It's why Net Neutrality has effectively turned into a "branding exercise". Based on pure arguments alone, you realize there is no actual there there.


You have a US centric view that explains why you are so wrong. Plenty of places outside the US have both competition and net neutrality. Where people have a choice, customers don't even accept a volume cap, let alone violating net neutrality.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

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

Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:54 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Not having net neutrality is simply fraud as long as you claim to sell internet access.


And yet the Internet survived and thrived for decades without NN.

tommy1808 wrote:
So wrong. You solution is to allow Comcast air to kick you of the non-stop jet from JFK to LAX and put you on Comcast Eagle turboprobs with a couple of stop overs, because your rental car waiting at LAX is from Hertz and not Enterprise, while charging you the same price for the ticket.


Get this. The other day I and a work colleague took a business trip to Dallas, with both of us on the same nonstop flight. I paid $240 and he paid $0. You know why? Because he used airline miles associated with his airline's frequent flier program. His airline provided him with incentives to pay less for his flight than I did. NO FAIR! DOWN WITH AIRLINE FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMS! WE NEED AIRLINE NEUTRALITY!!!

tommy1808 wrote:
Yeah, the can compete for Hertz giving them money as well and and use that money to undercut pricing of airlines that really sell you a ticket


I was reading through United Airline's Mileage Plus frequent flier program and they....get this.....favor Hertz over other rental car companies!
https://www.united.com/CMS/en-US/products/travelproducts/car/pages/hertzoffer.aspx

WE NEED AIRLINE NEUTRALITY NOW!

By the way, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say NN advocates have never taken a single solitary second to think through what their arguments actually are. You all speak of this dystopian nightmare, and yet in other industries, companies have preferred partners, and not only is there no dystopian nightmare, customers....actually kind of like it, because they realize savings and benefits from using the preferred partners in the program. THE HORROR!

tommy1808 wrote:
You have a US centric view that explains why you are so wrong. Plenty of places outside the US have both competition and net neutrality. Where people have a choice, customers don't even accept a volume cap, let alone violating net neutrality.

Best regards
Thomas


It's funny that for someone who keeps claiming I don't understand the topic of NN because I've previously brought up data caps during these conversations, that it's you who went back to complaints about data caps. First off, I like reasonable data caps! You know why? Because when I'm not on wi-fi, I deliberately try to limit my data usage because I know I'll save money for doing so. I don't want to subsidize some douchebag who feels entitled to watch cat videos on their phone all day.

Now with regards to neutrality of content itself, if an ISP wants to incentivize me to use their preferred product, I'll consider it, just like I consider when airlines try to incentivize me to use their airline frequent flier program. If United will reward me for using Hertz, it doesn't mean I'm going to use Hertz. But I might!

My concern with ISPs is the lack of competition, not this completely fake issue of net neutrality that you can't even logically defend without resorting to hysterical hypothetical arguments that won't ever actually transpire.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9428
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:05 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
And yet the Internet survived and thrived for decades without NN.

So you just don't know what you are talking about.

What "made" the internet was NN from the getgo and open ( as in fully published, sane design) protocols.

And as ever the profiteering rackets now try to convert the commons into privately held and governed property.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:00 pm

FreequentFlier wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Not having net neutrality is simply fraud as long as you claim to sell internet access.


And yet the Internet survived and thrived for decades without NN.


It's always had net neutrality until the point where some "I"sp started to operate fraudulent.

Get this. The other day I and a work colleague took a business trip to Dallas, with both of us on the same nonstop flight. I paid $240 and he paid $0. You know why? Because he used airline miles associated with his airline's frequent flier program. His airline provided him with incentives to pay less for his flight than I did. NO FAIR! DOWN WITH AIRLINE FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMS! WE NEED AIRLINE NEUTRALITY!!!


And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. It is irrelevant that you paid a different price, it is only relevant that you got on the same plane.

I was reading through United Airline's Mileage Plus frequent flier program and they....get this.....favor Hertz over other rental car companies!
https://www.united.com/CMS/en-US/products/travelproducts/car/pages/hertzoffer.aspx

WE NEED AIRLINE NEUTRALITY NOW!


And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. Hertz customer don't get faster transportation. We already have airline neutrality.

By the way, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say NN advocates have never taken a single solitary second to think through what their arguments actually are.


We even took the time to understand what net neutrality is.

You all speak of this dystopian nightmare, and yet in other industries, companies have preferred partners, and not only is there no dystopian nightmare, customers....actually kind of like it, because they realize savings and benefits from using the preferred partners in the program. THE HORROR!


Again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. There is no benefit in faster Netflix for me as a customer if I want to see cat videos.

it's funny that for someone who keeps claiming I don't understand the topic of NN because I've previously brought up data caps during these conversations, that it's you who went back to complaints about data caps. First off, I like reasonable data caps!


I am not against it either, I am merely pointing out that consumers dont accept them by and large.

Now with regards to neutrality of content itself, if an ISP wants to incentivize me to use their preferred product, I'll consider it, just like I consider when airlines try to incentivize me to use their airline frequent flier program. If United will reward me for using Hertz, it doesn't mean I'm going to use Hertz. But I might!


And again you demonstrate that you don't understand net neutrality. You get an incentive to use Hertz, you get to decide you use it. That is what net neutrality means. What you proposed is united putting you on a slower connection BECAUSE you don't chose Hertz.

My concern with ISPs is the lack of competition, not this completely fake issue of net neutrality that you can't even logically defend without resorting to hysterical hypothetical arguments that won't ever actually transpire.


No need for hysterical arguments, you said yourself that providers should have the right to limit my access to cat videos over something YOU think is more valuable. I don't care what you do with your data/bandwith, you dont get a say in what i use my data/bandwidth for. And as long the provider sells me internate access and not Netflix/Youporn/Catvideotube, they don't have a say either.
The only logical argument needed is that I paid for my internet connection, the bandwidth is mine to use in whatever way I chose, And not yours or my providers.
But I think you also fail to see a logical reason why your car dealer can't just rent your car out to Uber when they want to, after all you are arguing for days that your car dealer should have that right.

It starts to feel the only reason for you to be against net neutrality is the hope that all data you deem superfluous will be slowed down, so you can have your internet cheaper. I.e. you want cat video lovers to subsidise you.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22775
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

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

Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:15 pm

ISPs choosing what sites they favor and choosing to give crappy speed to start up companies

https://lifehacker.com/what-the-end-of- ... 1820647171

This is another right wing solution in search of a problem. And it will fail. As usual.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atcsundevil, c933103, hamtostr, IFlyTWA and 25 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