Net Neutrality

nmoore63
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by nmoore63 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:26 pm

KerningChameleon wrote:
nmoore63 wrote:
KerningChameleon wrote:The "cause" is the ISPs have no intention of competing.
Getting closer Padawan.

ISPs compete where I live, so clearly such a condition is not a prerequisite.

One more layer deep.

There you will find the cancer that gives your stomach so much trouble.

The treatment you have proscribed will offer you only the most basic of comfort if you are unwilling to address the root cause.
You can't get rid of government. Not truly. Even if we all turned into bomb-throwing anarchists and overthrew the governmental bodies and shouted "No Gods, No Masters, Only Men" at the top of our lungs, government would still exist. It's just would exist de facto in the form of corporations and organized crime gangs beholden to their shareholders and profit margins, not the consent of the people and their right of vote.

The human creature, in aggregate, always forms into a hierarchical social structure. Government exists because humans desire some measure of order and security, and that some members of society must specialize into such management roles full time to adequately meet said market demands for order and security. If you want the concept of government destroyed, then what you truly desire is a complete rewrite in fundamental human psychology on a massive scale. Which I actually support, but at that point we've entered transhumanism territory, frankly.
I am not an anarchist
Nor an anarcho-capitalist
Nor do I scream taxation is theft.

Also, I am a person of faith.

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by Fife » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:19 am

Image

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by Fife » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:27 am

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/eve ... achatrian#
Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as "the fast lane"), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14765
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by The Conservative » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:33 am

Fife wrote:This thread is approaching Peak Retard.

Readers of this thread, take a look around at who is cheer-leading your position.

Pour it on, and congratulations, statists.

:goteam: :drunk:
This thread reached that a long time ago...
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14765
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by The Conservative » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:36 am

Fife wrote:http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/eve ... achatrian#
Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as "the fast lane"), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.

Good article... I like the comment on the bottom. If Google, Facebook, and Amazon are for it, it's probably a bad idea.
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
jediuser598
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:00 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by jediuser598 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:52 am

The invisible hand of the free market has been pretty much debunked again and again. Without good regulation limiting corporations, monopolies form, and consumers get screwed.

Tell me exactly how it "helps the little guy" when ISPs get to throttle internet speed to something like Netflix or HBO? How does that help me out at all? Suddenly I'll have to start paying a higher price on my internet bill because I want to stream Netflix, or get slower speeds for it? Compared to getting good speeds on the company that paid the ISP's to have the privileged lane.

Yeah that's straight retarded. No thanks.

Here is what was banned:
Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
service.

No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
telephone network.

16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
devices, subject to reasonable network management.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary
prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground
that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard
against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content,
application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network
management.

17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a
customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to
avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source,
destination, or content.17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a
broadband provider’s business model.

18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts
payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,
applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes
that:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.

“Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to
directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of
techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of
preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or
otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... A1_Rcd.pdf
Last edited by jediuser598 on Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson

User avatar
StCapps
Posts: 16879
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:59 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by StCapps » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:05 am

jediuser598 wrote:The invisible hand of the free market has been pretty much debunked again and again.
:roll:
The invisible hand is fueled by competition, a lack of competition in a certain sector of the economy does not disprove the invisible hand, if anything that backs up the invisible hand's case.
*yip*

User avatar
jediuser598
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:00 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by jediuser598 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:09 am

StCapps wrote:
jediuser598 wrote:The invisible hand of the free market has been pretty much debunked again and again.
:roll:
The invisible hand is fueled by competition, a lack of competition in a certain sector of the economy does not disprove the invisible hand, if anything that backs up the invisible hand's case.
Roll your eyes, fox boy, libertarians get their asses kicked again and again, it is only by their sheer inability to see reality and demonstrable truths that their beliefs in their libertarian utopia persist.
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson

User avatar
StCapps
Posts: 16879
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:59 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by StCapps » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:11 am

jediuser598 wrote:
StCapps wrote:
jediuser598 wrote:The invisible hand of the free market has been pretty much debunked again and again.
:roll:
The invisible hand is fueled by competition, a lack of competition in a certain sector of the economy does not disprove the invisible hand, if anything that backs up the invisible hand's case.
Roll your eyes, fox boy, libertarians get their asses kicked again and again, it is only by their sheer inability to see reality and demonstrable truths that their beliefs in their libertarian utopia persist.
libertarians might get their asses kicked again and again, but that doesn't have anything to do with invisible hand not being a thing, it most certainly is a thing. Stop conflating the two as if the are mutually inclusive.
Last edited by StCapps on Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
*yip*

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14765
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Net Neutrality

Post by The Conservative » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:12 am

jediuser598 wrote:The invisible hand of the free market has been pretty much debunked again and again. Without good regulation limiting corporations, monopolies form, and consumers get screwed.

Tell me exactly how it "helps the little guy" when ISPs get to throttle internet speed to something like Netflix or HBO? How does that help me out at all? Suddenly I'll have to start paying a higher price on my internet bill because I want to stream Netflix, or get slower speeds for it? Compared to getting good speeds on the company that paid the ISP's to have the privileged lane.

Yeah that's straight retarded. No thanks.

Here is what was banned:
Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three
specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this
Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access
service.

No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service
must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and
well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark
decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly
telephone network.

16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful
devices, subject to reasonable network management.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary
prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground
that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard
against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content,
application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network
management.

17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a
customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to
avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application
effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source,
destination, or content.17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a
broadband provider’s business model.

18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts
payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,
applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes
that:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.

“Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to
directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of
techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of
preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or
otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... A1_Rcd.pdf
There is the problem, you need to have good regulation. That hasn't been allowed to happen for how long?

Also, when companies such as Comcast, etc tell towns and cities to "help" them, they would required ownership of the telephone poles and lines on them, and the towns and cities agree to what is akin to theft... what are the people to do when the government that is meant to be a protection system failed to do it's job?
#NotOneRedCent