The FCC and Net Neutrality

[Speaker to Animals]

Giving the government power is what's really dumb. It just grows and it never gives it up. There are issues with ISP's but I'd rather fuck with them than some agency that has no due process.

You have to pick your battles. I shouldn't have to show you how your logic is flawed.

[TheReal_ND]

Nah. Fuck the FCC. They don't need to have a thing to do with the internet. Get fucked kikes.

[TheOneX]

Most of us are getting shafted. It shouldn't have to be explained, as if to a child, how the few corporations that control most of the media (and your Internet access) will take advantage of this to control what you are able to read, watch, and otherwise consume online.

Really dumb..

Then don't use them....all I'm saying is that there is a limit to how much control the ISPs can assert, BC there are alternatives.

What are these alternatives?

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah. Fuck the FCC. They don't need to have a thing to do with the internet. Get fucked kikes.

Giving control to the handful of mega corps that control the media and cable networks is the same thing as giving power to the government but with zero oversight.

[Speaker to Animals]

Most of us are getting shafted. It shouldn't have to be explained, as if to a child, how the few corporations that control most of the media (and your Internet access) will take advantage of this to control what you are able to read, watch, and otherwise consume online.

Really dumb..

Then don't use them....all I'm saying is that there is a limit to how much control the ISPs can assert, BC there are alternatives.

There are no alternatives. Companies like Comcast and Charter control most of the broadband in this nation. Then the hubs and backbones themselves are controlled by those corporations.

The alternative is no internet.

[Fife]

Sloppy stuff, not up to your standard.

http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy

[Speaker to Animals]

Sloppy stuff, not up to your standard.

http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy

If it's a false dichotomy, then please illustrate a third alternative..

[SuburbanFarmer]

Would take almost zero effort for ISPs to lock their traffic into selected IP address ranges and protocols.

VPN might still get around it for a while, but it's just a matter of time.

[Fife]

Sloppy stuff, not up to your standard.

http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy

If it's a false dichotomy, then please illustrate a third alternative..

An open internet ruled by consumers rather than monopolists and the politicians they own is not only an alternative... its the way the net was born. It is its fundamental essence, its DNA.

Your misunderstanding of the economic facts leads you to believe that the entrenched firms that are weaponizing "neutrality" in D.C. are somehow opposed to the state, rather than the animator of the state--its alter ego.

Watch that Stapleton video I posted for a pretty simple explanation that the firms that are desperate for neutrality are the same ones you seem to think neutrality will diminish. You're getting rope-a-doped.

The internet is NOT a public good. Do you think having the functional equivalent of the TVA/Dept of Homeland Security running the internet is a good thing?

Here's a decent rundown on the economic principles in play:

Net Neutrality? There's No Such Thing.

Considering the internet a global common good has become fashionable. Calling for net neutrality is even more in vogue. Most importantly, lawmakers and regulators worldwide are subscribing to the idea of an unalienable right to a nondiscriminating, and possibly free, internet. Well, all this is bad news. The consequences of governments forcing net neutrality might be dire. Not only is net neutrality based on bad economics, but it also takes its toll—on internet users.

. . .

“Net neutrality” is not even a romantic dream. It is a series of mistakes flanked by misconceptions. Putting it into practice jeopardizes the web, making it slow, lowering its service levels and finally delaying all investment cycles. The internet is a bundle of private goods. Business models are behind every offer in the web, and especially at the base of its infrastructure. And business models are there for profit. In order to make profits, infrastructure providers must be able to manage the traffic. And management is by necessity non-neutral. But this is good news, since it is the rule-based discretionary management of the web that makes it usable in the first place. Accepting non-neutrality is simply good economics. And it is win-win for all involved, especially users.

[TheOneX]

Sloppy stuff, not up to your standard.

http://wiki.c2.com/?FalseDichotomy

If it's a false dichotomy, then please illustrate a third alternative..

An open internet ruled by consumers rather than monopolists and the politicians they own is not only an alternative... its the way the net was born. It is its fundamental essence, its DNA.

Your misunderstanding of the economic facts leads you to believe that the entrenched firms that are weaponizing "neutrality" in D.C. are somehow opposed to the state, rather than the animator of the state--its alter ego.

Watch that Stapleton video I posted for a pretty simple explanation that the firms that are desperate for neutrality are the same ones you seem to think neutrality will diminish. You're getting rope-a-doped.

The internet is NOT a public good. Do you think having the functional equivalent of the TVA/Dept of Homeland Security running the internet is a good thing?

Here's a decent rundown on the economic principles in play:

Net Neutrality? There's No Such Thing.

Considering the internet a global common good has become fashionable. Calling for net neutrality is even more in vogue. Most importantly, lawmakers and regulators worldwide are subscribing to the idea of an unalienable right to a nondiscriminating, and possibly free, internet. Well, all this is bad news. The consequences of governments forcing net neutrality might be dire. Not only is net neutrality based on bad economics, but it also takes its toll—on internet users.

. . .

“Net neutrality” is not even a romantic dream. It is a series of mistakes flanked by misconceptions. Putting it into practice jeopardizes the web, making it slow, lowering its service levels and finally delaying all investment cycles. The internet is a bundle of private goods. Business models are behind every offer in the web, and especially at the base of its infrastructure. And business models are there for profit. In order to make profits, infrastructure providers must be able to manage the traffic. And management is by necessity non-neutral. But this is good news, since it is the rule-based discretionary management of the web that makes it usable in the first place. Accepting non-neutrality is simply good economics. And it is win-win for all involved, especially users.

What a bunch of nonsense. Net neutrality is bad economics is laughable. What is bad economics is not allowing competition. Wanting to allow monopolies without regulations is bad economics. Good economics is not allowing Comcast to extort Netflix. What is Netflix or Comcast subscribers who want to watch Netflix going to do? They can't do jack because they don't have any other options. Comcast subscribers can't switch to Cox because Cox isn't allowed to services that area. Netflix doesn't even use Comcast for internet, so there is nothing they can do. Either Netflix has to pay, causing them to increase their subscription price, or they have to accept losing all those Comcast customers because they can't stream videos.

This isn't hypothetical, this actually fucking happened. This situation is what caused the FCC to implement net neutrality even though they did not want to because they felt they had to. Comcast forced the FCC's hand. You are going to try to tell me it is bad for economics when we have direct evidence that the lack of net neutrality was used to harm a business in an effort to extort them for money even though that business was not even a customer of Comcast. So you are trying to tell me that Netflix is now going to have to pay a ransom to every single broadband provider out there just so their videos are not constantly buffering. How the fuck is that good economics?


I'm tired of this. I don't even have to bring up hypothetical situations to make my case. I don't have to use some stupid metaphor, the internet is not a fucking mall. I have a real world example of how this is harmful to the end user. One day their Netflix streams without issue, then suddenly the next it isn't all because Comcast decided to flip a switch. I remember this, I was directly affected. Netflix was downright unusable, and there was nothing I could do about it. I was paying for plenty of speed, yet they decided Netflix wasn't worthy of being delivered at the available speeds. Yeah, don't tell me net neutrality is bad economics. Net neutrality was giving me what I was paying for, non-net neutrality was making what I was paying for unusable.

The problem with these arguments against net-neutrality is for some stupid reason they assume benevolence on the part of the provider. Like the provider is a traffic cop trying his/her best to get traffic moving as quickly as possible, and prioritizing based on need. If that was the case non-net-neutrality would be great, because it would basically work like your router at home does. It would prioritize video streaming and gaming over normal web browsing or file downloads. That way the stuff that is on a tight schedule gets to where it needs to be on time, while things that won't really be noticed if they are 10ms late get to where it needs to be almost on time. If that is what we are talking about I would be all for it, but it is not. What we are talking about is Comcast extorting Netflix in order to increase their profits, not to provide a better service for their customers.