Net Neutrality

[Cid]

@apeman

Its thread not a PM conversation, herpa derpa, the only reason you got a bitchslap in my last post is because your comment to my first reply was full of the retard. The prevailing sewage winds around here will blow you towards kneejerk, hands-in-the-air, corporate ambivalence.

Take off your helmet and try not to be so damn delicate.

[apeman]

@apeman

Its thread not a PM conversation, herpa derpa, the only reason you got a bitchslap in my last post is because your comment to my first reply was full of the retard. The prevailing sewage winds around here will blow you towards kneejerk, hands-in-the-air, corporate ambivalence.

Take off your helmet and try not to be so damn delicate.

You are actually an unstable asshole, unfortunately I'm not really interested in what you have to say at this point.

Observe the "knee jerk corporate ambivalence" in a thread I started because I don't understand this issue.

Google, Amazon and FB not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts?

My lil sis emailed me to ask about this, I am struggling to find anything close to a fair and complete breakdown, best source so far has been bloomberg.

Goodness out of their hearts? Fuck no, but a rational understanding of an open market? They don't want to have to pay to get an edge on each other for access, which means start-ups won't have to either. It stops IP companies from being greater rent seekers than they already are.

The internet isn't some fucking nature preserve, walling it off or charging access fees above and beyond what you already pay does nothing to keep it running smoothly and is the definition of pay-to-win.

So next time some horseshit salesmen tries to sell you ambivalence on this issue with the whole "we're just little guys and this is a beef between corporatists, stay out of it," tell them to fuck right off.

Logging off to deal with the real world. I'd say to reflect on what is wrong in your life to cause such an outrage of literally nothing, but you strike me as the type who is not interested.

Quick edit: was hoping to collect links on these pages to send to my sis, seems foolish in retrospect

[TheReal_ND]

You know what happened last time they tried this? They said they had to pass the law before it could be released to the public.

Nope. Nothing sketchy at all there.

Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."

That request was denied; we'll post the document here when it's available.

tldr: it was never made available.

hmm... Where else have we seen this recently?

The AFCA or whatever republicans are working on. I'm no fan. I want full repeal, no replace

[Cid]

Holy shit, when did this forum buy a snow machine?

Listen snowflake, go get your epipen and your safespace inflatable castle and set up shop in the corner if all you're going to do is remark on my language and diction.

"Unstable asshole" holy shit, might be the nicest thing said about me, can't wait for Captain Cuckboy to fly in here and explain things to you.

But no, my bad, I'll observe the high standard of etiquette established here. :::coughpussycough::

[The Conservative]

Holy shit, when did this forum buy a snow machine?

Listen snowflake, go get your epipen and your safespace inflatable castle and set up shop in the corner if all you're going to do is remark on my language and diction.

"Unstable asshole" holy shit, might be the nicest thing said about me, can't wait for Captain Cuckboy to fly in here and explain things to you.

But no, my bad, I'll observe the high standard of etiquette established here. :::coughpussycough::

Pfft, people are just panicking over something that never happened.

[Fife]

Welcome back el Cid. You crazy motherfucker, this is what this moribund forum needs.

[tue4t]

my understanding is that there are two issues being bundled up in this whole kerfuffle, though only one of them has to do with net neutrality. The other is an indirect relationship.

• throttling services and price discrimination
• monopoly exploitation

In the first, net neutrality basically prevents the ISP from prioritising bandwidth between different services/websites. It basically legislates that **all consumers being serviced** will get equal access to bandwidth. The benefit being that now you are kinda safe against ISP's arbitrarily throttling things they don't like e.g. because of political reasons perhaps. However, you would first have to be serviced to benefit from net neutrality - somewhat the same kind of market problem with the hidden costs of minimum wage laws.

The problem with this however is that bandwidth is a limited resource with an associated cost. It's a market distortion. If ISP's cannot prioritise between different services or charge premiums to bandwidth intensive activity (e.g. streaming), what you will end up getting is subsidisation of high bandwidth activities by low bandwidth activities. Net neutrality doesn't actually reduce overall costs, it just prevents it from being used efficiently. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Infact, high data services are already prioritised over low data services (email etc.), just that the differences are imperceptible to humans.

In the second, preventing ISPS's from charging more money to visit certain websites or from creating premium "fast lanes" in order to make more profit is being touted as a core benefit of net neutrality. While it does have this effect for all consumers it chooses to service, it does not solve the fundamental root problem of FCC sanctioned monopolies strangulating the ISP market. Basically, relative discrimination etc. will be prohibited, but this doesn't necessarily say anything about **total costs/prices**. e.g. $5+$5 > $3+$6.

A nuanced topic with a lot of misdirection on all sides. The symptom is being mistaken for the disease for whatever reason - maybe regulatory capture. I think it will lead to higher overall consumer costs = happy ISP monopolies. I lean towards net neutrality as a temporary measure, as long as steps are taken to free up with ISP market to competitive entry by getting the FCC out of it. However the chances of the latter happening are low, and will be lower if net neutrality is passed.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Isn't ISP service almost inherently monopolistic though? The barrier to entry - laying a national cable network - is prohibitive. You can only send broadband over phone or cable lines, and phone is on the verge of being outdated.

Those lines are currently owned by the ISPs, so any new ISP (AOL, CenturyLink, etc) has to pay a toll to them anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to declare the lines themselves a public good, and let companies compete on the server level?

[TheReal_ND]

If they can keep the FCC or "government oversight" out of whatever deal the libs want to push I don't really care what they do. Pro tip: they won't.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, when towns tried to roll out municiple wifi broadband services, those cable companies bribed the cucks in state legislatures to ban it.