Net Neutrality

[Fife]

Lol, you monkeys are well-trained, at least. I'll give you all that.

Ok then, speak plainly. What sort of 'competition' do you see coming from this?

Maybe you get a buck-a-month discount on which ISP serves your traffic to the local exchange? Meanwhile, they both block whatever they want to, because 'liberty'?

I don't know how much plainer it could be put to you. Doc Loliday just tolt you as well.

No one knows what kind of 'competition' will come from this. What we *do* know is what will come from takeover of the internet by the state and the corporations that own it.

[Speaker to Animals]

The people who fired the uber-beta at Google for pointing out the scientific truth about sex differences will control the internet. I am sure that's going to go swimmingly. Because "competition".

[Fife]

The people who fired the uber-beta at Google for pointing out the scientific truth about sex differences will control the internet. I am sure that's going to go swimmingly. Because "competition".

You'd certainly be better off with your boy Soros and the people who brought you Obamacare running the internet.

And guess what? You would *still* have Google and the cronies on top, forever.

:goteam: :drunk:

I don't know what it will take to prevent a Google takeover of the internet, but NN was a certified fucking lock that Google, Soros, and Cuckerberg would own it in perpetuity.

[Speaker to Animals]

We are talking about giving control of what internet traffic is allowed (i.e. what speech is allowed on the internet) to companies right now enjoy the unchallenged liberties of stealing domains and shutting down websites they don't agree with. If they are willing to steal a domain of somebody they find offensive, then what the fuck kind of stretch would it be for them to throttle you or cut you off the internet altogether?

I mean.. even that cuck Jordan Peterson had his entire Youtube channel disappeared, and he was locked out of his email account because Google didn't like what he had to say.

Great idea, guys. Fucking fantastic.

[Fife]

You're dizzy, boy. Totally mixed up. I know you aren't IRL a Soros stooge, but you are sure shucking and jiving for him today.

[doc_loliday]

I don't see competition coming from this, but its really beside the point. Protecting net neutrality isn't a solution. We're just going from one bad idea to another.

Ok then, what exactly is wrong with net neutrality? Nobody is seriously talking about disabling QoS, for one thing. "packets being equal" is a red herring.

But why would the coax/fiber lines be anything other than a utility - same as phone/power lines now?

A lot of what is wrong with 'net neutrality' is the reasoning that grants the FCC their authority to make such decisions and their prior history demonstrating that bad, long lasting decisions result. It isn't hard to imagine the FCC making a terrible decisions. I'm mean here we are, arguing over one right now. Regarding coax/fiber being a utility, I don't think it makes sense on the face of it. I'm definitely for locales laying their own lines and leasing them to private companies. I think that sort of thing is pretty good idea.

I don't trust to FCC to treat bits as bits and yet some would be comfortable giving them that decision making power. Again, this isn't saying either decision is good, they're both not very good. I think I actually lean toward keeping things status quo until we can make the competition solution a reality, because I don't think this decision is going to get us there.

[doc_loliday]

I'm ok with google shutting down Jordan Peterson. I don't use google much anymore.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't see competition coming from this, but its really beside the point. Protecting net neutrality isn't a solution. We're just going from one bad idea to another.

Ok then, what exactly is wrong with net neutrality? Nobody is seriously talking about disabling QoS, for one thing. "packets being equal" is a red herring.

But why would the coax/fiber lines be anything other than a utility - same as phone/power lines now?

A lot of what is wrong with 'net neutrality' is the reasoning that grants the FCC their authority to make such decisions and their prior history demonstrating that bad, long lasting decisions result. It isn't hard to imagine the FCC making a terrible decisions. I'm mean here we are, arguing over one right now. Regarding coax/fiber being a utility, I don't think it makes sense on the face of it. I'm definitely for locales laying their own lines and leasing them to private companies. I think that sort of thing is pretty good idea.

I don't trust to FCC to treat bits as bits and yet some would be comfortable giving them that decision making power. Again, this isn't saying either decision is good, they're both not very good. I think I actually lean toward keeping things status quo until we can make the competition solution a reality, because I don't think this decision is going to get us there.

Then would it make sense for locales to lay down a second set of power lines? Telephone? Why would this be any different?

We had private industry build the railroads, power grid, and telephone network. And then nationalized a lot of it. Why is coax any different?

I don’t like everything about the FCC either, but they do keep things orderly. The alternative would be no radio or phone. This argument sounds a lot like destroying the EPA or FDA because they made some bad calls at some point.

[doc_loliday]

I can understand why people considered those things to be public utilities. But the constraints are not the same as they were. The private sector has the means to maintain internet service, and the consumer benefits from choice. So what's the point then? I don't find the internet to be similar to electricity, water, or radio anyway. Just because the internet can be transmitted through a wire doesn't mean it should be public utility, just because power is/was. That doesn't make sense. The homogenization of the radio and television that existed for decades is because of the FCC. The FCC has the potential to make things really bad. Ill-defined open ended authority is not something we want to grant to FCC. I'm frightened of that prospect.

People act as if a thriving ISP sector is impossible to imagine. I don't think so. I understand why people get scared that the internet is going to get ruined, but given a choice, the people will choose the internet that they want it, ie, the open place that we know today, bet that. You'd choose it, I'd choose it, and so would everyone else. People left television and radio for Netflix and streaming music, they'll choose the internet that gives them those things.

I just don't get the logic that says that we need to support the FCC, but don't like the FCC when the FCC does what the FCC does.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Regarding radio, for example:
The FCC mandates the spacing between frequencies, and max power output for stations. Without that, you’d have a mass of crosstalk on every station, and literally be listening to several at once.

For the phones, they regulate the PTSN - the switching system that allows a call to be transmitted the same way from Alaska to Florida, and between. Without that regulation, you could still be paying $1/min to call the next county, IF the carriers were even compatible.

We can have 100 ISPs, but they won’t be allowed to use the physical networks, unless those networks are public, or they pay companies like Comcast for every byte. Same as railroads. You don’t want toll rails, or even different track widths in different areas. They were built by companies, who made profits, and now they’re public.

What happens without the FAA mandating radio frequencies for navigation, communication, and specified air traffic regs? The friendly skies would be a bloodbath.

Competition is good, out on the frontier. But once the infrastructure is publicly used, and standardized, it needs to be public.