Net Neutrality

[Incredulity 11555]

Huh... 

 

https://dentonrc.com/opinion/editorials/year-after-end-of-net-neutrality-we-re-still-humming/article_25507e00-7dc7-51a9-bbaf-cca7bd18ebd0.html

The FCC did vote to nix net neutrality, effective June 2018. A year-plus later, broadband download and upload speeds have quickened rather than slowed. Internet providers haven’t bifurcated service into different speeds for rich and poor households

[TexLonghorn 5595]

Isn't the Mozilla lawsuit still ongoing?  Would be a lot of work and bad PR for internet providers to go through setting up all their tiers of service only later to find out that Mozilla ends up winning.  Wouldn't see effects unless and until that lawsuit gets resolved in favor of the FCC.

[horncyclist 1386]

My internet still sucks and I only have one choice. Just saying.

[Incredulity 11555]

8 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

Isn't the Mozilla lawsuit still ongoing?  Would be a lot of work and bad PR for internet providers to go through setting up all their tiers of service only later to find out that Mozilla ends up winning.  Wouldn't see effects unless and until that lawsuit gets resolved in favor of the FCC.

Anyone?

My googlefu only returns articles about start of oral arguments back in Feb.

 

[ndawg 1242]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Anyone?

My googlefu only returns articles about start of oral arguments back in Feb.

 

I'm seeing tons of results when I search from my internet connection. Maybe your ISP is filtering results differently.

[Incredulity 11555]

Share the most applicable then.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

The counter argument is not about apparent network speed, it’s about the economics equality of having your own start-up data packet.

its what the system was based on.

Edited September 21, 2019 by JohnnyRage

[ndawg 1242]

15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Share the most applicable then.

Whooooosh.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

43 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

My internet still sucks and I only have one choice. Just saying.

Same here. It's nice that the folks in the city can have this argument and pretend like regular economic forces can or won't sort it out. But if you're in a rural area that doesn't exactly work. 

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Same here. It's nice that the folks in the city can have this argument and pretend like regular economic forces can or won't sort it out. But if you're in a rural area that doesn't exactly work. 

Lack of infrastructure and throttling of service are completely different issues.

[TwiceHorn 31287]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lack of infrastructure and throttling of service are completely different issues.

Not according to ISPs.  They're insufficiently profitable, according to them, to run infrastructure to rural areas.  Being able to discriminate among content providers would permit them to reap sufficient profit to extend infrastructure to rural areas.

It's not throttling of service, broadly.  It's throttling particular services for commercial or other reasons.  The highest bidder gets the fastest speeds.  Or the in-house content provider.

This is a completely ISP and big media funded/lobbied campaign to buttfuck the consumer and enrich themselves disguised as a libertarian less-regulation/small-government thing.  Pai is a naive academic that believes it's the latter.

Also, the repeal of the rules went into effect on June 11.  It's been about three months.

Edited September 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lack of infrastructure and throttling of service are completely different issues.

no. just no.

seriously, i have a lot to say, but not a lot of time to say it right now, but that inability for people who tend to be "free market" republicans to be for net neutrality tells me all i need to know about "free market" republicans. 

especially in the US, there are only a select number of actual free markets, thanks to both cable and telco influence. 

add into it that many of these companies are also becoming media companies, i mean, fucking just take a critical look at the landscape. think for yourself for once. have the courage of your supposed free market convictions. net neutrality is one of the most ultimate supposed conservative positions.

why are you against it?

Edited September 21, 2019 by hayden_horn

[Incredulity 11555]

12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

no. just no.

seriously, i have a lot to say, but not a lot of time to say it right now, but that inability for people who tend to be "free market" republicans to be for net neutrality tells me all i need to know about "free market" republicans. 

especially in the US, there are only a select number of actual free markets, thanks to both cable and telco influence. 

add into it that many of these companies are also becoming media companies, i mean, fucking just take a critical look at the landscape. think for yourself for once.

Bullshit.  There is no throttling.

There is an arms race in streaming content going on.  Literally the largest companies in the world have a vested interest (billions invested in content) in efficent streaming.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Incredulity

[Nivek 16861]

no. just no.
seriously, i have a lot to say, but not a lot of time to say it right now, but that inability for people who tend to be "free market" republicans to be for net neutrality tells me all i need to know about "free market" republicans. 
especially in the US, there are only a select number of actual free markets, thanks to both cable and telco influence. 
add into it that many of these companies are also becoming media companies, i mean, fucking just take a critical look at the landscape. think for yourself for once. have the courage of your supposed free market convictions. net neutrality is one of the most ultimate supposed conservative positions.
why are you against it?

Because you are for it.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Bullshit.  There is no throttling.

There is an arms race in streaming content going on.  Literally the largest companies in the world have a vested interest (billions invested in content) in efficent streaming.

why are you against it?

it's the ultimate free market move. 

your argument doesn't support your lack of support for net neutrality.

and yes, everyone wants efficient streaming. the concern comes when known bad actors are the only or the only other act in town. you don't need to throttle to offer "premium" streaming priority. 

[Incredulity 11555]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

why are you against it?

it's the ultimate free market move. 

your argument doesn't support your lack of support for net neutrality.

and yes, everyone wants efficient streaming. the concern comes when known bad actors are the only or the only other act in town. you don't need to throttle to offer "premium" streaming priority. 

Title II common carrier regulation, “net neutrality” is the exact opposite of free market.

Its very similar to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

 

 

 

 

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Title II common carrier regulation, “net neutrality” is the exact opposite of free market.

Its very similar to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

 

 

 

 

 

well, you have doubled the fuck down on not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

in your own words, why are you against it?

Edited September 21, 2019 by hayden_horn

[TwiceHorn 31287]

15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Bullshit.  There is no throttling.

There is an arms race in streaming content going on.  Literally the largest companies in the world have a vested interest (billions invested in content) in efficent streaming.

Right and as soon as the ISPs have their own or a favored streaming content provider, guess who gets the fastest speed or "efficient streaming"?  And guess who gets throttled?  And consumers get hosed and are forced to choose ISP not on ISP quality, but on content and content speed.  It's a horizontal restraint of trade, actually.

[TwiceHorn 31287]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Title II common carrier regulation, “net neutrality” is the exact opposite of free market.

Its very similar to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, except it's not.  It's basically one regulation:  you can't discriminate among legal content, software, platform, by speed or any other means.  There are some other rules in support of that.  It's not some comprehensive scheme of ISP regulation.

To have the rules in place, ISPs had to be classified as "common carriers" rather than "information services."  It doesn't mean there was some comprehensive scheme of regulation and price controls as in the areas you cited.

Edited September 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right and as soon as the ISPs have their own or a favored streaming content provider, guess who gets the fastest speed or "efficient streaming"?  And guess who gets throttled?  And consumers get hosed and are forced to choose ISP not on ISP quality, but on content and content speed.  It's a horizontal restraint of trade, actually.

exactly. 

it's one thing if ISPs are a simple pipe of delivery to your mom. it's quite another if they are telling her stories over dinner while also laying pipe.

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

well, you have doubled the fuck down on not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

in your own words, why are you against it?

1.) there is no throttling occurring

2.) there is massive competition to deliver streaming content to consumers, most specifically based on price.  Amazon isn’t taking there ball and going home because ISP X wants to throttle.  

3.) Consumers won’t tolerate throttling difference between content providers.

4.) Net Neutrality, evrn in your own description is based on “might” throttle.  The option to implement Net Neutrality is always there should throttling occur.

 

So besides “might”, why is it needed?

 

         

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31287]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

1.) there is no throttling occurring

2.) there is massive competition to deliver streaming content to consumers, most specifically based on price.  Amazon isn’t taking there ball and going home because ISP X wants to throttle.  

3.) Consumers won’t tolerate throttling difference between content providers.

4.) Net Neutrality, evrn in your own description is based on “might” throttle.  The option to implement Net Neutrality is always there should throttling occur.

 

So besides “might”, why is it needed?

 

         

 

 

 

Consumers will be powerless. I live in the 7th largest MSA in the US and have exactly two choices: ATT and Spectrum.

If the rule is essentially against throttling, and no one intends to throttle, why repeal it?  Why do ISPs and media companies and various other robber barons support repeal?  Do you think they are masters of economics and have our best collective interests in mind?  Or maybe it's because they want to throttle and make mo money mo money mo money?

Edited September 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11555]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Consumers will be powerless.  If the rule is essentially against throttling, and no one intends to throttle, why repeal it?  Why do ISPs and media companies and various other robber barons support repeal?  Do you think they are masters of economics?  Or maybe it's because they want to throttle?

So, again “might”.

 

The exact same argument against freight deregulation and airline deregulation.  How did those work out for cost to consumer?

[DixonHur 11228]

Incredulity is totally unaware that he pants himself by creating this tread. 

[TwiceHorn 31287]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

So, again “might”.

 

The exact same argument against freight deregulation and airline deregulation.  How did those work out for cost to consumer?

Those are very bad analogies.  Those were basically price controls.  This has nothing to do with that, whatsoever.

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Incredulity is totally unaware that he pants himself by creating this tread. 

[TwiceHorn 31287]

That's a really shit editorial by the Tribune.  They should be ashamed.

It reflects little to no understanding of the issues.  Throttling between rich and poor households?  Fucking hell.

Edited September 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those are very bad analogies.  Those were basically price controls.  This has nothing to do with that, whatsoever.

Not really.  They were very much route and service regulations as well.

 

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

1.) there is no throttling occurring

2.) there is massive competition to deliver streaming content to consumers, most specifically based on price.  Amazon isn’t taking there ball and going home because ISP X wants to throttle.  

3.) Consumers won’t tolerate throttling difference between content providers.

4.) Net Neutrality, evrn in your own description is based on “might” throttle.  The option to implement Net Neutrality is always there should throttling occur.

 

So besides “might”, why is it needed?

 

         

 

 

 

this is such an ingenuous argument. it really is, when you compare it to other conservative arguments regarding capitalism. but i guess, okay, i'll consider it in good standing.

1) of course not yet. and it may not be about "throttling," but it may be about priority access. but you don't get that, because you are stupid, so i understand.

2) *their. but whatever. ISP x is the streaming authority. if, say, nbc comcast wants to make nbc content "premium" then...

3) hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahaha. is net neutrality about consumers or about ISPs. honest question.

4) long games are long games. but whatever.

[TwiceHorn 31287]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not really.  They were very much route and service regulations as well.

 

 

But even those are not particularly good analogies.  Those regulations were deep in the business of those industries, as you note.  Net neutrality was not. It was a single overarching principle.  That's it.

Sure, that overarching principle prevents ISPs from making money in certain ways, but it was not a deep reach into the business practices of ISPs.  Other FCC regs are, for better or worse, but the NN repeal didn't affect those regs at all.

 

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this is such an ingenuous argument. it really is, when you compare it to other conservative arguments regarding capitalism. but i guess, okay, i'll consider it in good standing.

1) of course not yet. and it may not be about "throttling," but it may be about priority access. but you don't get that, because you are stupid, so i understand.

2) *their. but whatever. ISP x is the streaming authority. if, say, nbc comcast wants to make nbc content "premium" then...

3) hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahaha. is net neutrality about consumers or about ISPs. honest question.

4) long games are long games. but whatever.

Your argument presupposes that ISP’s have perfect control over what their customers demand.  They don’t.  They don’t control all the content.

 Alternatives to get the content do exist, even in the markets with the slimmest ISP competition.  Shit you can stream over cellular data.  Those options will continue to develop.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Twice and hayden are absolutely roasting you OP.

This thread smells of burnt hair and melted ethernet cables.

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Your argument presupposes that ISP’s have perfect control over what their customers demand.  They don’t.  They don’t control all the content.

 Alternatives to get the content do exist, even in the markets with the slimmest ISP competition.  Shit you can stream over cellular data.  Those options will continue to develop.

where should the capitalist economy reside? in the consumer space or in the provider space? it's a simple question.

[Incredulity 11555]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But even those are not particularly good analogies.  Those regulations were deep in the business of those industries, as you note.  Net neutrality was not. It was a single overarching principle.  That's it.

Sure, that overarching principle prevents ISPs from making money in certain ways, but it was not a deep reach into the business practices of ISPs.  Other FCC regs are, for better or worse, but the NN repeal didn't affect those regs at all.

 

Well that is really the argument against Title 2 NN.  Perhaps as current witten it was simple, however regulatory overreach/bastarization is real.  

My whole point in starting the thread was AFAIK the worst has not happened yet.

I certainly would be interested in any further info on Mozilla vs FCC ad I cant find anything beyond start of oral arguments in Feb.

 

[Incredulity 11555]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Twice and hayden are absolutely roasting you OP.

This thread smells of burnt hair and melted ethernet cables.
 

Beto thread is that way——>

bean flick away

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Beto thread is that way——>

bean flick away

she's not wrong. you are way off base.

oh, also, you haven't actually answered why you are against net neutrality.

care to give it a go?

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

where should the capitalist economy reside? in the consumer space or in the provider space? it's a simple question.

Both in this case.  Just like nearly everything bought and sold in the economy.

I guess you favor government control of means of production.

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Both in this case.  Just like nearly everything bought and sold in the economy.

I guess you favor government control of means of production.

let's do an intellectual exercise. 

who controls the means of production for the internet?

let's go ahead and add a follow on question.

if we 86 net neutrality, with government support, who controls the means of production for the internet,

bonus question number 3: given 1 & 2, where does the consumer benefit in a capitalist economy?

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

she's not wrong. you are way off base.

oh, also, you haven't actually answered why you are against net neutrality.

care to give it a go?

Once again, because it is not needed.  No throttling/no content preference has happened.

Regulations, no matter how virtuous their intent, have a very long history of getting bastardized.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Once again, because it is not needed.  No throttling/no content preference has happened.

Regulations, no matter how virtuous their intent, have a very long history of getting bastardized.

you clearly do not understand the issue. but that's never stopped you. 

jesus, lulz. stop for a minute. try to understand things that you attempt to post about.

you are embarrassing yourself.

[TwiceHorn 31287]

I dont disagree that some regulations are way overboard.  But a by-product of the necessary deregulation movement was to imbue corporations with a sort of "fuck it now I can do anything in pursuit of profit" mentality that needs to get reined in again.

The whole "common carrier" thing is a real red herring from the telecom industry.  It's a classification under the FCC Act, nothing more. It means their services are imbued with public interest, moreso than other classifications like "information services."   It doesn't mean that those with that classification are regulated like common carriers in other contexts.

Also, I think Pai and the telecom industry thought they would slip this through mostly unnoticed as with prior wrangling over the issue.  They were caught by surprise at the public uproar and, as a result, do not dare do anything that might jeopardize the rules while a court case is pending.  Also, as noted herein, their evil schemes to integrate internet service and media provision are not mature enough yet to give them reason to do anything yet.

Edited September 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11555]

 

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

you clearly do not understand the issue. but that's never stopped you. 

jesus, lulz. stop for a minute. try to understand things that you attempt to post about.

you are embarrassing yourself.

 Explain away Mr. Helper.

Telling that you rely on insults.  

Let me guess, not worth your time.  Taking your ball and going home.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Beto thread is that way——>
bean flick away

Ew. Just the thought of someone like you referring to masturbation completely kills any motivation to do so.

And bean flicking? Really? I bet panties just fly off with smooth talk like that.

[Incredulity 11555]

7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Ew. Just the thought of someone like you referring to masturbation completely kills any motivation to do so.

And bean flicking? Really? I bet panties just fly off with smooth talk like that.

 

[hobbes2702 12847]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

So, again “might”.

 

The exact same argument against freight deregulation and airline deregulation.  How did those work out for cost to consumer?

Stop. You clearly don’t understand the topic man. For fucks sake

[hobbes2702 12847]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

 

 Explain away Mr. Helper.

Telling that you rely on insults.  

Let me guess, not worth your time.  Taking your ball and going home.

Two people already have and you talked past them repeatedly 

[hpslugga 4044]

8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

 

 Explain away Mr. Helper.

Telling that you rely on insults.  

Let me guess, not worth your time.  Taking your ball and going home.

He doesn’t rely on insults, he’s just using them for decorative effect. He’s a colorful one, that hayden.

You, on the other hand, are relying on the greatest weapon you have: the inability to understand simple things.

[wildcat09 29260]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

He doesn’t rely on insults, he’s just using them for decorative effect. He’s a colorful one, that hayden.

You, on the other hand, are relying on the greatest weapon you have: the inability to understand simple things.

But it’s one hell of an effective weapon.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

This is such a Swam thread. Is Incredulity Swam?

If you want a good example of what's going to happen, look at the vast variety of mobile data plans and how the telecom companies that provide mobile access already selectively throttle you based on multiple factors.

Come back to me when all the lawsuits have cleared out and you find that you need to upgrade your internet service to access YouTube, for example.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Change the thread title to "Trump slays net neutrality fears", @hayden_horn.