Jump to content

Net Neutrality

Incredulity

By Incredulity
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

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.

Again, off.  The issue isn't throttling of customers, it's throttling of content providers.

What you describe is lawful, with or without net neutrality.

Now, I understand that streaming video, without regard to content, has been throttled on wireless networks for technical/bandwidth reasons.  That is more similar to what NN aims to prevent, but still isn't unlawful if all streaming video is throttled.

When comcast starts letting NBCVideoNow get full bandwidth, while restricting Netflix and HBONow, that would be illegal under NN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6668

Posted
Posted
9 hours 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.

Also, this is one of the worst, stupidest answers to an honest question I've ever seen. The regulations put in place by the Obama administration in 2015 were to hedge against content blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. That's it. They are passive consumer protections, and I'd love to hear an honest interpretation of how that could be "bastardized", not more fake libertarian drivel.

Again, the latter two already happen in the case of mobile networks, so if you want to see the American ISP's desired future, or at least part of it, look that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6668

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now, I understand that streaming video, without regard to content, has been throttled on wireless networks for technical/bandwidth reasons.  That is more similar to what NN aims to prevent, but still isn't unlawful if all streaming video is throttled.

When comcast starts letting NBCVideoNow get full bandwidth, while restricting Netflix and HBONow, that would be illegal under NN.

Yeah, that is what I meant. All streaming is not throttled, not all the time, and not if you pay enough. That's the current state.

Edit: For example, ATT's $40 unlimited plan only allows streaming at 480p, even though you have access to much more bandwidth than that, but you can pay more to stream faster. That's the desired endgame for ISPs, at best.

Not all of them do that, Google Fi doesn't, for example, but there biggest telecom companies already do this crap.

Edited by Brian Fantana
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted

Now, add in where the "native" or captive streaming service AND the highest bidder get full bandwidth, and the rest get shit so there's buffering, and no HD or 4K.  Well, then you can just change providers, right?  RIght! I can change from Spectrum to ATT (which owns HBO, incidentally) and back again.

But then that state of affairs will draw in competition from low-cost, no-throttling ISPs, right?  Right!  If they can afford to put in now-redundant infrastructure and win the lobby/bribe wars with incumbents to provide service in your town!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

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.

Talk about pantsing yourself.

yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

Leftist fucking drivel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Talk about pantsing yourself.

yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

Leftist fucking drivel. 

Just give up. You’re like the boxer who wants a rematch with Mike Tyson after he knocked him out 60 seconds into the fight. 

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 Beyond, “evil corporations might”.

Explain away brainiac.

No explanation is needed. You tried to plead a case in favor of the repeal of net neutrality, you didn’t give any rational person a single reason to believe you, so we therefore have no reason to believe you.  Come back when you have something to consider.

To top it off, you come out with these one-liners that you think are loaded with intelligence, but all they do is confirm what we suspect: you suffer from “a cognitive bias in which [you] mistakenly assess [your] cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from [your] inability to recognize [your] lack of ability.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

No explanation is needed. You tried to plead a case in favor of the repeal of net neutrality, you didn’t give any rational person a single reason to believe you, so we therefore have no reason to believe you.  Come back when you have something to consider.

To top it off, you come out with these one-liners that you think are loaded with intelligence, but all they do is confirm what we suspect: you suffer from “a cognitive bias in which [you] mistakenly assess [your] cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from [your] inability to recognize [your] lack of ability.”

Utterly predictable.

”I don’t need to explain because you’re not capable of understanding. (Did you work for Jeffery Skilling? ) I am taking my ball and going home.”

Noted, you don’t have an answer beyond “might”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
Utterly predictable.
”I don’t need to explain because you’re not capable of understanding. (Did you work for Jeffery Skilling? ) I am taking my ball and going home.”
Noted, you don’t have an answer beyond “might”.

[url https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling][/url]

It has already happened before the rules were changed.

Go scroll down to the US section.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
12 hours 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. 

Local monopolies have always been regulated at the state level. Gas, power, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6668

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Talk about pantsing yourself.

yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

Leftist fucking drivel. 

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of why regulation to prevent telecom companies from fleecing their customers is a bad thing.

15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Of course you do.

A Wikipedia link, really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/technology/FTC-says-ATT-deceived-consumers-on-unlimited-data-plan.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/08/19/wireless-carrier-throttling-online-video-pervasive/Kduc91RgQ3AxM8UEhItYoM/story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of why regulation to prevent telecom companies from fleecing their customers is a bad thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/technology/FTC-says-ATT-deceived-consumers-on-unlimited-data-plan.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/08/19/wireless-carrier-throttling-online-video-pervasive/Kduc91RgQ3AxM8UEhItYoM/story.html

You will wait forever. All he knows is what someone else told him, which is "regulate bad, deregulate good." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of why regulation to prevent telecom companies from fleecing their customers is a bad thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/technology/FTC-says-ATT-deceived-consumers-on-unlimited-data-plan.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/08/19/wireless-carrier-throttling-online-video-pervasive/Kduc91RgQ3AxM8UEhItYoM/story.html

Talk about doubling down on stupid.  These are WIRELESS.

fucking lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19151

Posted
Posted (edited)

The repeal of NN is going to allow ISPs to get away with the same shit wireless carriers do.  Is anyone really happy with their wireless company?  They seem to rank up there with airlines, cable companies and big banks on the customer satisfaction scale.

Also, based on experience of using ISPs and wireless networks all over the world the setup here is total dogshit compared to everywhere else.  FFS you get better rates, quality, options in fucking Nigeria.

Edited by Fudge Nuggets
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6668

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Talk about doubling down on stupid.  These are WIRELESS.

fucking lol

See it's comments like these that make it abundantly clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. I work in advanced wireless R&D, I can assure you I am aware of the difference.

I told you earlier that the price tiering and gouging that occurs in the wireless arena is already bleeding over into ISPs and will get worse if there is no regulation. Not only that, but the line between wireless and direct line ISPs is blurring more and every day and within a decade they will be synonymous, just like what happened with cell phones/landlines.

There's a reason the US is effectively the only country in the world with ISP data caps (they do exist to a minor degree in a few other countries, but on the upstream side only), which make no fucking sense at all with modern Internet infrastructure, yet we they are now pervasive among American ISPs for no good reason other than to bilk the consumer out of more money. Net neutrality is simply a means to protect the consumer from predatory practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

See it's comments like these that make it abundantly clear that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. I work in advanced wireless R&D, I can assure you I am aware of the difference.

I told you earlier that the price tiering and gouging that occurs in the wireless arena is already bleeding over into ISPs and will get worse if there is no regulation. Not only that, but the line between wireless and direct line ISPs is blurring more and every day and within a decade they will be synonymous, just like what happened with cell phones/landlines.

There's a reason the US is effectively the only country in the world with ISP data caps (they do exist to a minor degree in a few other countries, but on the upstream side only), which make no fucking sense at all with modern Internet infrastructure, yet we they are now pervasive among American ISPs for no good reason other than to bilk the consumer out of more money. Net neutrality is simply a means to protect the consumer from predatory practices.

Fair, I appreciate the fairly detailed response.

I will be happy to check back in a year and report my anecdotal experience.  Hope you will do the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16861

Posted
Posted
A Wikipedia link, really?

Yes. I thought it would be a good start for you to then follow up on since you are seemingly very thorough in your investigations. You wouldn’t be so foolish to dismiss out of hand a compilation of sources, like a typical liburul would, since you are not afraid of pulling back the curtain and seeing the truth.

Please report back your discoveries in essay format. Clearly liberal heads would explode as the pressure from their tears trying to escape would be overwhelming to their smaller cranial capacities (I heard a rumor they also cry piss!) as you totally destroy each and every reported incidence of isp throttling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Nivek said:


Yes. I thought it would be a good start for you to then follow up on since you are seemingly very thorough in your investigations. You wouldn’t be so foolish to dismiss out of hand a compilation of sources, like a typical liburul would, since you are not afraid of pulling back the curtain and seeing the truth.

Please report back your discoveries in essay format. Clearly liberal heads would explode as the pressure from their tears trying to escape would be overwhelming to their smaller cranial capacities (I heard a rumor they also cry piss!) as you totally destroy each and every reported incidence of isp throttling.
 

I know someone who has absolute proof that Mitt Romney cheated on his taxes.  I can’t tell you who that is or let you see the proof.  It’s for your own good to take my word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3431

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Talk about pantsing yourself.

yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

Leftist fucking drivel. 

 

I think the gist of your stance is that there’s no actually throttling of internet speed. So the outcome of getting rid of net neutrality isn’t a negative for consumers. Therefore what’s the big hubbub about? Am I correct? And I’ll acknowledge that may very well be what happens. It wasn’t a big deal. 

But just for fun... can you share your thoughts with us on how your position on net neutrality may be wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, YChang said:

 

I think the gist of your stance is that there’s no actually throttling of internet speed. So the outcome of getting rid of net neutrality isn’t a negative for consumers. Therefore what’s the big hubbub about? Am I correct? And I’ll acknowledge that may very well be what happens. It wasn’t a big deal. 

But just for fun... can you share your thoughts with us on how your position on net neutrality may be wrong?

What are you babbling about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3431

Posted
Posted
What are you babbling about?


Hey, I’m not trying to be antagonistic with you. Just trying to have a conversation.

I’m assuming what I’ve posted was pretty clear. Apologies if it’s not. I’m not really sure what else I could write to make my thoughts any clearer.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 minutes ago, YChang said:

 


Hey, I’m not trying to be antagonistic with you. Just trying to have a conversation.

I’m assuming what I’ve posted was pretty clear. Apologies if it’s not. I’m not really sure what else I could write to make my thoughts any clearer.

 

Of course the possible negatives are throttling, prefered content, tiered service...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29405

Posted
Posted (edited)

Guys, listen. Incredulity is making the argument that the Ford-owned highway that serves your town shouldn't be forced to allow Chevys drive the speed limit. Why are y'all being a bunch of pinko communists?

Edited by bolverk
Present tense
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3431

Posted
Posted
Of course the possible negatives are throttling, prefered content, tiered service...


Cool thanks. So, are you taking more of a wait and see approach down the road to fix this, if that becomes an issue?

Or is it more because you think that’s not a very likely outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Incredulity is obviously not swam. After starting a straight up troll thread, Swam would have left it for awhile and not returned until page 3 or so. 

Incredulity has been consistently making troll posts in his own troll thread. So unless Swam has changed tactics, incredulity isn’t Swam. Although he is apparently just as stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, JimmyJames said:

Incredulity is obviously not swam. After starting a straight up troll thread, Swam would have left it for awhile and not returned until page 3 or so. 

Incredulity has been consistently making troll posts in his own troll thread. So unless Swam has changed tactics, incredulity isn’t Swam. Although he is apparently just as stupid. 

spacer.png

I eagerly await your contributions.

should be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29405

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Talk about a bullshit analogy.

lol.

How? Break it down for me.

As I understand it, without "net neutrality", Comcast has the legal right (and motive) to slow down content that they don't own.

Most towns are only served by one or two ISPs; therefore, they are now allowed to discriminate against the content of rivals without legal repercussions.

Within that contextual understanding, I see little if no difference to the privately owned highway analogy.

Educate me.

Edited by bolverk
motive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

How? Break it down for me.

As I understand it, without "net neutrality", Comcast has the legal right (and motive) to slow down content that they don't own.

Most towns are only served by one or two ISPs; therefore, they are now allowed to discriminate against the content of rivals without legal repercussions.

Within that contextual understanding, I see little if no difference to the privately owned highway analogy.

Educate me.

Because, as you state, there are in most locations more than one ISP.

Further Comcast has motivation to get there content to as many eyes as possible.  They start fucking with others content on their ISP network there are consequences from other ISP’s with content.  

Simply, up until 2015 the market functioned fairly well without NN.

Only reason yet provided for why it’s needed is, “evil corporations might”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted (edited)

What’s gotten lost in this conversation is the embarrassingly dishonest tactic the anti-NN crowd has used in support of their view, which is the perpetual employment of the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

As previously stated, Net Neutrality was instituted as a consumer protection measure. It was well justified as 40% of the country (129 million people) are serviced only by one option for ISP’s. Ajit Pai lobbied strongly against it, and his reasoning was that NN is a “burdensome regulation.”

That is what’s known as a positive statement, and positive statements require positive evidence. In this case, Pai has to satisfy 2 measures of proof in order to justify the repeal:

1. How exactly is NN “burdensome” to ISP’s?

2. If it can be proven that NN is burdensome to ISP’s, what evidence is there that it is so burdensome that ISP’s deserve the benefit of the doubt in weighing corporate interests against public/consumer interests? 

Ajit Pai failed spectacularly in every way he could fail to meet that standard of evidence. Similarly, the OP here cannot answer these questions rationally. He uses logical fallacies, emotionally potent oversimplifications and canned retorts as a means to conceal the reality that, as numerous others have stated, he hasn’t the foggiest clue what this issue is even about. That’s been the common thread that I’ve observed in every single poster on shaggy/surly that supported the repeal. FCHorn thought NN was the internet’s version of the fairness doctrine, and everyone else’s argument basically came down to “Trump supports the repeal, therefore it is good and right.”

Edited by hpslugga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29405

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Because, as you state, there are in most locations more than one ISP.

Further Comcast has motivation to get there content to as many eyes as possible.  They start fucking with others content on their ISP network there are consequences from other ISP’s with content.  

Simply, up until 2015 the market functioned fairly well without NN.

Only reason yet provided for why it’s needed is, “evil corporations might”.

What's the harm in saying "ISPs, you can't fuck with the speed" from other content suppliers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
  • Author
Posted
39 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What’s gotten lost in this conversation is the embarrassingly dishonest tactic the anti-NN crowd has used in support of their view, which is the perpetual employment of the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

As previously stated, Net Neutrality was instituted as a consumer protection measure. It was well justified as 40% of the country (129 million people) are serviced only by one option for ISP’s. Ajit Pai lobbied strongly against it, and his reasoning was that NN is a “burdensome regulation.”

That is what’s known as a positive statement, and positive statements require positive evidence. In this case, Pai has to satisfy 2 measures of proof in order to justify the repeal:

1. How exactly is NN “burdensome” to ISP’s?

2. If it can be proven that NN is burdensome to ISP’s, what evidence is there that it is so burdensome that ISP’s deserve the benefit of the doubt in weighing corporate interests against public/consumer interests? 

Ajit Pai failed spectacularly in every way he could fail to meet that standard of evidence. Similarly, the OP here cannot answer these questions rationally. He uses logical fallacies, emotionally potent oversimplifications and canned retorts as a means to conceal the reality that, as numerous others have stated, he hasn’t the foggiest clue what this issue is even about. That’s been the common thread that I’ve observed in every single poster on shaggy/surly that supported the repeal. FCHorn thought NN was the internet’s version of the fairness doctrine, and everyone else’s argument basically came down to “Trump supports the repeal, therefore it is good and right.”

Textbook gaslighting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...