Net Neutrality BITCHESSS - Page 3

Order 66 · 02-28-2015, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I see how this is *possibly* a problem if there were maybe one or two ISPs, but there are several and even in this instance, it looks like some tried to play hardball while others didn't. If anything, it seems to be like Netflix is the most evil company here. Why should a company which takes up the largest portion of bandwidth in the United States get to have that share of the market without paying a premium? I don't understand why Netflix shouldn't have to pay for dominating web traffic like that.

because that's how the internet works. you happy with how it is now? do you not want it to change? then you're for net neutrality

how would you feel if you clicked on a link on yahoo, or whatever you usually go to, and uh oh you need to pay a premium to go here. that's the precedent it sets

also you're on the side of lobbyists pouring money into the likes of ted cruz and john thune, fwiw

Elphenor · 02-28-2015, 11:41 PM

The selective skepticism is so weird. Total trust in ISP's to do the right thing unregulated but no faith in the government whatsoever to do almost anything ever

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

because that's how the internet works. you happy with how it is now? do you not want it to change? then you're for net neutrality

I am happy with the way the internet is now, but I also do not believe there is anything *special* about the way it is now or that the internet "the way it is now" represents the peak of the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

how would you feel if you clicked on a link on yahoo, or whatever you usually go to, and uh oh you need to pay a premium to go here. that's the precedent it sets

Convince me that this is even remotely in the realm of possibility. This is wild speculation and does little to convince me that net neutrality isn't about solving a problem that doesn't actually exist.

duovamp · 03-01-2015, 09:51 AM

Yeah I mean who charges for micro transactions nowadays instead of a subscription program?

Eulogy · 03-01-2015, 10:14 AM

There are "several" ISPs

K

Elphenor · 03-01-2015, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

this was a big victory, if you want to know more abt why watch the john oliver thing that went viral and i think really helped galvanize the public abt this issue

Did you see the part where he dissed Sting?

Order 66 · 03-01-2015, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I am happy with the way the internet is now, but I also do not believe there is anything *special* about the way it is now or that the internet "the way it is now" represents the peak of the internet.

Convince me that this is even remotely in the realm of possibility. This is wild speculation and does little to convince me that net neutrality isn't about solving a problem that doesn't actually exist.

you really think no added costs would come down on consumers, i.e. regular people like you and me browsing the internet? because that's... naive. to put it nicely

NN isn't about "solving problems". what we have now *is* NN. if you'd rather have comcast, att, ect as arbiters of the internet, as opposed to now, where there essentially are none, then more power to you. but don't pretend like it wouldn't be a fundamental change

Elphenor · 03-01-2015, 11:41 AM

Basically what they would do is slow everyone's internet down and charge for a "faster" internet which would be the internet we have right now and there's nothing consumers would be able to do about it because the nature of utilities leads to very little competition

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

you really think no added costs would come down on consumers, i.e. regular people like you and me browsing the internet? because that's... naive. to put it nicely

Let me be clear: costs *should "come down to consumers". I don't just think that Netflix should pay, I think that people who use Netflix should pay. Of course costs of using up gobs of bandwidth would be borne by consumers. And let's remember that our Netflix example is the *only* real world example where such a thing was even remotely close to the realm of reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

NN isn't about "solving problems". what we have now *is* NN. if you'd rather have comcast, att, ect as arbiters of the internet, as opposed to now, where there essentially are none, then more power to you. but don't pretend like it wouldn't be a fundamental change

It is about "solving problems"; the problems associated with whatever completely unrealistic, bizarro-world abstraction that NN advocates are claiming *might* happen.

I mean, I'm normally the first person against reactive legislation once a problem already happens. I am also deeply concerned about ISP power. But I am thinking practically here, and I just don't see the concrete argument.

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Basically what they would do is slow everyone's internet down and charge for a "faster" internet which would be the internet we have right now and there's nothing consumers would be able to do about it because the nature of utilities leads to very little competition

So you imagine: this is speculation.

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

There are "several" ISPs

K

Obviously there are nasty ISP monopolies and semi-monopolies. Once can acknowledge and be against this without being *for NN.

Order 66 · 03-01-2015, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

It is about "solving problems"; the problems associated with whatever completely unrealistic, bizarro-world abstraction that NN advocates are claiming *might* happen.

laws are to regulate what *might* happen. if the FCC allowed ISPs to not treat the internet as a public utility, its not some pie-in-the-sky assertion to suggest that they wouldn't

duovamp · 03-01-2015, 03:56 PM

When have businesses every pushed the limits of morality to abuse people and squeeze every last single hard-earned penny out of them? Come on guys.

duovamp · 03-01-2015, 03:57 PM

Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.

duovamp · 03-01-2015, 03:57 PM

Why have laws that prevent abusing workers? Businesses would never do that.

duovamp · 03-01-2015, 04:00 PM

The burden of creating another WHOLE law, people. Oh the agony.

Elphenor · 03-01-2015, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

So you imagine: this is speculation.

It would make the ISP's more money so you can pretty much guarantee that they would do it.

Are you really this naive?

Eulogy · 03-01-2015, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Obviously there are nasty ISP monopolies and semi-monopolies. Once can acknowledge and be against this without being *for NN.

Not practically speaking one cannot.

hnibos · 03-01-2015, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphenor

It would make the ISP's more money so you can pretty much guarantee that they would do it.

Are you really this naive?

Would it though? If my ISP said they were going to significantly lower my bandwidth unless I'd pay more I'd either be screwed or would look elsewhere for a better deal because I don't want to pay anymore than I already do. I'd imagine a lot of people would feel that way.

Maybe me just accepting a lower bandwidth would make them more money.

Just playing devil's advocate

Eulogy · 03-01-2015, 04:45 PM

I can't say I'm shocked that jczeroman supports a policy that disproportionately benefits rich people.

Eulogy · 03-01-2015, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnibos

Would it though? If my ISP said they were going to significantly lower my bandwidth unless I'd pay more I'd either be screwed or would look elsewhere for a better deal because I don't want to pay anymore than I already do. I'd imagine a lot of people would feel that way.

Maybe me just accepting a lower bandwidth would make them more money. Just playing devil's advocate

This is a very weak "free market solutions!!" argument

Look at cable television. Should the Internet be like that?

Elphenor · 03-01-2015, 04:48 PM

The problem is, as I said, the nature of utilities leads to monopolies which is what we have with ISP's

You get like two choices in some places not even that.

And Internet has become essential to practically every household. You simply would have no other choice than to get screwed

hnibos · 03-01-2015, 04:48 PM

It is a little weird that he thinks it's bizarro world that an ISP would look into taking advantage of something like this.

hnibos · 03-01-2015, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

This is a very weak "free market solutions!!" argument

Look at cable television. Should the Internet be like that?

Of course not. That would be very scary.

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

laws are to regulate what *might* happen. if the FCC allowed ISPs to not treat the internet as a public utility, its not some pie-in-the-sky assertion to suggest that they wouldn't

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

When have businesses every pushed the limits of morality to abuse people and squeeze every last single hard-earned penny out of them? Come on guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

Why have laws that prevent abusing workers? Businesses would never do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duovamp

The burden of creating another WHOLE law, people. Oh the agony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphenor

It would make the ISP's more money so you can pretty much guarantee that they would do it.

Are you really this naive?

Ok, so we all admit here that we are talking about a problem which does not exist in reality? Which is cool, but it's important we all understand this.

jczeroman · 03-01-2015, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Not practically speaking one cannot.

Eulogy, if I can make a suggestion which goes just beyond this argument, you would do well to realize that for virtually any issue, there are more than two binarily-opposed positions which can be held.

Order 66 · 03-01-2015, 08:54 PM

um.. it is a problem. why do you think telecoms were pouring millions into lobbyists and lawsuits. to keep the status quo?

Trotskilicious · 03-01-2015, 09:42 PM

have you guys noticed that dr ron swanson here consistently struggles with understanding current events?

The Omega Concern · 03-01-2015, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Ok, so we all admit here that we are talking about a problem which does not exist in reality? Which is cool, but it's important we all understand this.

Net Neutrality: the mere term is doublespeak dressed as a psy-op. funneh how the same crowd wooed by "Yes We Can" and Obamacare fall in line on this one, without reading what the 300+ page document reveals.

suckers...

Order 66 · 03-01-2015, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

have you guys noticed that dr ron swanson here consistently struggles with understanding current events?

we need to make a macro for him where he can argue for one side, another where he'll concede said side is wrong, the next where he somehow manages to extrapolate on how BOTH SIDES are wrong and we're idiots for taking a side and a final one where he takes his ball and goes home

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
net neutrality	smurfing	General Chat Archive	8	07-18-2007 10:24 PM
McCain on net neutrality	ChrisChiasson	General Chat Archive	1	05-30-2007 08:07 PM

02-28-2015, 11:41 PM	#62
Elphenor Braindead Location: TX Posts: 16,289	The selective skepticism is so weird. Total trust in ISP's to do the right thing unregulated but no faith in the government whatsoever to do almost anything ever

03-01-2015, 09:51 AM	#64
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,781	Yeah I mean who charges for micro transactions nowadays instead of a subscription program?

03-01-2015, 10:14 AM	#65
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,456	There are "several" ISPs K

03-01-2015, 11:41 AM	#68
Elphenor Braindead Location: TX Posts: 16,289	Basically what they would do is slow everyone's internet down and charge for a "faster" internet which would be the internet we have right now and there's nothing consumers would be able to do about it because the nature of utilities leads to very little competition

03-01-2015, 03:56 PM	#73
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,781	When have businesses every pushed the limits of morality to abuse people and squeeze every last single hard-earned penny out of them? Come on guys.

03-01-2015, 03:57 PM	#74
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,781	Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.

03-01-2015, 04:00 PM	#76
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,781	The burden of creating another WHOLE law, people. Oh the agony.

03-01-2015, 04:45 PM	#80
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,456	I can't say I'm shocked that jczeroman supports a policy that disproportionately benefits rich people.

03-01-2015, 04:48 PM	#82
Elphenor Braindead Location: TX Posts: 16,289	The problem is, as I said, the nature of utilities leads to monopolies which is what we have with ISP's You get like two choices in some places not even that. And Internet has become essential to practically every household. You simply would have no other choice than to get screwed

03-01-2015, 04:48 PM	#83
hnibos Braindead Location: I was just reading, right? Posts: 15,023	It is a little weird that he thinks it's bizarro world that an ISP would look into taking advantage of something like this.

03-01-2015, 08:54 PM	#87
Order 66 Socialphobic Posts: 11,831	um.. it is a problem. why do you think telecoms were pouring millions into lobbyists and lawsuits. to keep the status quo?

03-01-2015, 09:42 PM	#88
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,439	have you guys noticed that dr ron swanson here consistently struggles with understanding current events?