Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > General Boards > General Chat Message Board
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2015, 10:30 PM   #61
Order 66
Socialphobic
 
Order 66's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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

 
Order 66 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2015, 10:41 PM   #62
Elphenor
Braindead
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Shivers
Posts: 16,012
Default

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

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 08:03 AM   #63
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Order 66 View Post
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 View Post
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.

 
jczeroman is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 08:51 AM   #64
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,522
Default

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

 
duovamp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 09:14 AM   #65
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,106
Default

There are "several" ISPs

K

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 09:39 AM   #66
Elphenor
Braindead
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Shivers
Posts: 16,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskilicious View Post
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?

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 10:17 AM   #67
Order 66
Socialphobic
 
Order 66's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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

 
Order 66 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 10:41 AM   #68
Elphenor
Braindead
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Shivers
Posts: 16,012
Default

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

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:19 PM   #69
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Order 66 View Post
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 View Post
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 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:20 PM   #70
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphenor View Post
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 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:22 PM   #71
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
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.

 
jczeroman is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:36 PM   #72
Order 66
Socialphobic
 
Order 66's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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

 
Order 66 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:56 PM   #73
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,522
Default

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 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:57 PM   #74
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,522
Default

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

 
duovamp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:57 PM   #75
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,522
Default

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

 
duovamp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:00 PM   #76
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,522
Default

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

 
duovamp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:38 PM   #77
Elphenor
Braindead
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Shivers
Posts: 16,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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?

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:42 PM   #78
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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.

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:44 PM   #79
hnibos
Braindead
 
hnibos's Avatar
 
Location: I was just reading, right?
Posts: 15,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphenor View Post
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

 
hnibos is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:45 PM   #80
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,106
Default

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

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:46 PM   #81
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnibos View Post
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?

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:48 PM   #82
Elphenor
Braindead
 
Elphenor's Avatar
 
Location: Shivers
Posts: 16,012
Default

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

 
Elphenor is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:48 PM   #83
hnibos
Braindead
 
hnibos's Avatar
 
Location: I was just reading, right?
Posts: 15,006
Default

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 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:50 PM   #84
hnibos
Braindead
 
hnibos's Avatar
 
Location: I was just reading, right?
Posts: 15,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
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.

 
hnibos is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 07:39 PM   #85
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Order 66 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duovamp View Post
Why have laws that prevent abusing workers? Businesses would never do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duovamp View Post
The burden of creating another WHOLE law, people. Oh the agony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphenor View Post
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 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 07:41 PM   #86
jczeroman
Socialphobic
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
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.

 
jczeroman is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 07:54 PM   #87
Order 66
Socialphobic
 
Order 66's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,883
Default

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

 
Order 66 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 08:42 PM   #88
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,641
Default

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

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 09:00 PM   #89
The Omega Concern
Banned
 
Location: stay, far, away
Posts: 8,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
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...


 
The Omega Concern is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 09:17 PM   #90
Order 66
Socialphobic
 
Order 66's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskilicious View Post
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

 
Order 66 is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright 1998-2019