Net Neutrality BITCHESSS

[jczeroman]

So after several pages of various red herring arguments, does anyone actually want to address some of the questions I have asked. I'd like to think that I've asked them in good faith:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

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.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Moreover, I do not see how making the single largest user of US internet traffic pay a premium is somehow equivalent to "ISPs have the ability to throttle or outright block what I want to do on the web on a whim".

Originally Posted by jczeroman

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.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I'm glad to discuss what *is*. Tell me what I'm missing.

[Order 66]

hate to speak for those quoted but i think they were mocking the non-argument this is a "government" vs. business issue at all, which like 99.9% of anti-NN advocates are making this out to be. so its not like it isn't germane to the discussion and people in this thread are rehashing tired anti-capitalism platitudes or anything

anyway

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

well.. who exactly would they pay? the ISPs? the ISPs aren't delivering a service to netflix, youtube et al, they're delivering it to us, if that's what you're getting at

Moreover, I do not see how making the single largest user of US internet traffic pay a premium is somehow equivalent to "ISPs have the ability to throttle or outright block what I want to do on the web on a whim".

well you're right if bandwith hogs were to be "taxed" it wouldn't necessarily lead to throttling, dividing and discriminating users into fast and slow lanes ect, but the FCC allowing ISPs to not recognize the internet as a public utility could lead to that, thus NN advocates

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.

lets play devil's advocate and say you're right and NN supporters are delirious in their worries. is that good reason to go ahead and make these worries i'lllegally possible to come into fruition, however remote that possibility may be? most people people thought critics of the glass-steagall repeal were whack jobs for thinking it'd cause a financial crisis somewhere down the line. in retrospect was that repeal a good idea, because the possible problems were just "speculation"? ... "it probably wouldn't happen" is a really weak argument, as you don't have a strong case as to why there shouldn't be NN either.

you can't superimpose "y'know guys, both sides are in the wrong here" to every issue, as you are wont to do in like every thread. its intellectually lazy

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Anarchocapitalist Man!

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.

so what you're asking is that why shouldn't netflix be punished for its success? i'll let you answer that one Anarchocapitalist Man!

Moreover, I do not see how making the single largest user of US internet traffic pay a premium is somehow equivalent to "ISPs have the ability to throttle or outright block what I want to do on the web on a whim".

this shows you don't have a good grasp on the issue, making it not worth answering because i'd have to get out a chalkboard and venn diagrams or something

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.

trying to convince you of anything is a waste of time

I'm glad to discuss what *is*. Tell me what I'm missing.

again, teach YOU something. it's not about netflix "hogging" bandwidth (lol wut in the first place) it's about the idea that you as an independent person, on an independent blog with an independent business are now having to deal with varying speeds of internet access TO YOUR SITE based on what you have or haven't paid several of the least trusted and most hated companies in the entire country. timewarner and comcast are probably hated and mistrusted more than haliburton or wells fargo.

now this whole anarcho proto commubitarian theoretical whatever the shit we can't even comprehend what you think you won't even label it or give us a fuckin checklist because we're just plebs or whatever

besides didn't the us government build all this shit they use in the first place

[jczeroman]

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by Order 66

well.. who exactly would they pay? the ISPs? the ISPs aren't delivering a service to netflix, youtube et al, they're delivering it to us, if that's what you're getting at

Wasn't Comcast attempting to charge Netflix?

Originally Posted by Order 66

well you're right if bandwith hogs were to be "taxed" it wouldn't necessarily lead to throttling, dividing and discriminating users into fast and slow lanes ect, but the FCC allowing ISPs to not recognize the internet as a public utility could lead to that, thus NN advocates

Yes, but "could lead to that" is just repeating a bad argument. Why? Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by Order 66

lets play devil's advocate and say you're right and NN supporters are delirious in their worries. is that good reason to go ahead and make these worries i'lllegally possible to come into fruition, however remote that possibility may be? most people people thought critics of the glass-steagall repeal were whack jobs for thinking it'd cause a financial crisis somewhere down the line. in retrospect was that repeal a good idea, because the possible problems were just "speculation"? ... "it probably wouldn't happen" is a really weak argument, as you don't have a strong case as to why there shouldn't be NN either.

You are just flipping the burden of proof. I don't need a make a case "as to why there shouldn't be NN". I am asking people who want a new law to explain the justification - so far I have gotten "could lead to ____" (see above) ad nauseam.

Originally Posted by Order 66

you can't superimpose "y'know guys, both sides are in the wrong here" to every issue, as you are wont to do in like every thread. its intellectually lazy

This is a separate point, but yes, sometimes I say this and I'm being lazy. Sometimes, however, it's demanding that people show their reasoning and evidence - which is hardly lazy. In this thread, I think I've shown genuine enthusiasm to have a discussion. I'm grateful that you are reciprocating.

[Trotskilicious]

oh my god seriously fuck you

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I'm not sure what is "impractical" about arguing about the situation as it is *in reality* versus an imaginary world in which no one has internet access because it costs millions of dollars per user (not sure why barriers to internet access would be good for ISPs, but whatever...) and corporations censor half the content...

Can we all discuss how dumb this post is

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I admit that years of being an academic have sucked out all the patience I used to have for the most repetitive/formulaic parts of arguments. No doubt this comes across as condescending. I'm afraid that you get trained to argue this way, probably because vitriolic arguments are about the only thing that make academic conferences worth attending.

No, it doesn't come across as condescending. It is condescending. And as evidenced by your ignorance on display in this thread, you're in no place to condescend.

[Elphenor]

Anarcho-Capitalist Man would be the most unhelpful superhero ever

He flies by literally lifting himself up by his bootstraps

[Trotskilicious]

and he figures you should have made better choices if you didnt want to be in this mess and by helping you out hell make you dependent on him

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

No, it doesn't come across as condescending. It is condescending. And as evidenced by your ignorance on display in this thread, you're in no place to condescend.

wll the idea that the burden is on us to educate him is just fucking amazing

[jczeroman]

Lesson learned.

[Eulogy]

What lesson is that? That you shouldn't deign to dignify us with your presence or

[Trotskilicious]

lets hope so

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

What lesson is that? That you shouldn't deign to dignify us with your presence or

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

lets hope so

This is not happening. I am just not sure that it makes sense to do the work to construct sincere questions without much reciprocation of sincere responses.

[Mayfuck]

eulogy and trots are the worst at that. any slightly differing opinion = "troll" or "contrarian"

[Eulogy]

Again, I don't think I've ever said that about you or him. I totally believe you both believe the things you post.

[hnibos]

Look at mayf being a contrarian again

[Trotskilicious]

the issue was that jc was asking us to inform him

[duovamp]

[jczeroman]

Sorry guys, it's been years since I could get back on the internet. Once they repealed net neutrality, I couldn't afford to access the internet anymore. And when I could get on it was only loading

one
word
at
a
time

Shit, this post alone costs $50 on Comcast's new "pay as you post" model.

So I just wanted to say that I was wrong; I should have listened to all the now totally validated doomsday predictions people made on Netphoria.

[buzzard]

It only took five years of waiting to bask in that sweet, sweet vindication.

[Shallowed]

ok

[LaBelle]

If you make enough doomsday predictions eventually all of them will be correct.

[LaBelle]

BITCHESSS

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Sorry guys,

I was scrolling down this last page looking for the new posts and going "Man, this got my hopes up for a second that jczeroman was back" and lo and behold

I like to imagine that every time Net Neutrality came up in the news since 2015, you've just gone "that thread, that fucking thread, THAT FUCKING--" until finally you couldn't take it any more

[topleybird]

Hey so I actually read this thread this time and maybe I was just fondly remembering your cool avatar? Not sure now

[Run To Me]

Lol this is priceless

Inactive user exhumes an ancient thread just to yell a toad a sow

[buzzard]

What a rookie error, though, in trying to pull an a toad a sow out of a top hat when nobody's gone to the magic show. Everyone knows you're meant to gently coax the same users into an entirely new argument only to suddenly hit them with quotes from that time they were wrong about other shit, too.

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

That is not a writer for The Onion, that is a legitimate representative of one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Just think about that.

oh pre-trump times