Net Neutrality Your Way

SixFootDuo said:
You're ignorant of the facts. Go back and look and do some research. You're doing not only yourself a disservice but this community as well by parroting what other ill-informed people have said. Lot's of companies withheld services and other types of asshatery type shit back in the day. Inform yourself. There are numerous instances and reasons why Net Neutrality was enacted. It just didn't suddenly POP! into the rule books overnight. Net Neutrality was not some political bs money grab law, unlike what repealing the existing law is. Net Neutrality was meant to protect you, myself, your Family and friends. Over-reach my ass. What do you think Trump and the FCC are doing? OVER-REACHING ..... open your eyes, educated yourself and inform others around you. This is not some political type bs ... it's a LAW to protect all of us. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I was around long before NN was imposed and I have no problem with the evolution of the pre-NN internet. I have less trust in a progressive run government than in big corporations. That's the real issue. Progressives are upset because the progressive agenda is being rolled back and they are fear-mongering in response. Two years from now people will realize that all the dire predictions from the NN crowd was empty talk...
 
SixFootDuo said:
Explain to all of us how Net Neutrality hurts yourself, your friends, your Family. Please. We would loooooooooove to hear this. Let me tell you.
Click to expand...
Without NN you might have to pay more to get fast internet. With NN we may face a day when a corrupt government decides to censor content because progressives deem that content offensive.
 
thejokker said:
Sorry but I was around long before NN was imposed and I have no problem with the evolution of the pre-NN internet. I have less trust in a progressive run government than in big corporations. That's the real issue. Progressives are upset because the progressive agenda is being rolled back and they are fear-mongering in response. Two years from now people will realize that all the dire predictions from the NN crowd was empty talk...
Click to expand...

And you skipped right through the potential problem, evolution. Nothing is static. Change is inevitable and persistant. Ever hear of Upton Sinclair?
 
Spidey329 said:
Is it a shame though? They aren't exactly known for their quality food anymore. I'm willing to bet that Kelly's is probably way better.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I have not had a Whopper in probably 10 years. I do remember when I used to partake of said Whoppers, they were pretty damn good. And yeah, that grass fed, farm to table hamburger is pretty goddamn good. A double with chips and drink is kind of expensive, so I don't chow down on those too often, but those are worth it. They have steaks took, but I have not purchased from there. I go to Local Yocal when I want to go all out on steaks.
 
thejokker said:
Without NN you might have to pay more to get fast internet. With NN we may face a day when a corrupt government decides to censor content because progressives deem that content offensive.
Click to expand...

And without NN, we leave it up to the big 3 corporations to decide what content to censor..... No one said it would happen over night. There is still too much hype around this, of course they aren't going to test the boundaries now. They'll wait until everyone is distracted, then start testing the limits of what they can do...
 
Biznatch said:
And without NN, we leave it up to the big 3 corporations to decide what content to censor..... No one said it would happen over night. There is still too much hype around this, of course they aren't going to test the boundaries now. They'll wait until everyone is distracted, then start testing the limits of what they can do...
Click to expand...

eh, since with/without NN the government is in the pocket of those same 3 big corporations, does it really make much of a difference?
 
thejokker said:
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.
Click to expand...

Yes growing and thriving and in 2015 was clearly showing signs of being the cornerstone or "utility" many of us depend on. All markets have a wild west of little control/restrictions which is good for that initial innovation phase getting it to where it needs to be quickly and naturally. Then it starts to get established and then the "big" scammers arrive. IMO this is where we are.

Just like with gameing... then mobile gaming hit... big money!!! now we have loot boxes, p2w and freemium. All of which have at minimum have good arguments on being borderline scams or gambling.

Comcast I believe is still not counting its own streaming content against its caps, where its competitors like Netflix's content do. This is one of the real life examples and it isn't even considered NN since its not traffic manipulation but still putting essentially a tarriff against competition.


NN is only one option, if they did make competition a viable option that could work as well.

I agree people tend to try and make their point with extreme examples which works in a satire/comedy but is not the best in a discussion like this.

There are certainly difficult questions to answer regarding NN, can any form of network manipulation be used, priority tweaks for streaming/voip etc for service quality (which can be different then more agreessive). Then there is the whole back end of the internet transit fees, costs, responsibilities etc which Comcast/Netflix got into it over... very messy like as well.
 
otherweeb said:
Maybe ISPs can develop a system like health insurance, then I could pay 'out of Network' fees.
Click to expand...

:eek: Fuck me in the goat ass dude, this is quite possibly the worst idea I've heard in a long time. You should just maybe not talk anymore............... I kid. :)
 
Not a bad commercial.

Sure everyone has basic access to basic services but the whopper (premium content) was artificially slowed behind a paywall.

Pretty smooth.

Sorry Facebook is taking so long to load.... Have you tried MySpace?

Sorry youtube red is only available without buffering on premium ++
 
thejokker said:
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.
Click to expand...

Technically no; the Internet was under FCC jurisdiction until late in the Bush administration, when it became unregulated. That's when the ISPs began to throttle data and try and essentially blackmail content providers (Remember the Level 5/Comcast issues?).
 
Without NN, it could take a lot longer for some to order their Burger King takeout.
 
Biznatch said:
And with NN gone, you can be paying for 1000Mb/s (Capital M, Lowercase b), but VZ only gives you those speed to their own network (which would be intranet service, not internet). Then on the backend they throttle services like netflix to 10Mb/s unless you pay an additional fee, on top of your 'INTERNET" fee.... It has nothing to do with the base speed you are paying for, and everything to do with ISPs manipulating traffic to kill competition, block news they don't agree with, or just plain effing extort companies for money....
Click to expand...
That would be an antitrust violation, which is already illegal...
 
Remember Ajit came from Verizon. Bottom line is profits for execs and shareholders is priority #1, social good may be an indirect side effect that cannot hurt the bottom line. We'll see if people read the EULA and revolt on social media. All traffic shaping/throttling must be disclosed in the EULA. Cancel/boycott services? Unlikely. And we still won't know what happens at the back haul like CenturyLink(formerly Level 3). Out of our control anyway.
 
MrTroy03 said:
No its not, its more like saying one of these two things:
  1. COMCAST: "Hey Netflix, you want access to our customers? You pay us $1 million each year for access to to Comcast customers, or, we will slow down traffic from Netflix to Comcast customers to 1Mbps."
  2. COMCAST: "Hey user, yes we know you pay for Netflix, but if you want to get more than 3Mbps access to Netflix, you pay us $5/month and you get HD video streaming on Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, SlingTV etc., and 100Mbps like normal to elsewhere."
Scenario one is MUCH more likely.
Click to expand...

Imo, scenario both.
 
Gigus Fire said:
FTC will slap them with a fine if they're being non-competitive and purposely shutting down access to competition.

"Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act[4] prohibits “unfair methods of competition,” a term that courts have held encompasses all violations of the Sherman Act,[5] the primary federal antitrust law.[6] In applying Section 5, the FTC assesses most restrictive business agreements under the antitrust “rule of reason,” which seeks to determine whether the overall effect of a particular restraint is beneficial rather than harmful to the competitive process. A smaller category of “inherently bad” restrictive agreements will be condemned out of hand (without regard to any possible justifications) as “per se” illegal.

Under the general rule-of-reason framework, restrictive agreements that are not illegal per se will be challenged only if their anticompetitive effects outweigh their procompetitive benefits.[7] The rule of reason can be boiled down into a multipoint inquiry, which normally proceeds as follows.[8]"

Ex: FTC sued AT&T in 2014: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-fight-against-att-unlimited-data-throttling/
There's a whole list of problematic historic ISPs actions which lead to the FTC taking action. I'll let you read this if you're interested:
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the same ftc that is supposed to impose a $10k per incident fine for spoofing a phone number and doesn't even make an effort?
 
Pretty deceptive to be honest.

It's more like slow lane is the pace we can make whoppers right now. Fast lane is the high speed dedicated super robot we had built because customer X comes in here and takes 70% of our available whoppers leaving us with issues provided the public with theirs in periods of high demand, like at lunch time and dinner. Customer X will pay more for this faster access due to the cost of provided a freaking robot to satisfy their need while everyone else is better off paying the normal price for whoppers that can now satisfy demand at all times.
 
Awesome! Holy crap, that was amazing. I can't believe that a giant corporation would lend it's name to freedom. Great stuff.
 
thejokker said:
Without NN you might have to pay more to get fast internet. With NN we may face a day when a corrupt government decides to censor content because progressives deem that content offensive.
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to say the Left practices more censorship then the right?

We are talking about the religious right and republican party, correct?

I cant say no one on the left is that idiotic, by straight numbers there is no comparison.
 
You know, I wouldn't even mind if they charged me for accessing certain content, as long as I had the choice to not consume said content and thus not pay for it. I would then happily vote with my wallet...
 
Nobu said:
You know, I wouldn't even mind if they charged me for accessing certain content, as long as I had the choice to not consume said content and thus not pay for it. I would then happily vote with my wallet...
Click to expand...
That said, isn't NN supposed to prevent ISPs from making deals with content providers for "premium access" (more bandwidth than another content provider, who is paying less) for certain content? That'd make more sense than what I was thinking, anyway. I'd still be fine with getting rid of NN if that's the case, as long as they aren't allowed to just throttle to oblivion. Should at least be a minimum access speed guaranteed, imo, and if you have throttle the people paying the big bucks to ensure that, then you should probably upgrade your network.
 
If you want net neutrality then shut down the FCC and there will be so much competition in the market place that no company can afford to limit bandwidth because their competition will capitalize on it. It is a 100% guarantee that net neutrality will be used later to limit speech beyond the shadow banning and other tactics currently used. Regulate the Internet and watch it get taken over by people who want to run your life. Mark my words.
 
Elf_Boy said:
Are you really trying to say the Left practices more censorship then the right?.
Click to expand...
Yes.

The alt-left ANTIFA movement and the tactics used by leftist groups like BLM are ample evidence that the left censors with extreme violence and are willing to hunt down individuals to destroy their livelihood just for saying something they disagree with on the internet. The GOP denounce extremist groups like StormFront, KKK, ect that "claim" to be part of the conservative movement. The Left embraces their crazies.
 
SixFootDuo said:
OMFG ... the best commercial I've ever seen.

The big cup at the end of the cherry on top.

Thanks for sharing. I'm linking this on facebook now.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't... it's a failure as an analogy unfortunately... respect them trying, but they missed the point.

Someone else wrote a comment and said, correctly, that if they had offered the option to buy a Big Mac, but with a 15 minute delay compared to their own Whopper - THAT would have been relevant.

Strangely, they DID very briefly have a part in it where they mentioned being able to get a chicken sandwich straight away, which would be closer to the mark, but still the ad is a big miss unfortunately.
 
Taldren said:
Yes.

The alt-left ANTIFA movement and the tactics used by leftist groups like BLM are ample evidence that the left censors with extreme violence and are willing to hunt down individuals to destroy their livelihood just for saying something they disagree with on the internet. The GOP denounce extremist groups like StormFront, KKK, ect that "claim" to be part of the conservative movement. The Left embraces their crazies.
Click to expand...

Boy, you really went down that rabbit hole, huh...
 
You'd think in a forum like this there wouldn't be such a huge difference of opinion when it comes to net neutrality. No wonder the majority of the population has no clue.
 
thejokker said:
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards. The Burger King video misleads people by imposing new rules to ordering burgers when a correct analogy would show Burger King returning to an older rule for ordering burgers.

The internet grew and thrived without NN and their is no logical reason to assume it will not continue to do so. NN is only an example of governmental over-reach imposing itself on the free market.
Click to expand...

Not entirely accurate. The FCC did in fact regulate the internet on a case by case basis pre 2015. Do your homework.
 
Gigus Fire said:
First off, these scenarios will probably never come to pass. Since NN has been repealed, which one of you has gotten a content service charge? "But muh portugal ISPs" really doens't apply to America.
Click to expand...

FYI, NN isn't officially gone yet. It needs to be posted in the federal register for 30/60 days before it takes effect.
 
thejokker said:
Misleading false analogy. NN was enacted in 2015. Repealing NN only means returning to the pre-2015 standards.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The internet has been under NN rules for the majority of its entire existence. From 2010-2014 it was under the previous order. And prior to that the majority of internet was under not only title II but also line sharing. Stop believing ISP talking points.
 
jnmunsey said:
Net Neutrality is just more government regulation in an industry that absolutely does not need it. There wasn't a problem when it was enacted just a couple years ago and there hasn't been on since it was repealed. Many big corporations want it though, especially ones that dish out a ton of bandwidth. The free market will easily sort this out, though it will do so more effectively with more competition in the Internet provider market.
Click to expand...

Anyone who things that telecom doesn't need regulation is either incredibly ignorant of the history of the industry or lying. Which are you?
 
Gigus Fire said:
NN through title 2 enforces utility like regulations on an industry which is for profit (unlike the utility companies which have been under title 2 for the longest time and are mostly non-profit).
I'd say that it does nothing to address the service issue which exists in many ISPs, it doesn't force them to invest in infrastructure (thus not increasing speeds for the longest time) and it doesn't address increases in price for the same service.
Click to expand...

You should probably go back in time and inform ATT/SBC/PTT/etc that they were non-profit. That would be quite shocking to them. Almost every entity regulated under Title II has been a for profit corporation.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Companies have been taken to task in the past by the FTC, not the FCC. Repealing NN has to do with the title 2 utility like clause which was put into effect in 2015.
Click to expand...

Title II regulatory authority is the only legally recognized authority that can enforce NN. And no, they haven't been taken to task by the FTC. The FTC's authority is extremely limited and focuses primarily on false advertising. The FTC's record on anti-trust is abysmal as best.
 
PinchedNerve said:
Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act. Good luck getting the "what if" bunch to understand it.
Click to expand...

Most anti-NN ISP actions do not fall under the letter of any of those acts and would require the FTC to try to set legal precedent. You might also want to look at the history of major FTC anti-trust cases, it isn't exactly stellar and they certainly aren't timely.
 
Gigus Fire said:
FTC will slap them with a fine if they're being non-competitive and purposely shutting down access to competition.
Click to expand...

No they won't.

"Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act[4] prohibits “unfair methods of competition,” a term that courts have held encompasses all violations of the Sherman Act,[5] the primary federal antitrust law.[6] In applying Section 5, the FTC assesses most restrictive business agreements under the antitrust “rule of reason,” which seeks to determine whether the overall effect of a particular restraint is beneficial rather than harmful to the competitive process. A smaller category of “inherently bad” restrictive agreements will be condemned out of hand (without regard to any possible justifications) as “per se” illegal.
Click to expand...

Most ISP Anti-NN restrictions would not run afoul of anti-trust and those that might would be in very grey areas that would take at least a decade to litigate through.

Ex: FTC sued AT&T in 2014: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-fight-against-att-unlimited-data-throttling/
Click to expand...
that was false advertising, not anti-trust.
 
thejokker said:
Without NN you might have to pay more to get fast internet. With NN we may face a day when a corrupt government decides to censor content because progressives deem that content offensive.
Click to expand...

Without NN any company can censor any damn thing they want.
 
trudude said:
If you want net neutrality then shut down the FCC and there will be so much competition in the market place that no company can afford to limit bandwidth because their competition will capitalize on it. It is a 100% guarantee that net neutrality will be used later to limit speech beyond the shadow banning and other tactics currently used. Regulate the Internet and watch it get taken over by people who want to run your life. Mark my words.
Click to expand...

The FCC has literally nothing to do with the lack of competition in the ISP market. Those are primarily down to a combination of market forces due to natural monopolies and anti-competitive state level laws that the FCC tried to preempt but was struck down in the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top