OT: Net Neutrality
November 21st, 2017 at 7:07 PM ^
Not that much of a stretch. The evil nasty corporations make a fair point. I don't like what they actually want to do, which is merge infrastructure providers with content providers, but they make a fair point regardless.
That being, they're the ones who spent all the damn money building the country's entire network. And if they want to make the guy who spends a week gaming pay more than the little old lady who only uses the netz for email, they probably should be able to.
We've all gotten used to paying a flat fee for unlimited usage. Then a lot of people come along and say "regulate it like a utility" which is what they think they want but would get pissed as hell if it actually were, because you pay for utilities based on usage.
November 22nd, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^
That is a lobbyist LIE. This is a huge money grab and controlling content:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-h…
- In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would “deploy more fiber” in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
- In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on “the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.”
- That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, “Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.”
- Just a few days after the election, Cablevision and Suddenlink’s parent company Altice reaffirmed its plan to deploy FTTH [fiber-to-the-home] service to all of its customers and told investors that it remained “focused on upgrading our broadband networks to drive increases in broadband speeds and better customer experience."
November 21st, 2017 at 11:13 PM ^
Has a choice as to what to use.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:53 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:22 PM ^
the thing i don't get: is this really a political issue? i would think most people would like net neutrality, if explained to them.
or should we have lexus lanes on this highway too?
November 21st, 2017 at 6:26 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:43 PM ^
This is far closer to being accurate than it should be.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:29 PM ^
"Since I only hold opinions due to reason, anyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or evil."
Pretty classic bit of rhetorical contempt there, denying that someone could disagree with you in good faith. Depressingly common amongst tribal partisans. One of the major reasons our culture is as divided as it is.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:49 PM ^
come on man. I am being honest: I have not (to date) heard a single cogent argument about abolishing net neutrality. I'm happy to hear one, and change my mind if the argument is good. But I've read and read and am still waiting.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:37 PM ^
a political issue but it has been heavily framed as one by the telecoms who want to charge everyone up the wazoo for internet access somehow in the name of "personal freedom".
November 21st, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:25 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^
Click the link in the OP and scroll down and watch the John Oliver video - it will explain Net Neutrality in a hilarious and entertaining way. I thought it was fantastic.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:41 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:42 PM ^
be self evident, that all men are created equal,
that they endowed by their Creator with cetain unalienable rights....
November 21st, 2017 at 6:45 PM ^
Netflix? Throttled. Feel free to pay an additional $49/mo for Comcast's "video watching package".
Sports streams? Blocked.
Sites containing speech against Verizon/Comcast/TimeWarner? Censured.
The big companies win big, the little guys get the squeeze. We all lose freedom and access to unfettered information. It is the end of the internet that we know.
There's no reason for this to be a partisan issue. Every citizen of the internet stands to lose everything when this goes down.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:50 PM ^
This will destroy the open internet we've come to know, followed soon after by a chorus of people yelling "who could possbly have known this would be the result?"
November 21st, 2017 at 6:54 PM ^
Hyperbole this excessive intentionally or otherwise sends a message to people like me that arguments like this are necessary because reasoned logic cannot back up the position being advocated. I see stuff like this an instinctively tend to lean the other way.
November 21st, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^
Have you seen cable TV? That is what the internet will become. Want to go to ESPN.com? That will be an extra $10 a a month. Want Netflix to stream in HD? $10 a momth please. Want your Skype calls to actually work? $10 extra a month. All in the name of "freedom" somehow.
Look at how the Airlines have used baggage fees. That's what will be coming to the internet. And since there is little to no competition in a lot of markets, you will have no choice but to just pony up the cash.
But hey, everyone LOVES Airline baggage fees right? Let's bring that model to EVERYTHING!
November 21st, 2017 at 7:04 PM ^
Airlines are not the best example to use for your argument. Airfare has dropped 50% in 30 years due to government deregulation.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:17 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:20 PM ^
In the case of airline deregulation, it's pretty convincing.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:29 PM ^
-1 me
November 21st, 2017 at 7:18 PM ^
have NOTHING to do with the drop in airline prices.
Removing Net Neutrality will not bring about the type of competition that drove airline prices down. Over 30 years (well most like 40-50), air travel went from being luxury travel to basically being an air taxi.
Anyway, the cable TV analogy is far better, where there are limited choices in every market and the providers offer channel packages filled with one thing you really want + a ton of crap you don't for monthly fees. And you can't change providers because there aren't really any choices to change to. THAT is likely to be what will end up happening.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:32 PM ^
Actually, yes, let's bring the baggage fee model to everything. Some people call that "a la carte cable" in the sense that they both mean paying for only what you want to pay for.
People are apeshit bonkers if they think airlines used to check your bag for free. You still had to pay for that. It was just baked into the fare. Companies don't do shit for free; they're evil money-grubbers, remember? Airlines came to realize that people only care about two things when booking a flight and price is one of them. (Schedule is the other.) So they unbundled the cost of checking bags from the fare so they could keep fares down. I for one have no problem with that. I can pay for it or not pay for it. Up to me. It wasn't before, was it?
November 21st, 2017 at 7:47 PM ^
You really think you are getting a break on your fare now because of the baggage fee? You don't remember all of that BS about how the baggage fees were only temporary because of the super high cost of gas and were going to go away? (hint, they were lying).
Man, please give me your contact info so that I can hit you up the next time I have something to sell.
November 21st, 2017 at 8:01 PM ^
You might be surprised how difficult I am to sell to.
Anyway, here's a couple numbers for you. American Airlines collected about $1.1 billion in baggage fees in 2016. They earned $2.7 billion net profit in 2016. Links:
https://thecomfytraveler.com/much-airlines-make-off-baggage-fees/
http://atwonline.com/airline-financials/american-airlines-earns-27-bill…
Now, force them to stop collecting baggage fees. Which do you think is more likely?
1) This money-grubbing corporation will gladly just let half their profit go away.
2) They will make it up somewhere else. Probably in fares.
You think it's #1? I don't think it's #1.
November 21st, 2017 at 11:34 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 11:45 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^
It's not really hyperbole the examples listed already exist in other countries that lack net neutrality.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:08 PM ^
Portugal. United Airlines. "Watch John Oliver DESTROY the [anti-net neutrality people]."
These are not winning arguments.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:19 PM ^
about getting rid of net netrality other than:
"Uh FREEDOM!!!!!!"
November 21st, 2017 at 7:20 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:27 PM ^
I'm guessing he will require infinite real world examples, because his mind was made up before he entered the conversation.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:40 PM ^
You guess wrong. I've been agnostic about this issue for a long time. However, every time I try to research the issue, I encounter panicky hyperbole and barely-veiled dishonesty in favor of net neutrality. It's a type of argument I've seen a lot from all political sides lately, an argument that replaces fact with exaggeration and scare-baiting, reason with ad hominem and tribalism.
I am persuadable. The arguments you're using are persuading me that you don't have real arguments.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:49 PM ^
I believe you as much as I belive that the airlines really did intend to remove the baggage fees as soon as gas prices went down.
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:30 AM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^
Right. "Failure to discuss in good faith."
Several people in this thread posted real world scenarios explaining what will happen. You showed zero interest in them or in trying to even begin to understand them, and made exactly zero arguments for why net neutrality is bad, other than "the politicians I like are against it".
November 21st, 2017 at 7:56 PM ^
As of today ISPs are required by law to not favor or impede traffic (i.e. data packets) across their network. Removing this law legally allows the ISP monopolies to make whatever decisions they want about what websites will load quickly and which ones will load slowly or not at all.
Do you really trust Comcast to have you (the consumer's) best interests in mind when curating your web experience?
The question really comes down to - is the internet an information super highway free from bias and control (i.e. a utility)? Or is it the private sandbox of the ISP monopolies?
I know which internet I want to have and which one would be a nightmare to deal with.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:56 PM ^
This is probably going to pass because of the groups of people that currently hold the power to make it happen. We may fix it someday, but it will take a long time.
Regardless of your political beliefs, it’s undeniable that America has removed itself as leader of the world.
November 21st, 2017 at 10:39 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:27 PM ^
We're providing real, concrete, examples about what ISPs can, have, and will do if net neutrality protections are not in place. The argument agains net neutrality are concern trolling and using slippery slope arguments about the evils of any and all government regulation. And you think they net neutrality proponents are using hyperbole?
I think you already had your mind made up .
November 21st, 2017 at 11:38 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:23 AM ^
Duh, it's stephenrjking. All the guy does is type paragraphs rambling about nothing regarding Michigan football while concluding that both side A and B are correct, but disagrees with both somehow leading to another 5 paragraphs.
You really think his political stances are going to be any different?
Clear the dude has his mind made up.
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:50 AM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:06 AM ^
Nah your lack of responses to Runandshoot's posts which provide clear datapoints for you to digest tell me all I need to know.
This is even further evidenced by your quick response to me, yet Runandshoot's data posts, WHICH YOU REQUESTED, have been up for 3 hours now.
You post just to post and rile people up using your weird contrarian points while purposefully not paying attention to the answers you claim you want to see.
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:23 AM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:48 AM ^
His posts are the exact crux of this situation. ISPs are arguing that NN somehow affects their profitability.
Sock puppet Pai's argument is that NN is somehow too much government control. They go hand in hand on the Republicans' necessant need to undue anything Obama touched.
If you can't see how those two things work in this, then there's no helping you.
Oh and go see Don's posts too.
November 22nd, 2017 at 2:30 AM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 9:49 PM ^
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-int…
and one more:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-h…
There isn't a reason to eliminate net neutrality because according to the ISPs themselves, it isn't hurting investment in infastructure or hurting profits, for that matter.
This is about being able to charge more money for less because they can. And will. Why would any consumer be in favor of that, honestly?