Net Neutrality Bandwagon

  • Thread starter Deleted member 490433
  • Start date
Comcast practices are an issue with monopolies.

And of course it will hurt small ISPs. Let's say you get a small ISP that wants to optimize their servers for content hosted in North America. Can't do that, net neutrality. Basically any optimization (whether good or bad from the user's perspective) would be restricted by net neutrality. Also, costs are always introduced when government regulation comes in, which in many cases is necessary.

And remember, net neutrality doesn't solve the problem of making the Internet 'fair'. It simply moves that responsibility to the always trustworthy and non-corrupt US government.

This is a total red herring. You want to hand over control over internet content to the worst company in America because of the off-chance one of the rules might negatively impact some non-existent ISP. This is specious reasoning.

If ISP monopolization is a real concern of yours you should want MORE regulation, not less. The lack of regulation is why we are where we are today.
 
It's about the equivalent of the gov't stepping in and deciding no more overnight mail service or priority shipping. We have to be neutral, so no company is allowed to deliver packages any faster than the slowest service. It's just another excuse for government to dip their hands in yet another industry. There was no problem, so no reason for the government to intervene here.
But how does that help the bigger websites?

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I'm not following your reasoning.
 
Not all "involvement" is equivalent. Government "involvement" is also what protects our freedoms, example: The Bill of Rights.



The same incentives that everyone has who chooses to screw over customers... profit.



Now you are supporting government involvement? Make up your mind.



Spare us the pity-party for corporations that are making loads of money, and who are using their wealth to buy our politicians so that they can impose onerous practices on us.
Here's a question: what do you expect net neutrality to actually do? There is only so much bandwidth, just like there is only so much electricity or water.

Let's say the US government is completely righteous and says to ISP companies: "you can't throttle certain sites". What happens? Well, there is only so much bandwidth, so ISP companies have to either:

- Raise prices to price people out of using bandwidth at certain times (i.e., how electric companies price things at peak hours)
- ??????

The problem is bandwidth is not an unlimited resource that ISPs are just fucking us with. It is limited and during peak hours it is overloading the servers.
 
Also it allows the US government to have more of a say into what is 'fair' and 'unfair'. So you've essentially shifted your trust for what is 'fair' from the ISP to the US government.

Corporations have zero interest in what's fair. Their interest is in maximizing their profits by fair or unfair means.

Fairness is what we, in theory, have government regulations for.
 
I think the idea ISPs will bundle site packages is pretty LOL-worthy. The extent to which customers wouldn't tolerate this is crazy. There would be a national fucking outcry, people would be pissed. It might lead to more government control than ever before in the end.

I could however see them doing shady behind the scenes stuff quietly, throttling Netflix or something because they want to discourage its use. If a whistleblower ever revealed something like that though, the media would probably crucify them. So it'd be dangerous to do that, and probably wouldn't help profits.

How does this trigger snowflakes?

And if anything, doesn't that mean you should be *against* net neutrality?

http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throttling-speeds-2017-7

They are doing it now WITH net neutrality. It will just get worse if it goes away.
 
This is a total red herring. You want to hand over control over internet content to the worst company in America because of the off-chance one of the rules might negatively impact some non-existent ISP. This is specious reasoning.

If ISP monopolization is a real concern of yours you should want MORE regulation, not less. The lack of regulation is why we are where we are today.
More regulation leads to less monopolies? Haha, that's simply not true.

Barriers to entry, rent seeking etc. Most (not all) regulations lead to more oliogpolies and monopolies, not less.
 
But how does that help the bigger websites?

Again, not saying you're wrong, but I'm not following your reasoning.
Running bigger sites requires more bandwidth etc. Have you seen how slowly this site runs on fight night, especially after an upset? Well net neutrality would dictate that other sites with less traffic would not be allowed to run faster.
 
Not all "involvement" is equivalent. Government "involvement" is also what protects our freedoms, example: The Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights exists to protect us from *government* interference. I think perhaps you are missing the point of the bill of rights. It's wise to be paranoid about the government.
The same incentives that everyone has who chooses to screw over customers... profit.
Indeed. And profit is also the sole reason to believe in customer service.

There are some shady things customers will tolerate, some level of shitty service they will accept. But there are some things they will not tolerate at all. Some of this net neutrality fear mongering is clearly fanciful.
Now you are supporting government involvement? Make up your mind.
No one is opposed to *all* government interference. No one wants corporations to be able to dump toxic chemicals anywhere they please.

One has to evaluate each regulation on its own merits, with the understanding that regulations do have costs, and often harm the very public they seek to protect.
Spare us the pity-party for corporations that are making loads of money, and who are using their wealth to buy our politicians so that they can impose onerous practices on us.
These companies are providing you with services. It's a synergistic relationship.

I think I am more for net neutrality than against, however I am far from convinced it is actually in the public good.

One could imagine a streamlined ISP that didn't allow streaming or something, and thus was cheap, and some niche market may actually choose them. In the free market, customers would decide what they want. That's just one example. It's easy to think of how the public is harmed by government fucking with things.

Again, I think I lean towards the government imposing net neutrality, because the government invented the internet and the ISP market is an oligopoly with not as much choice as most markets.

But it's not a clear cut issue in terms of the public interest. If you think it is, you do not understand the costs and dangers of government interference in the free market. This is a complex issue.
 
Lol yeah just email your congressmen... I'm sure they really give a flying fuck <45>

Americans made their bed when they put republicans in total control of all three branches of government. Time to lay down in it and die.

"Buh but her emails and the mexicans..." Enjoy your super expensive internet access retards :)

...seriously?

<1>
 
Lol yeah just email your congressmen... I'm sure they really give a flying fuck <45>

Americans made their bed when they put republicans in total control of all three branches of government. Time to lay down in it and die.

"Buh but her emails and the mexicans..." Enjoy your super expensive internet access retards :)
Congressmen absolutely care about letters, phone calls etc., especially if they are done en masse.

The FCC was going to get rid of net neutrality, but the John Oliver show on HBO did a segment on it, and showed people how to easily contact the FCC. The FCC was flooded with people wanting net neutrality, and changed their minds. People even coined a term for this, the "Oliver Effect".

Many people have this delusion that the NRA has a large budget, and that they buy off politicians. This is simply not true. Their budget is relatively small, and countless organizations that aren't that powerful and you've never heard of have vastly bigger budgets than the NRA.

But when the NRA tells its members to call their congressmen...they ACTUALLY DO IT! And while anti-gun people sometimes call after major famous shootings, NRA members will call even when the issue is getting no media attention. I wish the 2nd amendment was repealed, but the NRA has power due to passion, not money. Members calling congressmen is one of their main methods of influence. It's a strong signal to politicians that people will actually *vote* based on this issue.

So contacting your congressmen is not a fool's errand. Especially if you, yourself, were personally the victim of something. Politicians love virtue signaling by protecting people from unethical corporate practices. They know the media eats that shit up. Corporations have tons of power, but inidividuals influence congressmen all the time, as well. Especially if you meet them in person.

Also, getting rid of net neutrality could well allow for existing ISPs, or new ISPs, to create customized services that would actually be cheaper. I don't know if this would happen, or if it was it would then be successful. But net neutrality limits corporate flexibility in creating services.
http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-netflix-youtube-throttling-speeds-2017-7

They are doing it now WITH net neutrality. It will just get worse if it goes away.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I said I wouldn't be surprised by.

But many fears people have are clearly fanciful and out there.
 
Well, I mean, I don't think it's a big deal really. I think it's a very overhyped issue.

If it were repealed, I don't think gun deaths would go down by very much. There's more guns in America than people. You'd have to confiscate them...and there would still be tons out there. And as they say, outlaw guns and only criminals have guns. I'd still get rid of the 2nd amendment - I just don't feel gun ownership should be a right - but I don't think getting rid of the 2nd amendment would do much good. It's even conceivable it could do harm.

But anyway, it doesn't matter. The 2nd amendment isn't getting repealed. Not in my lifetime anyway. The US would need to change radically for that to happen.
 
what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg
 
Back
Top