Net Neutrality is dead, FCC voted to kill it.

[TheComebackKid]

First post in this thread. Nothing about the topic.



2nd post. More "but Hilary", nothing about the topic.



Finally! It's almost like someone had to pry your thoughts on the actual subject from that little peanut. Hmmmm.



You did. Until you got called out. Weak.

You sound kind of like a child, not gonna lie. I think this is an example of someone just trying to find something...anything...to bicker with a trump supporter about.

 

[Trotsky]

I voted for the best candidate in the race.

No. You didn't, assuming you voted for Trump. Trump was the single worst candidate in US history, and there isn't even a close second.

I truly despise Clinton. I think she is a selfish cancer to the American left and to genuine humanitarians the world over. However, she was exponentially more competent and less corrupt than Trump, and her policies were (when not influenced by corporate sway-- the same one that pretty much operates Trump's every decision) sensible, nuanced, and for the good of all Americans.

And, honestly, I can't even say that Trump is meaning to hurt the American people (as is certainly the case with many other political figures) so much as that he's both completely unintelligent and so egotistical that he cannot recognize his political shortcomings.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You're right, we should have voted for Hillary and got TPP instead

If you are going to bitch and moan about the TPP, please explain as to what it actually is, save a copy paste.

 

[Space]

You sound kind of like a child, not gonna lie. I think this is an example of someone just trying to find something...anything...to bicker with a trump supporter about.

You know, I've been feeling good lately, and I'm giving everyone here a chance...except @CargoKing. I honestly think he eats paint chips for breakfast. Also he needs to get an avatar, otherwise he's basically a nobody.

 

[ShoelessRye]

FCC didn't kill it. Trump killed it.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No. You didn't, assuming you voted for Trump. Trump was the single worst candidate in US history, and there isn't even a close second.

I truly despise Clinton. I think she is a selfish cancer to the American left and to genuine humanitarians the world over. However, she was exponentially more competent and less corrupt than Trump, and her policies were (when not influenced by corporate sway-- the same one that pretty much operates Trump's every decision) sensible, nuanced, and for the good of all Americans.

And, honestly, I can't even say that Trump is meaning to hurt the American people (as is certainly the case with many other political figures) so much as that he's both completely unintelligent and so egotistical that he cannot recognize his political shortcomings.

I see. Well I think he's doing a good job considering he's embroiled in a life and death battle with the biggest swamp creatures in the world. I suppose it's all about perspective, ya know?

And Trump had the best agenda of any presidential candidate in the last 35 yrs.

 

[pinger]

Hopefully one day Murkans will wake up and stop letting corporations act like tyrants.

Hey corporations are people just like Super Pacs. They have feelings and stuff

 

[Trotsky]

I see. Well I think he's doing a good job considering he's embroiled in a life and death battle with the biggest swamp creatures in the world. I suppose it's all about perspective, ya know?

And Trump had the best agenda of any presidential candidate in the last 35 yrs.

Holy shit.

he's embroiled in a life and death battle with the biggest swamp creatures in the world

Are you kidding? He has appointed a who's who of corporate executives and lobbyists to his cabinet, has relied on the counsel of bona fide profiteers, and has received his political support from entrenched GOP mainstays like McConnell who have been exploiting their constituents for profit for years (see: McConnell's multiple 1990s and 2000s lawsuits trying to make campaign finance less transparent and less regulated, while voting completely in line with his benefactors' interests and representing the poorest state in the country). TRUMP IS THE SWAMP. He correctly identified a problem with private interests and powerful accumulations of capital infiltrating the government and then, upon election, doubled down on it.

And Trump had the best agenda of any presidential candidate in the last 35 yrs.

You don't believe that. You're not that stupid.

His only meritorious policy points were (a) TPP and (b) gutting lobbyist and private influence. He followed through on the first and completely, shamelessly reversed on the latter.

The rest of his policy points? Completely contrary to even the most basic grasps on public policy (hence why he was universally opposed by economists, administrative law experts, etc.). Would you like to take a tour of his policy points (at least the few that can be said to be consistent and not explicitly contradicted by later ramblings)? It might take some time, but basically every premise and conclusion within his policy repertoire is fairly easily disproven as spurious, off-point, reductive, or just plain dishonest.

I suppose it's all about perspective, ya know?

No, it's not. There is no intelligent or informed perspective that believe that Trump's campaign agenda or his presidency thus far were/are anything short of an unmitigated disaster that would yield disastrous results in the short and long term. Unless you're a Marxist like Zizek who believed that a Trump victory might force the Democratic Party to abandon neoliberalism and the shameless corporate-corruptness that has completely taken over the GOP and has held back the Dems' populist platforms since Carter and especially since Bill Clinton, or more extremely would bring an end to Western capitalism itself, there was no logical reason to believe Trump to be a better candidate than Clinton. I do understand that there was some basis to predict he wouldn't be this bad. But that's neither here nor there.

It's only "all about perspective" in the sense that some persons' perspectives are cast with limited information, however often due to willful ignorance, and might thereafter be objectively skewed.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

And other than Rand or Bernie they would have all signed onto that deal. Bernie and Rand didn't get the nomination(not that I would have voted for crazy bernie anyway) and that left Trump.

The only other candidate I would take in place of Trump would be Rand Paul.

Rand Paul has the same garbage position on net neutrality that Trump does fyi

 

[CargoKing]

You sound kind of like a child, not gonna lie. I think this is an example of someone just trying to find something...anything...to bicker with a trump supporter about.

Save letters and just go with "I'm dead wrong" next time.

You know, I've been feeling good lately, and I'm giving everyone here a chance...except @CargoKing. I honestly think he eats paint chips for breakfast. Also he needs to get an avatar, otherwise he's basically a nobody.

Hey look, it's the shy boy. Thoughts on the topic?

 

[Space]

Hey look, it's the shy boy. Thoughts on the topic?

LOL what shy boy; I disagree with the Repub's on this topic.

 

[lecter]

If you have any clue on what you were talking about you would understand the regulations was to keep internet service providers neutral.

Yeah, you don't say Einstein... What's hard to understand about my post?
The basic idea of "net neutrality" is that end users are equally in control of what content they access and what services they use instead of broadband carriers controlling traffic by limiting access (denying/throttling/charging extra money) depending on platform, type of data etc. Optimally companies wouldn't inspect or tamper with the packets that are transmitted over their infrastructure at all and just sell the right to use their infrastructure for whatever the end user wants.

Even if it's often repeated how this is 'a principle' of the internet ever since the beginning of time, that's of course not the state of nature.
Public domain ideas and concepts aren't enough to actually implement the 'net' and the physical means necessary for exchanging data between geographically distant systems aren't free, so the world wide web is largely operated by private companies simply because it's their business model.
The end user can't develop, build and maintain that property on their own, so he typically has access to the internet by entering into a contract with private companies. And of course, around the globe, for many people, either their ISP or their government violates the principles of net neutrality.
There needs to be a way to 'achieve' that, it's not just there. Governments can get in the way of it and companies have to 'actively' ensure it.
Arguably none of this entities is more of a problem than the other. If anything, Government censorship which doesn't allow the free exchange of political or cultural ideas is maybe the worst violation of the 'net neutrality' principle, not only paying x dollars more to access Netflix, which seems to be the go-to horror scenario today.

One way, and I think that's what most Republicans use as an excuse, is to say: Well, an ISP is free to operate under the principle of net neutrality.
If that's what users really want, they'll prefer such ISPs and the market will ensure net neutrality. The obvious problem is that there's not much of a free market situation among ISPs and customers always fear collusion.

The current (now to be repealed) solution is that a government enforces regulations which ensure neutrality on the companies' side of things.
The opposition of plans to hand control over to ISPs has now equated that situation with "net neutrality". Of course for this to work you fully have to accept the fundamental idea that it's within the scope of a government to enforce regulations on what content to provide to end users.
The fact that currently those regulations try to ensure net neutrality when it comes to ISPs doesn't change that at all. That obviously means that one out of 2 entities you want to be protected from when it comes to net neutrality is also responsible for enforcing it and in the position of a final arbiter. Once governments have a finger in the pie, a steady power grab will almost certainly happen. And by the way: Judging the overall situation at the end of the day, the USA are currently on the Enemies of the Internet list (Reporters without borders) while some European states which don't enforce something like Obama's net neutrality aren't.

I mean just look at discussions (worse in Europe but also in the US) on how there should be some commission within a government agency (or similar concepts) which tells platforms what type of content they have to delete because it's fake news. This thought should be ridiculous and I hate to use that word but somewhat frightening. But it's not because we've already fully accepted that the government regulates the internet with a common good in mind. Otherwise a society would immediately say "wtf why do they think they have any business telling us what we can share or watch, we don't want a ministry of truth". But it's like a cancer, once it's there it will grow.

Apart from that, there are legitimate arguments against a form of net neutrality which is defined as some sort of positive freedom saying that all services not only have to be provided but have to be provided for the same price. It doesn't allow ISPs to use their resources in the most profitable way which might slow down innovations and makes market entry even harder and the big companies even more shielded from competition - which would be a path to honest nn from both governments and companies.

Can you look back at the development of various technologies throughout history and honestly and confidently claim you know that we would have everything we take for granted in 2017 if governments stepped in all the time and said NO, YOU CERTAINLY WON'T USE OR SELL IT THAT WAY?

I could see how you don't agree, I don't see what it has to do with not understanding something. And before you type an angry rant against lolbergterians, given the current situation I'm not supportive of this development. But as I've said, I see it at pick your poison.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Happened on Trump's watch. Not a coincidence.

Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan of the TPP, but I wanted someone who was ready and capable to replace it with something better, and Trump is like a 7th grader who hasn't even read the first page of the first chapter of his textbook, yet.

We're not out of the game, though. We can aggressively negotiate from this point forward. It would help if we had a more comprehensive plan.

Can the Chinese still be contained? or they already took the initiative atleast in East Asiam afairs?

 

[CargoKing]

LOL what shy boy; I disagree with the Repub's on this topic.

Oh I wasn't sure because you didn't comment on it until your 3rd post on page 4... after being asked.

 

[m52nickerson]

Yeah, you don't say Einstein... What's hard to understand about my post?
The basic idea of "net neutrality" is that end users are equally in control of what content they access and what services they use instead of broadband carriers controlling traffic by limiting access (denying/throttling/charging extra money) depending on platform, type of data etc. Optimally companies wouldn't inspect or tamper with the packets that are transmitted over their infrastructure at all and just sell the right to use their infrastructure for whatever the end user wants.

Even if it's often repeated how this is 'a principle' of the internet ever since the beginning of time, that's of course not the state of nature.
Public domain ideas and concepts aren't enough to actually implement the 'net' and the physical means necessary for exchanging data between geographically distant systems aren't free, so the world wide web is largely operated by private companies simply because it's their business model.
The end user can't develop, build and maintain that property on their own, so he typically has access to the internet by entering into a contract with private companies. And of course, around the globe, for many people, either their ISP or their government violates the principles of net neutrality.
There needs to be a way to 'achieve' that, it's not just there. Governments can get in the way of it and companies have to 'actively' ensure it.
Arguably none of this entities is more of a problem than the other. If anything, Government censorship which doesn't allow the free exchange of political or cultural ideas is maybe the worst violation of the 'net neutrality' principle, not only paying x dollars more to access Netflix, which seems to be the go-to horror scenario today.

One way, and I think that's what most Republicans use as an excuse, is to say: Well, an ISP is free to operate under the principle of net neutrality.
If that's what users really want, they'll prefer such ISPs and the market will ensure net neutrality. The obvious problem is that there's not much of a free market situation among ISPs and customers always fear collusion.

The current (now to be repealed) solution is that a government enforces regulations which ensure neutrality on the companies' side of things.
The opposition of plans to hand control over to ISPs has now equated that situation with "net neutrality". Of course for this to work you fully have to accept the fundamental idea that it's within the scope of a government to enforce regulations on what content to provide to end users.
The fact that currently those regulations try to ensure net neutrality when it comes to ISPs doesn't change that at all. That obviously means that one out of 2 entities you want to be protected from when it comes to net neutrality is also responsible for enforcing it and in the position of a final arbiter. Once governments have a finger in the pie, a steady power grab will almost certainly happen. And by the way: Judging the overall situation at the end of the day, the USA are currently on the Enemies of the Internet list (Reporters without borders) while some European states which don't enforce something like Obama's net neutrality aren't.

I mean just look at discussions (worse in Europe but also in the US) on how there should be some commission within a government agency (or similar concepts) which tells platforms what type of content they have to delete because it's fake news. This thought should be ridiculous and I hate to use that word but somewhat frightening. But it's not because we've already fully accepted that the government regulates the internet with a common good in mind. Otherwise a society would immediately say "wtf why do they think they have any business telling us what we can share or watch, we don't want a ministry of truth". But it's like a cancer, once it's there it will grow.

Apart from that, there are legitimate arguments against a form of net neutrality which is defined as some sort of positive freedom saying that all services not only have to be provided but have to be provided for the same price. It doesn't allow ISPs to use their resources in the most profitable way which might slow down innovations and makes market entry even harder and the big companies even more shielded from competition - which would be a path to honest nn from both governments and companies.

Can you look back at the development of various technologies throughout history and honestly and confidently claim you know that we would have everything we take for granted in 2017 if governments stepped in all the time and said NO, YOU CERTAINLY WON'T USE OR SELL IT THAT WAY?

I could see how you don't agree, I don't see what it has to do with not understanding something. And before you type an angry rant against lolbergterians, given the current situation I'm not supportive of this development. But as I've said, I see it at pick your poison.

All those words and you argument is simply a slippery slop one. That if the government regulates the internet at all they will censor it. Pretty sure your same arguments were made by the telephone companies many years ago. That if regulations were put on then no more telephone lines would be run, that they could not make money, that the government would further interfere. How did that turn out?

 

[RockstarChris]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-begin-rollback-of-net-neutrality-regulations




Whelp, we lost. The only good thing Obama ever did has now been overturned. Time to bow down to Comcast. I wonder what this wil
NOTE FROM COMCAST: This forum post exceeds the maximum length of a forum post allowed to be viewed on your INTERNET BASIC package. Customers who upgrade to INTERNET PREMIUM are allowed to view forum posts up to 3000 characters! You can also pay a one time fee of $0.99 to view the rest of this post now.

NOTE FROM COMCAST: Your website traffic and sales exceed the amount allowed for a user with our Basic Package. You will be automatically upgraded to our Home Business Package and your monthly internet access bill will be based on a percentage of your sales. Thank you and if you require any customer service then please visit our FAQ section on our website.

 

[lecter]

All those words and you argument is simply a slippery slop one.

Like with all deductive fallacies, the argument that a small initial step leads to more significant effects CAN be fallacious, it isn't by default.
Just like citing experts can be fallacious if it's a wrong appeal to authority or can be a legit argument, depending on how it's worded.
Since those charts with summaries of logical fallacies float around, unfortunately, debate culture didn't improve at all, if anything it took a hit because people who always feel like they're infinitely smarter than anybody esle, like you (for example) ( AD HOMINEM ALERT !!!!) prefer to shout latin terms at other people and decline an actual conversation. Also, how is it a small initial step if making a decision on this initial issue one or the other way already triggers a massive meltdown? It is already a massive intervention. The difference between this and steadily adding more regulations is much smaller than the difference between not regulating at it all and regulating it. And additional steps were already brought up by some top politicians. Therefore, I'm absolutely not seeing a fallacy in my argumentation.

That if the government regulates the internet at all they will censor it.

No, not that they will. "They" already do that all around the world. And I'd like to get away from that as far as possible instead of legitimizing the fundamental thought and only fighting over the specific conditions and implementations.

 

[m52nickerson]

Like with all deductive fallacies, the argument that a small initial step leads to more significant effects CAN be fallacious, it isn't by default.
Just like citing experts can be fallacious if it's a wrong appeal to authority or can be a legit argument, depending on how it's worded.
Since those charts with summaries of logical fallacies float around, unfortunately, debate culture didn't improve at all, if anything it took a hit because people who always feel like they're infinitely smarter than anybody esle, like you (for example) ( AD HOMINEM ALERT !!!!) prefer to shout latin terms at other people and decline an actual conversation. Also, how is it a small initial step if making a decision on this initial issue one or the other way already triggers a massive meltdown? It is already a massive intervention. The difference between this and steadily adding more regulations is much smaller than the difference between not regulating at it all and regulating it. And additional steps were already brought up by some top politicians. Therefore, I'm absolutely not seeing a fallacy in my argumentation.


No, not that they will. "They" already do that all around the world. And I'd like to get away from that as far as possible instead of legitimizing the fundamental thought and only fighting over the specific conditions and implementations.

I never called you argument a fallacious one. Nor did I use any latin terms, but you did.

Mirror, mirror...

You're argument is simply a very weak one, and the same one made in the past that never came to be.

As for the rest of the world censoring in, well they do that. Just like most of the world does not have freedoms of speech the way we have. In certain regards, such as this, we are simply better. I will put that up against your rather weak argument any day of the weak.

 

[lecter]

.

As for the rest of the world censoring in, well they do that. Just like most of the world does not have freedoms of speech the way we have. In certain regards, such as this, we are simply better.

Yes, I agree, in some ways we are. But looking at those issues we're only as good as the people we put in office.
May I ask how you feel about Trump & his administration compared to most of the western world's administrations?
What if you feel equally bad about the next president because people once again put a lunatic in office but this time he does the opposite?

Also, as I said, even though certain EU-wide regulations exist, some European countries don't put the same restriction onto ISPs, yet the end users don't seem to suffer much at all. Merkel, for example, is an outspoken opponent of net neutrality the way we're talking about it.
Just ask @JDragon or @snakedafunky, depending on which ISP they use, their internet access might be throttled for certain services.
It's quite interesting to read up on this. Vodafone, a British/international telecommunications company were throttling specific services like peer-to-peer and one-click-hoster if their customers were using it 'too extensively' and this was part of their contracts. That's a violation of net neutrality. There was negative press and they already had to back down from a hard limit (not because of regulations but because of customers) but they kept their right to throttle specific services in place if a customer's usage is significantly out of the norm. Other competing ISPs don't throttle at all. So the customers can decide and Vodafone will see if it's important for the people. That works much better in those countries than it would work in the US simply because the market situation is better. But telling companies how to sell the rights to use their resources won't improve that at all. If they can't be allocated in the most efficient way, it's harder, not easier to actually challenge the established big companies.

 

[GhostZ06]

Thanks trump s