Spread the word guys

[IamStryker]

They control the way content is accessed, and why shouldn't they? They're the provider. If you don't like it, then you can start your own Internet service. The Berniebros have to realize that Internet is not a right. You might not like it, but that's the reality.

Because they don't own what is on the internet. They are just paid to get it to your house.

 

[Coolidge]

Because they don't own what is on the internet. They are just paid to get it to your house.

They don't claim to. That's exactly what they're doing. Sometimes they have to throttle the service and set limitations depending on the usage, and they have every right to do that.

 

[IamStryker]

They don't claim to. That's exactly what they're doing. Sometimes they have to throttle the service and set limitations depending on the usage, and they have every right to do that.

This isn't about just "setting limitations for it's usage". It's about them picking and choosing what internet activities they want to support and what they don't want to support all for the purpose of increasing their profits. That is giving them direct control over the internet itself. Not just charging you to have access to it at set speeds. They could hypothetically have the power to censor a particular website just because they don't like the message. I really don't get why anyone outside of working for these ISP's would support something like that. This is really just as bad as if the government wanted to control the internet.

 

[Coolidge]

This isn't about just "setting limitations for it's usage". It's about them picking and choosing what internet activities they want to support and what they don't want to support all for the purpose of increasing their profits. That is giving them direct control over the internet itself. Not just charging you to have access to it at set speeds. They could hypothetically have the power to censor a particular website just because they don't like the message. I really don't get why anyone outside of working for these ISP's would support something like that.

That's pure fear-mongering. That would actually be bad for business and bad for profit. But if one site is more demanding than the other (Netflix vs Joe Schmoe's blog), then they have every right to charge their customers more to access it and implement other ways to manage the demand.

You mean just like the left has done with a number of websites that have been shut down in recent months because they didn't like their political message? Except they didn't do it through Comcast or some other provider. They did it through the domain registrar and/or the actual server that hosts the files. Are you complaining about that, too, or just the providers?

This is really just as bad as if the government wanted to control the internet.

You're advocating for the government to have greater control over the Internet.

 

[Sammy Bananas]

I've already explained one of the reasons on page 1.

"government shouldn't be allowed to dictate to providers"

Is this the deacon you are talking about? If so, this is not a reason. Why do you think the government shouldn't be able to do this?

 

[Coolidge]

"government shouldn't be allowed to dictate to providers"

Is this the deacon you are talking about? If so, this is not a reason. Why do you think the government shouldn't be able to do this?

That is a reason.

It's self-explanatory. It's not the government's business, literally, and they shouldn't be able to interfere in their decisions on how they operate their service.

 

[IamStryker]

That's pure fear-mongering. That would actually be bad for business and bad for profit. But if one site is more demanding than the other (Netflix vs Joe Schmoe's blog), then they have every right to charge their customers more to access it and implement other ways to manage the demand.
.

They already charge for faster speeds if someone needs them that isn't the point. ISP's could decide to charge people more for using a popular website like Netflix for instance. Not because it costs them more to provide the internet to you to use Netflix but because they know you will pay to get that access. In other words they want to be able to play favorites with websites to nickel and dime you. Oh and here is another example of what can happen. AT&T and Time Warner could merge soon which means that an ISP will own HBO. What's to stop them from playing favorites to HBO's streaming service and keep people away from Netflix?

You mean just like the left has done with a number of websites that have been shut down in recent months because they didn't like their political message? Except they didn't do it through Comcast or some other provider. They did it through the domain registrar and/or the actual server that hosts the files. Are you complaining about that, too, or just the providers?
.

Of course I'm against any abuse of power over the internet.

You're advocating for the government to have greater control over the Internet.

Did I say I wasn't? Your argument so far has included that the government should have no say but from what I see you are arguing something that is going to be worse. Yeah I think there should be a law that keeps the internet neutral so that corporations don't have control over it. That seems better than making the ISP's the overlords of the internet.

 

[IamStryker]

That is a reason.

It's self-explanatory. It's not the government's business, literally, and they shouldn't be able to interfere in their decisions on how they operate their service.

What's on the internet is not the ISP's business either.

 

[Coolidge]

ISP's could decide to charge people more for using a popular website like Netflix for instance. Not because it costs them more to provide the internet to you to use Netflix but because they know you will pay to get that access.

But it does it cost they more. It doesn't matter what reason they have for charging more. It's their service and they can charge more if they want to.

In other words they want to be able to play favorites with websites to nickel and dime you.

No, it's not about playing favorites. It's about cost and the amount of demand on their systems.

Oh and here is another example of what can happen. AT&T and Time Warner could merge soon which means that an ISP will own HBO. What's to stop them from playing favorites to HBO's streaming service and keep people away from Netflix?

And piss off the tens of millions of Netflix users? Don't like it. Move services. That's exactly what would happen if they did that. A mass exodus away from the service.

Of course I'm against any abuse of power over the internet.

So why aren't you complaining about it? You're talking about hypothetical situations. I'm talking about things that are actually happening. How would you propose to stop that, anyways? Do you think you should be able to tell a domain registrar or a server that they can't shut down a website? Why do you think you have the authority to tell them that?

Did I say I wasn't? Your argument so far has included that the government should have no say but from what I see you are arguing something that is going to be worse. Yeah I think there should be a law that keeps the internet neutral so that corporations don't have control over it.

Right. It should be left up to the service providers and the free market.

 

[Coolidge]

What's on the internet is not the ISP's business either.

Well, it's a good thing they don't have any control over what's on the Internet.

 

[IamStryker]

But it does it cost they more. It doesn't matter what reason they have for charging more. It's their service and they can charge more if they want to.

They already charge more for speeds. You are advocating that they can charge more for any website for any reason and you don't see the problem with that? They could demand absurd amounts of money from Netflix or else they will slow the service to a crawl. No the internet is not their service. They didn't invent it. You have a problem with the Left controlling the internet but not an ISP? I don't see how that makes any sense.

No, it's not about playing favorites. It's about cost and the amount of demand on their systems.

No and you just said it doesn't matter the reason so don't blame your stance on cost. You are advocating that they can play favorites if they want to. For any reason.

And piss off the tens of millions of Netflix users? Don't like it. Move services. That's exactly what would happen if they did that. A mass exodus away from the service.

How many ISP's do you live near because I have ONE. The scenario I gave you is just one scenario. What is to stop the few ISP's from all doing the same thing?

So why aren't you complaining about it? You're talking about hypothetical situations. I'm talking about things that are actually happening. How would you propose to stop that, anyways? Do you think you should be able to tell a domain registrar or a server that they can't shut down a website? Why do you think you have the authority to tell them that?

What makes you think I don't complain about it? Uh, The net neutrality issue isn't hypothetical. The Federal Communications Commission will vote to put an end to its net neutrality next month.

Right. It should be left up to the service providers and the free market.

The service providers have no right to be the overlords of the internet. They have no right to tell me what sites I see and use. It's amazing that you think that is ok and complain about the Left censoring the internet.

 

[IamStryker]

Well, it's a good thing they don't have any control over what's on the Internet.

You are advocating that they do have control of what's on the internet because they would be able to dictate who can use any website that they want. They can BLOCK websites.

 

[Coolidge]

They already charge more for speeds. You are advocating that they can charge more for any website for any reason and you don't see the problem with that? They could demand absurd amounts of money from Netflix or else they will slow the service to a crawl. No the internet is not their service. They didn't invent it. You have a problem with the Left controlling the internet but not an ISP? I don't see how that makes any sense.

No, there's no problem with that. It's their service and perfectly went their rights. 'You have a problem with the...' I have a problem with people shutting down websites based on political differences. Do I want government to step in and stop a domain registrar/service from denying people the ability to use their service? Nope. If they want to do that, then they have every right to. I just don't support it from an ideological standpoint.

No and you just said it doesn't matter the reason so don't blame your stance on cost. You are advocating that they can play favorites if they want to. For any reason.

I'm not 'blaming' my stance on cost. I'm explaining what their reasons are. A vast conspiracy to shut down political viewpoints and cripple competitors is not one of them. '...play favorites' Just as the UFC can play favorites and give titleshots to whoever they please. Yes.

How many ISP's do you live near because I have ONE. The scenario I gave you is just one scenario. What is to stop the few ISP's from all doing the same thing?

Two, and I've had no problem with, either. The average person doesn't have your concerns, which is why people like this have to resort to spamming the pro net neutrality message on an MMA forum. 'What is to stop...' What is to stop the government for manipulating and controlling the Internet in a way they see fit?

What makes you think I don't complain about it? Uh, The net neutrality issue isn't hypothetical. The Federal Communications Commission will vote to put an end to its net neutrality next month.

Well, do you? Where else have you talked about this issue? '...isn't hypothetical' I said you gave me hypothetical situations. You did. When a sentence starts with 'What's to stop...', that's a good indication that's hypothetical. 'will vote to put an end' That's a good thing.

 

[Coolidge]

The service providers have no right to be the overlords of the internet. They have no right to tell me what sites I see and use. It's amazing that you think that is ok and complain about the Left censoring the internet.

Apparently, they do. You just said the FCC is about to vote to end net neutrality.

'is ok and complain about the Left' It's okay for you to complain. It's not okay for you to dictate to an autonomous company what they can and can not do with their service. I don't like the fact that the left convinced registrars/service to shut down particular websites, but I understand that it was the right of these companies to do that. If they happen to not like your website, they don't have to allow you to use their service. You're not entitled to their stuff by virtue of breathing.

 

[IamStryker]

I'm not 'blaming' my stance on cost. I'm explaining what their reasons are. A vast conspiracy to shut down political viewpoints and cripple competitors is not one of them. '...play favorites' Just as the UFC can play favorites and give titleshots to whoever they please. Yes.
.

You can't say that they are only charging more for cost and then say that they should be able to charge for any reason. Your advocating that they can block a website because they don't agree with the websites political views. How is it a conspiracy to bring up the realistic future? Why wouldn't a company try to cripple it's competitors? That's kind of their goal.

The UFC owns the UFC. The ISP does not own the internet or the websites.

 

[Coolidge]

You are advocating that they do have control of what's on the internet because they would be able to dictate who can use any website that they want.

No, they're just the middle man. They don't have direct control over the actual content.

They can BLOCK websites.

They can block you from accessing a particular website through their service. What's your point? They can do all sorts of things. They can set fire to all of their equipment and cease operations if they felt like it. The government can BLOCK websites. Governments around the world regularly block, censor, and remove content from the web.

 

[IamStryker]

Apparently, they do. You just said the FCC is about to vote to end net neutrality.

'is ok and complain about the Left' It's okay for you to complain. It's not okay for you to dictate to an autonomous company what they can and can not do with their service. I don't like the fact that the left convinced registrars/service to shut down particular websites, but I understand that it was the right of these companies to do that. If they happen to not like your website, they don't have to allow you to use their service. You're not entitled to their stuff by virtue of breathing.

I don't care what they do with "providing the internet". I'm talking about them censoring websites at their whim for any reason. That is not in bounds with simply providing access to the internet.

The Left shouldn't have control over what you see on the internet just like the ISP shouldn't have control over what you see and do on the internet.

 

[IamStryker]

No, they're just the middle man. They don't have direct control over the actual content.

They are more than a middle man when they control what content you use the internet. What isn't theirs.

They can block you from accessing a particular website through their service. What's your point?

Unbelievable. You are insane.

 

[Coolidge]

You can't say that they are only charging more for cost and then say that they should be able to charge for any reason.

Actually, I can, and I did. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.

Your advocating that they can block a website because they don't agree with the websites political views.

I'm advocating that they have a right to control their service and use how they see fit. Their customer base and the free market is what keeps them in check.

How is it a conspiracy to bring up the realistic future? Why wouldn't a company try to cripple it's competitors? That's kind of their goal.

Their goal is to keep customers satisfied. Satisfied customers = money Making it difficult for your customers to access a site that tens of millions of people use does the opposite.

The UFC owns the UFC. The ISP does not own the internet or the websites.

I never claimed they did. They own the technology through which people access the Internet. That's the only thing that they're exercising control over.

 

[Sammy Bananas]

That is a reason.

It's self-explanatory. It's not the government's business, literally, and they shouldn't be able to interfere in their decisions on how they operate their service.

Except they do though. Government has to step in consistently and for good reason to regulate business. It happens all the time. For example, to prevent monopolies.

You can Google how and why the US government broke up AT&T when they controlled way too much of the market share. I'll provide some links if you like.

A good example for when the government SHOULD have stepped in and regulated more but didn't is the recent housing crisis.

A government's main purpose is to create and enforce laws. Many of these laws regulate business. It's necessary.