REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

"Why I'm Opposed to Title II Net Neutrality"

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Saturday, December 16, 2017 20:33
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1712
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 7:44 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]




I was going to post this in the Game Companies are Morons thread, but I felt that everyone should watch this.

I think Troy Leavitt makes a lot of great points here. I've always said that I don't know the full story and nobody has ever explained Net Neutrality well enough for me to take a stance on it.

This single video makes me think that it would not be the end of the world if we went back to the way it always was before a few years ago, and there might even be some pretty good benefits to it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


His position can be summed up as "I don't trust the government, I trust the market".

But as a former victim of throttling (by Verizon) ... and looking at the huge swath of complaints by cable customers everywhere ... I can tell you that the FTC's enforcement of "transparency" leaves a LOT to be desired. Net neutrality became an issue BECAUSE throttling was a problem. We could see how the xfer rates topped out to a preset figure when access was heavy, but everybody was trained to deny throttling and a small customer like us fighting Verizon is a pointless concept.

Specifically, the hypothetical that he proposes ... that IF a provider voluntarily promises neutrality (that's a huge gaping bleeding "if") and fails to provide, THEN the FTC can enforce it's transparency rules ... fails to address the question - what happens if "net neutrality" isn't even part of the promise? He then goes on further to say ... "Well, then you can move on to another provider" ... AS IF most people had access to more than one or two anyway. Relying on "competition" in an era of industry consolidation and monopolization is ....? I dunno, you tell me; I can't think of a word scathing enough.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 12:37 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


That's all true, and that's what 99% of the people on YouTube are afraid of.

Did you get to the part about how when the FCC regulates it, that the FCC can decide that certain websites are deemed inappropriate and just shut them down though? Or even certain individuals? That idea is pretty scary to me in this current political climate we're living in.

Game companies figured it out with the ESRB and kept the Government the hell out of gaming.

I think the internet industry needs to do the same thing.



I agree though. Monopolies are a problem.

We do have several internet providers in my area, but I know that's not always the case, or even possibly the norm.


Quote:

Net neutrality became an issue BECAUSE throttling was a problem.


You're probably right about that, but this doesn't explain all of the horror hypotheticals that everyone is bringing up about providers charging different rates for access to different sites if Net Neutrality is abandoned. If it were, the internet would more or less go back to the way it was a few years ago, and they weren't doing that then.


EDIT:

Maybe I was one of the lucky ones, but I can't say that I've ever been a victim of throttling. This from a guy who used to do a ton of torrenting back in the day too.

That was back when Netflix and YouTube were still relatively new, and transfer rates and monthly transfer caps were a pittance of what they are today. Even with all the YouTube and Kodi that I watch, my monthly usage is only about 1/10th of what I'm actually paying for.

I guess what I'm saying is that they've already shown that for most people there is an abundant flow of data for a very cheap price. They could choose to raise those prices dramatically or charge a la carte for different services, but I think they might have a class action lawsuit on their hands if they did.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 1:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Did you get to the part about how when the FCC regulates it, that the FCC can decide that certain websites are deemed inappropriate and just shut them down though? Or even certain individuals?
So what? Google and FB are doing that already. Both of them are busy "protecting" you from "fake news"- google has not only "demonetized" certain youtubers but is also screwing with search results in both Youtube and in the search engine itself: many of the alt-commentators that I look for, like Catherine Austin-Fitts and Gerald Celente have their search results scrambled ... something from 2015 is popped up as being recent, recent videos are nowhere to be found.

Whatever happened to google's "don't be evil"?

Censorship isn't just by the government, yanno.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 5:25 PM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I think Troy Leavitt makes a lot of great points here. I've always said that I don't know the full story and nobody has ever explained Net Neutrality well enough for me to take a stance on it.




Geeez. You admit you don't know ANYTHING about it, even though there are HUNDREDS of articles that would take less time to find than posting a thread and video, yet you are going with a you-tube video for all your reasoned opinion.

And you wonder why I call you an idiot.

Throttling IS NOT A PROBLEM. They created a problem so they could soak more money from people and control internet access.

It doesn't surprise me you'd be FOR that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Did you get to the part about how when the FCC regulates it, that the FCC can decide that certain websites are deemed inappropriate and just shut them down though? Or even certain individuals?
So what? Google and FB are doing that already. Both of them are busy "protecting" you from "fake news"- google has not only "demonetized" certain youtubers but is also screwing with search results in both Youtube and in the search engine itself: many of the alt-commentators that I look for, like Catherine Austin-Fitts and Gerald Celente have their search results scrambled ... something from 2015 is popped up as being recent, recent videos are nowhere to be found.

Whatever happened to google's "don't be evil"?

Censorship isn't just by the government, yanno.



Google and Facebook are the government. lol.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:44 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by Wishimay:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I think Troy Leavitt makes a lot of great points here. I've always said that I don't know the full story and nobody has ever explained Net Neutrality well enough for me to take a stance on it.




Geeez. You admit you don't know ANYTHING about it, even though there are HUNDREDS of articles that would take less time to find than posting a thread and video, yet you are going with a you-tube video for all your reasoned opinion.

And you wonder why I call you an idiot.

Throttling IS NOT A PROBLEM. They created a problem so they could soak more money from people and control internet access.

It doesn't surprise me you'd be FOR that.



You don't even know what throttling is, troglodyte.

The adults are having a conversation.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 14, 2017 8:56 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Did you get to the part about how when the FCC regulates it, that the FCC can decide that certain websites are deemed inappropriate and just shut them down though? Or even certain individuals?
So what? Google and FB are doing that already. Both of them are busy "protecting" you from "fake news"- google has not only "demonetized" certain youtubers but is also screwing with search results in both Youtube and in the search engine itself: many of the alt-commentators that I look for, like Catherine Austin-Fitts and Gerald Celente have their search results scrambled ... something from 2015 is popped up as being recent, recent videos are nowhere to be found.

Whatever happened to google's "don't be evil"?

I wasn't aware that GOOGLE or FACEBOOK were part of our Government, had enforcement authority over innocent American Citizens, or were entities requiring participation by every citizen.
On one hand you were arguing that Government must protect Citizens from eeevil ISPs, but here you seem to imply that eeevil GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are suitable surrogates for the Government.
Perhaps you believe that all ails would be resolved if Government were merely larger?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:59 AM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

The adults are having a conversation.






https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-buy-this-cr
ap-1821277398


Well, they were right about one thing, YOU are stupid enough to buy this crap too. Pai is giving a "let them eat cake moment".



Here, someone in the comments spelled it out so even dickwads like you could get what is going on...

Removing net neutrality is more like if you gave control of highway planning to the construction companies who build them. Eventually, you’d find that partners to these companies would enjoy low tolls and good routes, while startups, small towns, and competitors would find the road infrastructure around their homes, regions, and routes expensive and in disrepair. You’d have a hard time visiting places that weren’t highly profitable to the road companies.

In fact it is government oversite and management that keeps scenarios like you described from happening. Shipping companies would LOVE to privately build and regulate roads.

Additionally, internet infrastructure is more similar to power and utilities in its pattern of cost and design, not roads. These sort of industries benefit from regulation, generally.

It just isn’t fair to expect ISPs, many of whom are heavily involved in media and entertainment brands, to perpetuate the internet as we enjoy it today. Youtube for example, is not a profitable business for google, and is heavy competition to massive media conglomerates. If streaming off of youtube suddenly cost $5 extra, it’d be gone in a few years. And that’s a HUGE brand. Small time sites will not enjoy any better treatment


Another example...

But without net neutrality, ISPs will get to decide who uses what. They will be able to modify all communications and transmissions at will. Imagine your phone company cutting you off every time you say their competitor’s name on a phone call. ISPs will get to do just that online. Legally allowed.

Imagine ISPs picking political sides and blocking access to articles and content about the opponents for all their users. That will be legally allowed as well.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:45 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by Wishimay:

But without net neutrality, ISPs will get to decide who uses what. They will be able to modify all communications and transmissions at will. Imagine your phone company cutting you off every time you say their competitor’s name on a phone call. ISPs will get to do just that online. Legally allowed.

Imagine ISPs picking political sides and blocking access to articles and content about the opponents for all their users. That will be legally allowed as well.




If that's the case, then it was also the case since the birth of the internet as well. Repealing Net Neutrality would do nothing more than bring us back to where we were before a few years ago. Only the FCC now has its foot in the door to easily come right back in again on its own whim.

As I said in my original post, repealing Net Neutrality would be like the video game industry voluntarily adopting the ESRB to keep the Government out of video games. Sure, they could lie to the public and sneak in a bunch of adult themes into some kids games if they wanted to, but anybody stupid enough to do it would spark a huge public outcry and they'd be hung for it.



When I said I didn't understand Net Neutrality, I meant just that. Instead of hopping on the train with all of the other sheeple after reading countless of reasons why removing it is a bad thing, I didn't see any reasons presented that made me feel it was a particularly good thing either.

Then again, 90% of the people that use the internet today didn't know shit about computers even 5 or 10 years ago, and still don't know any more than the absolute minimum needed to use Facebook and Candy Crush, so that really shouldn't surprise me.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 15, 2017 3:29 AM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


You don't have a goddamn clue. The only plus in all this is when they double internet costs, it'll cost too much for you.

https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/york-attorney-general-announces-multi-
193033668.html#comments


"Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade high quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 15, 2017 7:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by Wishimay:
You don't have a goddamn clue. The only plus in all this is when they double internet costs, it'll cost too much for you.



Uh-huh. Like they were before Net Neutrality happened.

Maybe somebody owes me back checks for when my internet bill should have been cut in half the last 2-3 years then, huh?

Quote:

https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/york-attorney-general-announces-multi-
193033668.html#comments


"Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade high quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others."




Really. There is nothing happening here that wasn't already in effect before Net Neutrality happened. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Did the repeal pass then? Your quote said "today's vote". If it did, I guess we'll see, won't we?

Really Wishy. You don't have to be such a bitch all the time. I'm not emotionally invested in this at all. I'm perfectly okay with being wrong after the fact. Especially since I don't use Facebook or Twitter, and if they actually try forcing an a la carte system on people, chances are my bill will be lower than it is today, subsidized by people who can't live without all that crap.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:44 AM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


I'll stop being a bitch when you stop being SOOOO INCREDIBLY STUPID AND NARCISSISTIC.


Hmm, well, I'm all stocked up on Midol. Guess I'm in this for the long haul...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:49 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


So do you have anything to add besides insults, or what any article written or video recorded that was for Net Neutrality had to say?


P.S. BTW... nobody believes you when you say such things. You told me that you'd stop posting at the RWED when I got a job, not realizing that I had said on a different thread a few hours earlier that I had.

You did disappear for a while... I'll give you that.

But here we are. Sigh....

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Did you get to the part about how when the FCC regulates it, that the FCC can decide that certain websites are deemed inappropriate and just shut them down though? Or even certain individuals?- SIX

So what? Google and FB are doing that already. Both of them are busy "protecting" you from "fake news"- google has not only "demonetized" certain youtubers but is also screwing with search results in both Youtube and in the search engine itself: many of the alt-commentators that I look for, like Catherine Austin-Fitts and Gerald Celente have their search results scrambled ... something from 2015 is popped up as being recent, recent videos are nowhere to be found. Whatever happened to google's "don't be evil"? - SIGNY

I wasn't aware that GOOGLE or FACEBOOK were part of our Government, had enforcement authority over innocent American Citizens, or were entities requiring participation by every citizen.

JSF, hon, think this through.

Some of YOUR favorite websites or commentators will probably go "off the air" because of net bias.

Quote:

On one hand you were arguing that Government must protect Citizens from eeevil ISPs, but here you seem to imply that eeevil GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are suitable surrogates for the Government.
JSF- Since our government doesn't maintain official newspapers, radio stations, television channels, or communications channels, it DOES depend on "the media" to spread propaganda/ do its surveillance for it. Bill Clinton set up a cozy relationship between the government and media CORPORATIONS, which allowed monopolization in return for cooperation. Net neutrality was kind of a fly in that ointment which required that small deviant or start-ups be treated the same as the big corporations, taking away the monopolies' advantage.

Quote:

Perhaps you believe that all ails would be resolved if Government were merely larger?
It would be resolved if government had the right rules in place. Advocating a "no rules: approach simply means that the biggest will get their way.

IF there was real competition in ISP-world you might have a point, but there isn't, so there isn't a "marketplace" where this can be solved.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 6:55 PM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


I got a job,

You did disappear for a while.





We have only your word you got a job, and your word ain't worth JACK.

Also, since you can't read...at the bottom of that post I said "Or until you stop being stupid, which is most likely permanent...so I'll be around"

You represent everything wrong with humanity. Really. Good health and you piss it away, no impediments to anything you do and yet ALL YOU DO is sit around and complain that women are evil for wanting equal rights and equal pay, and that white males aren't worshipped. No education and you think you should have a say. You are just one big knuckle-dragging seething ID.


You probably think you shouldn't have to pay any taxes because you only use two roads, why help pay for them all....why pay for firefighters when YOUR house hasn't burned down. Why pay for teachers when you enjoy being ignorant and uninformed. You don't want to help pay the costs of living in a society, THEN DON'T LIVE IN SOCIETY.

GET OFF THE INTERNET, GET OFF THE ROADS, DON'T WHINE WHEN YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN OR YOU GET SHOT AND NO ONE COMES.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Blah blah blah...

You are sick. You need help. Seriously.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Mid-Term Elections 2018
Thu, October 18, 2018 01:45 - 65 posts
Kavanaugh
Thu, October 18, 2018 01:39 - 640 posts
Chump IS a Rage Troll
Wed, October 17, 2018 23:18 - 9 posts
JO 753 for Prezident!
Wed, October 17, 2018 22:15 - 385 posts
The Mid-Term Elections 2018
Wed, October 17, 2018 21:58 - 277 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, October 17, 2018 20:10 - 1067 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, October 17, 2018 17:42 - 1907 posts
How Many Threads Here Wasted On Mueller's Witch-hunt?
Wed, October 17, 2018 15:41 - 42 posts
Breakup of the EU
Wed, October 17, 2018 07:12 - 13 posts
Lynch. Comey. Dirty Debbie. Hillary. The FBI-DNC-DOJ link. Ohr. Stzok. Page. Rosenstein. It's one giant deep state clusterfvck
Wed, October 17, 2018 06:35 - 126 posts
Stormy Daniels defamation lawsuit against Trump dismissed ... and other failed memes
Wed, October 17, 2018 04:19 - 8 posts
I always liked this guy...
Tue, October 16, 2018 21:37 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL