FCC votes to undo net neutrality protections despite public protests

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 134
    Good news! No matter how scary you want to pretend things will be without this smoke screen of "protection", the last thing the Internet needs is government regulation. If any of the doomsday scenarios that have you chicken littles quaking in your boots actually happen, the free market will sort it out and punish the company stupid enough to try them. Everything will be fine.
    SpamSandwichtallest skil
  • Reply 122 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    kerpow said:
    Good news! No matter how scary you want to pretend things will be without this smoke screen of "protection", the last thing the Internet needs is government regulation. If any of the doomsday scenarios that have you chicken littles quaking in your boots actually happen, the free market will sort it out and punish the company stupid enough to try them. Everything will be fine.
    Blind faith in ideology, like yours, has caused some of the greatest disasters of humankind.   I think reality tends to work better.   Actually, that's one of the things that your hallowed free markets tend to weed out:  delusion.
  • Reply 123 of 134
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Blind faith in ideology, like yours, has caused some of the greatest disasters of humankind.
    Blind faith in government has caused the rest.  ;)
    I think reality tends to work better.
    And yet you want “net neutrality” back…
    your hallowed free markets
    It’d be damn nice if we actually had one for a while. It’d get rid of all your delusions.
    Facts, CAN be objective.
    Are definitionally. Always and forever.
    Or, they can be cherry picked, distorted and taken out of context…
    So answer my questions, coward.
    ...to sell something like a bridge or an ideological point of view…
    ...or fiat currency or welfare or replacement migration or marxism…
    ...that is not otherwise sustainable.
    Like fiat currency and welfare and replacement migration and marxism.
    Used car salesmen and Republicans use that tactic on a regular basis. And, it works with some people. The fools. And the gullible.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgpzp_pLJVc

    Answer my fucking questions, coward.
    In the 80's, Reagan was staunchly conservative.  But, today he would barely make "moderate" by the standards established by today's right wing/conservatives.  In fact, many of them, would accuse him of being Socialist.
    He leaned left then and he leans left now. No commie by any stretch, however.
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 124 of 134
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Blind faith in ideology, like yours, has caused some of the greatest disasters of humankind.
    Blind faith in government has caused the rest.  ;)
    I think reality tends to work better.
    And yet you want “net neutrality” back…
    your hallowed free markets
    It’d be damn nice if we actually had one for a while. It’d get rid of all your delusions.
    Facts, CAN be objective.
    Are definitionally. Always and forever.
    Or, they can be cherry picked, distorted and taken out of context…
    So answer my questions, coward.
    ...to sell something like a bridge or an ideological point of view…
    ...or fiat currency or welfare or replacement migration or marxism…
    ...that is not otherwise sustainable.
    Like fiat currency and welfare and replacement migration and marxism.
    Used car salesmen and Republicans use that tactic on a regular basis. And, it works with some people. The fools. And the gullible.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgpzp_pLJVc

    Answer my fucking questions, coward.
    In the 80's, Reagan was staunchly conservative.  But, today he would barely make "moderate" by the standards established by today's right wing/conservatives.  In fact, many of them, would accuse him of being Socialist.
    He leaned left then and he leans left now. No commie by any stretch, however.
    There's no point in responding to ideological nonsense
    ... It's the modern version of debating "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?"

    No matter how you respond, the crazy person spewing the nonsense gets a little crazier.

    singularity
  • Reply 125 of 134
    There's no point in responding to ideological nonsense
    Thank you for admitting that everything you said was wrong and that you have no refutation for a single point that I have presented on this subject.

    I’m not asking for debate. I’m asking for you to substantiate your own fucking claims and beliefs. The only debate would be the one raging inside you (so it’s pretty telling that you refuse to reply). How are you afraid of posting your own claims and beliefs? Because you are. You’re fucking terrified of stating what you believe.

    We’ve gotten to the point where you have to be extremely careful about what you say to a liberal even in the beginning, because otherwise they won’t even ENUMERATE their own claims. That’s right: a liberal will REFUSE to even state what he believes because there’s some tiny little part of him that KNOWS–deep down–that he’s wrong. But “wrong” does not exist to a liberal, and certainly a viewpoint which is liberal could never be “wrong”. How do we know this?
    Liberals have a new wish every time their latest wish is granted. Conservatives should make them spell out their principles and ideals. Instead of doing this, conservatives allow liberals to pursue incremental goals without revealing their ultimate destination. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding ‘more’ while never defining ‘enough.’ The predictable result is that they always get more, and it's never enough. – Joseph Sobran
    Since a liberal viewpoint could never be “wrong”, to so much as LIST the things he believes opens them up to scrutiny. And how DARE you scrutinize a liberal! Under scrutiny, a belief may be found to be “wrong” in a way that even a liberal can’t ignore. Oh, sure, he could–AND WILL–keep repeating said belief LONG after it is proven wrong. But the responses he will get after being proven wrong differ from those from before. The responses after cause him to have emotions. Bad ones. They make him feel like he might not be the bastion of moral superiority he knows he is. The responses aren’t what he wants. So the emotion he feels is bad. But bad emotions are bad; the things that cause them are bad. Therefore being told he is wrong–which causes bad emotions–is bad, therefore he avoids being told he is wrong by never saying what he believes (so he can never be scrutinized and proven wrong), therefore he is never wrong.

    And yes, I’m repeating myself at this point. Actually add something to the conversation and you won’t keep hearing the same facts. You’ll hear new ones.
    edited December 2017 cgWerks
  • Reply 126 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    There's no point in responding to ideological nonsense
    Thank you for admitting that everything you said was wrong and that you have no refutation for a single point that I have presented on this subject.

    I’m not asking for debate. I’m asking for you to substantiate your own fucking claims and beliefs. The only debate would be the one raging inside you (so it’s pretty telling that you refuse to reply). How are you afraid of posting your own claims and beliefs? Because you are. You’re fucking terrified of stating what you believe.

    We’ve gotten to the point where you have to be extremely careful about what you say to a liberal even in the beginning, because otherwise they won’t even ENUMERATE their own claims. That’s right: a liberal will REFUSE to even state what he believes because there’s some tiny little part of him that KNOWS–deep down–that he’s wrong. But “wrong” does not exist to a liberal, and certainly a viewpoint which is liberal could never be “wrong”. How do we know this?
    Liberals have a new wish every time their latest wish is granted. Conservatives should make them spell out their principles and ideals. Instead of doing this, conservatives allow liberals to pursue incremental goals without revealing their ultimate destination. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding ‘more’ while never defining ‘enough.’ The predictable result is that they always get more, and it's never enough. – Joseph Sobran
    Since a liberal viewpoint could never be “wrong”, to so much as LIST the things he believes opens them up to scrutiny. And how DARE you scrutinize a liberal! Under scrutiny, a belief may be found to be “wrong” in a way that even a liberal can’t ignore. Oh, sure, he could–AND WILL–keep repeating said belief LONG after it is proven wrong. But the responses he will get after being proven wrong differ from those from before. The responses after cause him to have emotions. Bad ones. They make him feel like he might not be the bastion of moral superiority he knows he is. The responses aren’t what he wants. So the emotion he feels is bad. But bad emotions are bad; the things that cause them are bad. Therefore being told he is wrong–which causes bad emotions–is bad, therefore he avoids being told he is wrong by never saying what he believes (so he can never be scrutinized and proven wrong), therefore he is never wrong.

    And yes, I’m repeating myself at this point. Actually add something to the conversation and you won’t keep hearing the same facts. You’ll hear new ones.
    Hear new cherry picked, distorted, out of context "facts" designed to "prove" a predetermined ideological point of view?   Go ahead.  I need a good chuckle...
    singularity
  • Reply 127 of 134
    RV8RV8 Posts: 4member
    Settle down gang. No need to be at each other's throats just yet.

    The answer is an incentive to increase competition that results in more bandwidth, making the throttling issue moot. If providers are forced to subsidize heavy users that pay the same price as light users, I don't see expansion happening.  In fact, there is evidence that Net Neutrality did slow fiber expansion significantly. We all pay for the electricity we use, and aren't on a flat fee where we pay the same price for widely differing usage right?

    Throttling already occurs without penalty in places like airplanes and airports where bandwidth is restricted. It makes sense to do so in an environment where one person face timing or streaming kills all connectivity for others doesn't it? I despise trying to get time critical information at places like airports on my connection where the network is so bogged down that nothing gets through. I walk down the terminal and see twenty people face timing/streaming. There has to be a balance somewhere.

    I really don't think that this ruling is going to have the effect that many purport, but you might start seeing heavy users pay a little more, while the market begins to demand more competition. In the end, the market will win, and we'll have better speeds. The way it is now, there is little incentive for providers to make that happen.


    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 128 of 134
    Hear new cherry picked, distorted, out of context "facts" designed to "prove" a predetermined ideological point of view?   Go ahead.  I need a good chuckle...
    You have questions you need to answer.
  • Reply 129 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    RV8 said:
    The answer is an incentive to increase competition that results in more bandwidth, making the throttling issue moot. If providers are forced to subsidize heavy users that pay the same price as light users, I don't see expansion happening.  In fact, there is evidence that Net Neutrality did slow fiber expansion significantly. We all pay for the electricity we use, and aren't on a flat fee where we pay the same price for widely differing usage right?

    Throttling already occurs without penalty in places like airplanes and airports where bandwidth is restricted. It makes sense to do so in an environment where one person face timing or streaming kills all connectivity for others doesn't it? I despise trying to get time critical information at places like airports on my connection where the network is so bogged down that nothing gets through. I walk down the terminal and see twenty people face timing/streaming. There has to be a balance somewhere.
    We've already tried that. We've even paid $thousands each in taxes to try and get that to happen. The ISPs pocketed the money, but no one held them accountable. (During the Clinton administration, they got $200B+ to deliver 40 Mbps bi-directional to everyone in the USA for $40/mo... see any of that around?)

    But, yes, if they put the money into network expansion rather than network-limitation, throttling wouldn't be necessary. In fact, Comcast admitted it awhile back when they said they cold give GB internet, but no one would know what to do with it. Seriously?

    Just don't get confused about *overall* throttling, caps, cost, etc. and net neutrality. A lot of people try to bring that stuff in, but that isn't what net neutrality is even about. Net neutrality is just about handling content equally so the ISP isn't playing favorites (or blocking/throttling content competition). This might have an impact on pricing or usage, but isn't what it really is about.

    When you see this kind of 'free internet for all' stuff, or people complaining about having unlimited internet instead of capped or charged for the speed-level... that's either some kind of socialism creeping in or the propaganda from the telcos has worked on them. It has ZERO to do with net neutrality.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 130 of 134
    Awesome decision by a truly diverse panel.
    Unless you are being sarcastic, would you care to elaborate on how is this an awesome decision and how will an end user ever benefit from that? The carriers and ISPs spend millions of dollars on lobbying in D.C. Only a profoundly naive person would believe they do it for the benefit of the general population. That's the nicest way I can formulate it.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 131 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    ZRyser said:
    Unless you are being sarcastic, would you care to elaborate on how is this an awesome decision and how will an end user ever benefit from that? The carriers and ISPs spend millions of dollars on lobbying in D.C. Only a profoundly naive person would believe they do it for the benefit of the general population. That's the nicest way I can formulate it.
    No doubt! They have proven themselves untrustworthy in this manner.

    If one wants to express excitement over this move, it should be about removing the kind of oversight the FCC could exercise over content 'lawfulness'. That the typical Republican isn't about that, but instead about 'innovation', 'expansion' etc. shows that this move was simply a naive at best (or purchased at worst) handout to the ISPs.
  • Reply 132 of 134
    kerpowkerpow Posts: 12member
    kerpow said:
    Good news! No matter how scary you want to pretend things will be without this smoke screen of "protection", the last thing the Internet needs is government regulation. If any of the doomsday scenarios that have you chicken littles quaking in your boots actually happen, the free market will sort it out and punish the company stupid enough to try them. Everything will be fine.
    Blind faith in ideology, like yours, has caused some of the greatest disasters of humankind.   I think reality tends to work better.   Actually, that's one of the things that your hallowed free markets tend to weed out:  delusion.
    Exactly. The free market will weed out the delusions that Net Neutrality is the only thing saving the masses from the evil ISPs. You get it.
  • Reply 133 of 134
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    ZRyser said:
    Awesome decision by a truly diverse panel.
    Unless you are being sarcastic, would you care to elaborate on how is this an awesome decision and how will an end user ever benefit from that? The carriers and ISPs spend millions of dollars on lobbying in D.C. Only a profoundly naive person would believe they do it for the benefit of the general population. That's the nicest way I can formulate it.
    (Bolded text mine)

    No one does anything unless it serves their own interests. Here's the good news: Individuals are driven by a myriad of things. That's not a dark view of humanity, it's just an 'eyes wide open' fact of life.

    Competition works because in the course of serving their own interests, businesses must provide value to customers or they'll fall behind. Bet on a marketplace of ideas and competition instead of the dead-end of politics.
  • Reply 134 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    SpamSandwich said:
    No one does anything unless it serves their own interests. Here's the good news: Individuals are driven by a myriad of things. That's not a dark view of humanity, it's just an 'eyes wide open' fact of life.

    Competition works because in the course of serving their own interests, businesses must provide value to customers or they'll fall behind. Bet on a marketplace of ideas and competition instead of the dead-end of politics.
    Except when you don't have completion, and especially in regards to net neutrality, collusion between content provider and ISPs, there really is no marketplace of ideas... kind of the opposite. Aside from free-speech concerns, it's kind of hard to imagine the government doing a worse job... though I'm sure that's possible too.
Sign In or Register to comment.