Author Topic: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load  (Read 7096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2017, 02:32:15 PM »

Offline InameallmyanimalsLarry

  • NCE
  • Semi Ojeleye
  • Posts: 49
  • Tommy Points: 2
call your congressperson, though I imagine if it is a democrat they are already on board with protecting the net's availability to the masses, not so much from the greedy old party.
optimism is a skill

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2017, 02:43:07 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8204
  • Tommy Points: 813
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan

I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2017, 02:59:33 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4218
  • Tommy Points: 724
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan

I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.

This is a good post. 


Iíve watched this issue over the past couple of weeks, and itís honestly difficult to decide how much I care about it.  Few people have any interest in discussing this rationally; most jump straight into doomsaying hysterics and finger-pointing.  It makes this a difficult topic to learn about.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2017, 03:16:19 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • Tommy Points: 519
I am almost convinced that many in Congress want to make this country an Oligarchy of those who can pay for what they want at the expense of the general populace.

Wait, almost? This has been the republican platform for years.

Bingo

And the Democrat one, too.

Politicians care about power, which is funded by rich donors.

On net neutrality, I see both sides. I am a fan of the free market so long as it isnít artificially propped up.

Is a free market served by all roads being privately-held toll roads with the owners of those roads being able to arbitrarily bar/slow/accelerate transit on their roads?

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2017, 03:49:36 PM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 829
  • Tommy Points: 92
This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance, and condescension it's no wonder why those that don't agree with you hate your very existence. Why should someone even bother listening to people that act like this?

Because liberals believe intelligent people can listen to opinions they disagree with and still consider them.

Someone wise told me a long time ago that what makes someone a Nazi is not hatred.  It's the inability to reason and consider the value in ideas opposed to your own viewpoint.  This is why every authoritarian dictator tries to put one state run media outlet into place and funnel all information through it while discrediting all other media as fake. 

If the way someone presents information hurts your feelings that's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean the information itself is useless.

And if you are the type of person who writes something like, "This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance and condescension it's no wonder why those who don't agree with you hate your very existence."  You may want to take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you actually have a problem with those qualities since that struck me as easily the most condescending and arrogant comment on this thread.

But I'm not mad at you, I'm a free liberal thinker.  I can take a little spirited disagreement.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2017, 04:10:15 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • Tommy Points: 519
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2017, 04:18:30 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10609
  • Tommy Points: 1191
This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance, and condescension it's no wonder why those that don't agree with you hate your very existence. Why should someone even bother listening to people that act like this?

Because liberals believe intelligent people can listen to opinions they disagree with and still consider them.

Then why does it seem like so many liberals have a hard time listening to, or considering, the view points of those they disagree with?

There's a big difference between having a liberal mind, and being politically 'liberal'. At least in terms of practice. Further more, people can also have liberal minds and not agree with a position that may be deemed politically 'liberal'.

Quote
If the way someone presents information hurts your feelings that's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean the information itself is useless.

Agreed

Quote
And if you are the type of person who writes something like, "This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance and condescension it's no wonder why those who don't agree with you hate your very existence."  You may want to take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you actually have a problem with those qualities since that struck me as easily the most condescending and arrogant comment on this thread.

Firstly, I never said I agree with people hating someone who is arrogant and condescending towards them, nor did I say I personally hated such people, I merely pointed how how it's easy to see why someone would.   Do you like it when people are arrogant and condescending towards you viewpoints? It's perfectly reasonable to point out this type of behavior. To me this falls into the general theme of "hate the sin, not the sinner".

Go back and read all of the comments prior to mine. Many of them were laced with arrogance and condescension towards opposing view points, along with a number of demeaning labels.

Quote
But I'm not mad at you, I'm a free liberal thinker.  I can take a little spirited disagreement.

Glad to hear it, so am I.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2017, 04:31:23 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10609
  • Tommy Points: 1191
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2017, 04:45:40 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12803
  • Tommy Points: 1355
This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance, and condescension it's no wonder why those that don't agree with you hate your very existence. Why should someone even bother listening to people that act like this?

As I put on the table on page one, I am trying to understand the dynamics of the arguments for and against.  Also trying to understand how free market conservatives/libertarians would justify a vote to sustain regulatory actions.  My question is an honest one, not meant as an argument against free market ideology.  I don't understand the issue very well and am trying to get information as to how anyone on the right would explain his/her agreement with the regulations to his/her supporters.  From what I understand about the issue (admittedly little), it isn't hard for me to understand how moderates, liberals, or non-ideologues could get on board with some governmental management of the internet, but I think in order for a repeal to be thwarted at least some conservative/libertarian ideologues would need to be convinced. I am just wondering what rationale they'd use.

Directly to KG Knees' point about liberal comments:  I saw few posts that indicate worry that current policies are expanding oligarchical or corporate power,  but the "dripping arrogance and condescension" I'm not really seeing.  Just a couple of snarky remarks from a few posters.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2017, 04:49:44 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3370
  • Tommy Points: 519
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2017, 04:58:17 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33122
  • Tommy Points: 5415
This thread is dripping with so much liberal arrogance, and condescension it's no wonder why those that don't agree with you hate your very existence. Why should someone even bother listening to people that act like this?

As I put on the table on page one, I am trying to understand the dynamics of the arguments for and against.  Also trying to understand how free market conservatives/libertarians would justify a vote to sustain regulatory actions.  My question is an honest one, not meant as an argument against free market ideology.  I don't understand the issue very well and am trying to get information as to how anyone on the right would explain his/her agreement with the regulations to his/her supporters.  From what I understand about the issue (admittedly little), it isn't hard for me to understand how moderates, liberals, or non-ideologues could get on board with some governmental management of the internet, but I think in order for a repeal to be thwarted at least some conservative/libertarian ideologues would need to be convinced. I am just wondering what rationale they'd use.

Directly to KG Knees' point about liberal comments:  I saw few posts that indicate worry that current policies are expanding oligarchical or corporate power,  but the "dripping arrogance and condescension" I'm not really seeing.  Just a couple of snarky remarks from a few posters.
I brought up that this just seems like a play to make more money for corporations, but I don't think that's a republican or democrat thing. I think its a government thing that is happening with the power of lobbyists and campaign contribution that is doing it

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2017, 05:29:19 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10609
  • Tommy Points: 1191
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.

Again, all good information. I see the logic behind it.

But I question how free is the market, really? I have exactly one choice for cable. I don't live in the sticks. I can choose a phone provider, or satellite instead, but those generally inferior services (speed/reliability).

I have to imagine if the cable lines were open to any service provider to use them I'd have more than one choice. Now maybe it would cost the public too much to own the lines, that's an argument I'd like to see.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2017, 06:29:06 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 634
  • Tommy Points: 85
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan

I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.
I work for an ISP (in sales).  My knowledge about net neutrality is pretty limited but our engineers are  very knowledgeable on the subject.  They tend to have more conservative views and in general are against government intervention on any level and to a man every single one of them are steadfastly against reversing the net neutrality laws.  Again, I personally cannot speak intelligently on the matter but I trust their knowledge and opinion.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2017, 06:34:24 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12803
  • Tommy Points: 1355
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan

I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.
I work for an ISP (in sales).  My knowledge about net neutrality is pretty limited but our engineers are  very knowledgeable on the subject.  They tend to have more conservative views and in general are against government intervention on any level and to a man every single one of them are steadfastly against reversing the net neutrality laws.  Again, I personally cannot speak intelligently on the matter but I trust their knowledge and opinion.

I'm sure they have good reasons to go at odds with their typical ideology on this one.  I hope lawmakers taken an open, non-ideological, look at this issue -- whichever way they end up voting.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2017, 06:40:21 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 634
  • Tommy Points: 85
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan

I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.
I work for an ISP (in sales).  My knowledge about net neutrality is pretty limited but our engineers are  very knowledgeable on the subject.  They tend to have more conservative views and in general are against government intervention on any level and to a man every single one of them are steadfastly against reversing the net neutrality laws.  Again, I personally cannot speak intelligently on the matter but I trust their knowledge and opinion.

I'm sure they have good reasons to go at odds with their typical ideology on this one.  I hope lawmakers taken an open, non-ideological, look at this issue -- whichever way they end up voting.
Yes they do and they are not alone...I read that something like 86% of people polled oppose reversing the net neutrality laws.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow