Author Topic: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load  (Read 4389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2017, 11:24:49 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15077
  • Tommy Points: 959
Quote
So is 4 corporations controlling 80% of the internet access in the country.   Anti-trust law doesn't mean sh*t.

I think people are panicking about this crap.  Life before it was not as terrible as your portraying it to be, nor will it be as bad as some say henceforth.  As usual fearmongering is the order of the day in this country.

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #91 on: December 16, 2017, 11:34:55 AM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
Quote
So is 4 corporations controlling 80% of the internet access in the country.   Anti-trust law doesn't mean sh*t.

I think people are panicking about this crap.  Life before it was not as terrible as your portraying it to be, nor will it be as bad as some say henceforth.  As usual fearmongering is the order of the day in this country.

Fair points, but why make any changes at all?

I see no benefit.  Do you?

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2017, 11:54:32 AM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
This ruling is a classic Big Govít decision.  Surprising my small-govt loving friends are so willing to line up behind it without even fully understanding ramifications. 

Why does the govít need to be involved in what content we see on the web?

But how could that be, when it turns the power back over to the ISP Ďfree marketí.   Iíll tell you why, corporations now choose your candidates, and pay for preferential policy through campaign donations.  So now corporations, under the guise of their elected employees, will get to control the content you can and canít get to online. 

If you are for less govít involvement in your life ó you should be for Net Neutrality because anyone willing to build a web page should have equal access to the internet viewing public. 

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #93 on: December 16, 2017, 01:51:18 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9625
  • Tommy Points: 1060
This ruling is a classic Big Govít decision.  Surprising my small-govt loving friends are so willing to line up behind it without even fully understanding ramifications. 

Why does the govít need to be involved in what content we see on the web?

But how could that be, when it turns the power back over to the ISP Ďfree marketí.   Iíll tell you why, corporations now choose your candidates, and pay for preferential policy through campaign donations.  So now corporations, under the guise of their elected employees, will get to control the content you can and canít get to online. 

If you are for less govít involvement in your life ó you should be for Net Neutrality because anyone willing to build a web page should have equal access to the internet viewing public. 

The internet is not the only mode of communication in this world.  Maybe people should stop to consider that other ways of obtaining your news, entertainment, ect.. can be equally fulfilling, and possibly even 'better'.  Yes, I realize the irony of saying this on the internet.

Regardless, I haven't really made up my mind about how I feel about Net Neutrality.  At the core, it seems like an obvious case of "let the free market run it's course" and a bit of "get out of the way, government", but there is a compelling argument that the public has leverage to dictate how ISP's must conduct their business.  The question I wonder is, how much leverage does the public have?  How much public investment has there actually been, and how much has it had a positive impact on the business model of ISP's?

I think I'm the only person in this thread that has suggested the public should maybe outright own all landlines.  I feel like it was a grave mistake municipalities ever let singular companies control entire regions.  Despite being "small government", one of the few things I believe the government should control is the public utility infrastructure, same as the public transportation infrastructure.

I personally do not have a landline of any sort.  I was paying Comcast something like $250 month for a few years at least, and then this summer when I moved I decided to not give them any more of my money, ever.  They offered me some ridiculous price if I wanted just internet.  Net Neutrality didn't do [dang] thing to open up the market.  Comcast just started charging so much money for internet it doesn't matter.

So now all I have is my cell phone, and that's fine for me.

And as for the thread title, Celticsblog has never run slow for me because of throttling as far as I can tell.


Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #94 on: December 16, 2017, 02:12:04 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33514
  • Tommy Points: -27937
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
This new ruling would allow ESPN to cut a deal with ISPís to effectively blackball the Ringer by slowing their websites bandwidth to a crawl.

No, it wouldnít. Thatís illegal under antitrust law.

Blocking them yes, slowing them down?   I donít believe you. 

Please prove me wrong.   Just saying ďnoĒ is not very compelling.

This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.  Why is it a good idea in your view?

The proof is the various lawsuits filed before 2015.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #95 on: December 16, 2017, 02:33:54 PM »

Offline alley oop

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 460
  • Tommy Points: 28
This ruling is a classic Big Govít decision.  Surprising my small-govt loving friends are so willing to line up behind it without even fully understanding ramifications. 

Why does the govít need to be involved in what content we see on the web?


But how could that be, when it turns the power back over to the ISP Ďfree marketí.   Iíll tell you why, corporations now choose your candidates, and pay for preferential policy through campaign donations.  So now corporations, under the guise of their elected employees, will get to control the content you can and canít get to online. 

If you are for less govít involvement in your life ó you should be for Net Neutrality because anyone willing to build a web page should have equal access to the internet viewing public.

Net Neutrality came from Obama's FCC. This FCC just voted to end it.

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #96 on: December 16, 2017, 02:37:10 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9625
  • Tommy Points: 1060
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #97 on: December 16, 2017, 02:49:01 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.

Iíd be curious what the upside is to eliminating Net Neutrality. 



Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #98 on: December 16, 2017, 02:51:40 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3213
  • Tommy Points: 310
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.
Not really accurate.  When the civil war started, the south had 9 million people.  Roughly 5 million white, 3.5 million slaves and .5 million free black.  Most southern whites did not benefit much if at all from slavery. 

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #99 on: December 16, 2017, 03:01:09 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9625
  • Tommy Points: 1060
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.
Not really accurate.  When the civil war started, the south had 9 million people.  Roughly 5 million white, 3.5 million slaves and .5 million free black.  Most southern whites did not benefit much if at all from slavery. 

Well, in terms of sheer number, it's not quite a "few", but it's still a smaller percentage, therefor "fewer".  And everyone that wasn't the free labor benefited from said free labor.  That's simple economics.

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #100 on: December 16, 2017, 03:04:57 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
Quote
This new ruling would allow ESPN to cut a deal with ISPís to effectively blackball the Ringer by slowing their websites bandwidth to a crawl.

No, it wouldnít. Thatís illegal under antitrust law.

Blocking them yes, slowing them down?   I donít believe you. 

Please prove me wrong.   Just saying ďnoĒ is not very compelling.

This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.  Why is it a good idea in your view?

The proof is the various lawsuits filed before 2015.

What exactly in these lawsuits make it illegal to slow down competing webpages?  Blocking them, sure; but slowing them down? 

I need details if you want me to take you serious on this issue because normally you are on point with legal stuff, but the vagueness of your responses gives me pause. 

So please, if I could bother you with one more question, why is it a good idea to limit access to information?

Because from where Iím sitting this looks like Trump just legalized censorship. 

Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #101 on: December 16, 2017, 03:08:19 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.

Hey why did you cut my sentence in half?  If you are in favor of this, surely you can talk a little about the benefits of the plan. 

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #102 on: December 16, 2017, 03:10:40 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31290
  • Tommy Points: 5203
You know, before Net Neutrality, I don't remember ISPs reducing bandwith on sites or charging tremendously extra to the consumer for faster internet speeds. Competition between the ISPs drove the fastest internet speeds to be the norm.

Now unless the ISPs have decided that reducing bandwith to sites and consumers is something that is going to make them huge money and are going to start practicing in that business matter, I am not sure what Net Neutrality does.

My guess though is that ISPs have decided to do just that to drive profits and choke competition. Sadly enough, just another money grab from some of the larger corporations.




Re: Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2017, 03:13:16 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9625
  • Tommy Points: 1060
This ruling benefits very very few, at the expense of many.

This is not inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily a compelling argument.  Once upon a time slavery benefited many at the expense of a few, and outlawing it benefited a few at the expense of many.  Yet it was the right thing to do.

Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the benefits to the many.

Hey why did you cut my sentence in half?  If you are in favor of this, surely you can talk a little about the benefits of the plan. 


I'm neither for nor against Net Neutrality at this point.  I'm still forming an opinion.

But I don't agree with framing it as free speech issue, nor do I find the particular sentence of your's I quoted as relevant.

I guess my point is, it's not a debate for this thread.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2017, 03:40:01 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
You know, before Net Neutrality, I don't remember ISPs reducing bandwith on sites or charging tremendously extra to the consumer for faster internet speeds. Competition between the ISPs drove the fastest internet speeds to be the norm.

Now unless the ISPs have decided that reducing bandwith to sites and consumers is something that is going to make them huge money and are going to start practicing in that business matter, I am not sure what Net Neutrality does.

My guess though is that ISPs have decided to do just that to drive profits and choke competition. Sadly enough, just another money grab from some of the larger corporations.

Iím really at a loss here.  Iím here asking so many questions because some of the most articulate conservatives I know also root for Celtics.  Iím sincerely trying to see this from the GOP point of view, but it seems as if no one can articulate that.  I mean, maybe itís illegal according to Roy?  Ok... I guess thatís a start.  But the question remains, why is it a good idea? 

At least with topics like Obamacare, Taxes, Gun Control, & Womenís Health; we have pros and cons to consider & prioritize. 

But this is different....What are the pros to this?