Jump to content

Net Neutrality

Dovahdouchebag

By Dovahdouchebag,
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

foreveraloneguy

foreveraloneguy

Posted
Posted

 

 

You do realize that, in America, the government can neither appoint, nor sack, anyone involved with a private company, yes?

 

In the past that might have been true, not so much anymore.

 

Never forget that in America, the government can at any time they choose take anything and everything you own and do what they will with it and its 100% legal. You dont actually own anything here.

 

And setting aside the fact that they can use force to take from you, they also use a much more common tool... taxes.

They will tax you to death in the private sector in any and every way they can think of.

 

 

As for the main topic of net neutrality:

Its dead jim.

There are so many different influential groups calling for the death of it that its going to happen if you fight it or not.

Politicians, reporters, gov officials, regular joes, useful idiots, feminists, BLM, whoever whatever. There is enough money and screeching voices to make it happen.

 

Sadly, we might come to a point where violence will be the next step... i fear that day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that, in America, the government can neither appoint, nor sack, anyone involved with a private company, yes?

 

In the past that might have been true, not so much anymore.

 

Never forget that in America, the government can at any time they choose take anything and everything you own and do what they will with it and its 100% legal. You dont actually own anything here.

 

And setting aside the fact that they can use force to take from you, they also use a much more common tool... taxes.

They will tax you to death in the private sector in any and every way they can think of.

 

 

As for the main topic of net neutrality:

Its dead jim.

There are so many different influential groups calling for the death of it that its going to happen if you fight it or not.

Politicians, reporters, gov officials, regular joes, useful idiots, feminists, BLM, whoever whatever. There is enough money and screeching voices to make it happen.

 

Sadly, we might come to a point where violence will be the next step... i fear that day.

 

 

They still need a Writ of Entry.. which is easy to get by a Revenue Officer. Almost had that happen. No joke. They CAN take everything.. and I used to believe that if you gave them something instead of nothing you will be okay.. WRONG, they want the entire freaking thing, and they wait 10yrs before they come after you. Even if you do not work one year you are still required to file a return.  

 

Well not everything.. you can keep 3K worth of possessions. 

 

 

 

What, exactly, does any of that have anything to do with the government directly putting people at the head of companies? I mean, these posts make literally no sense in the context of the post I replied to. Yes, imminent domain can be and is abused. Yes, asset forfeiture is also abused by some police agencies. But none of that is in any way related to what I was responding to, which was the assertion that the government can put friendly individuals at the head of a media company, and fire someone hostile to the administration.

Link to comment
zzz72w3r

zzz72w3r

Posted
Posted

Just because something has "Neutrality" in the name does not make it universally benign.  This debate is basically about a rule mandating no tolling or social tolling only (i.e. gasoline taxes) for highways and bridges.  Roads should be "neutral" but most people also understand that tolling does improve and speed up overall transportation infrastructure.  Note that in every tolling debate (settled nowadays but was a hot topic when tolling began) those funding the no-tolling campaigns are mainly big trucking companies and suburban do-well commuters who don't use public transportation systems.  Today, it's the BigData dotcom and data-bingers who disproportionately benefit from social subsidy of Neutrality.

 

All the problems cited in the "Neutrality" campaign is not from lack of neutrality but a lack of competition in the last-mile connections.  The highly competitive wireless data industry was not bound by Net Neutrality rules until the 2015 ruling (but even afterwards still has more leeway than fixed line counterparts) and has all kinds of preferential contracts between service providers and big data users yet it has zero impact on free speech and has the most innovation.  The misguided attempt to interpret Net "Neutrality" has all but killed last mile fixed line broadband investments in the US over the last 5 years.  Thankfully 5G will finally be able to provide a credible alternative to fixed line.

 

PS: Linking the Big Money controlling Internet speech if there is no Net "Neutrality" is just nuts.  First, the 1% or special interests are not politically monochromatic.  Second, special interests are BIG spenders and ISP like media companies only see green.  Third, in the world of 4K video streaming political speech is negligible in bandwidth usage.

Link to comment
Veladarius

Veladarius

Posted
Posted

Just because something has "Neutrality" in the name does not make it universally benign.  This debate is basically about a rule mandating no tolling or social tolling only (i.e. gasoline taxes) for highways and bridges.  Roads should be "neutral" but most people also understand that tolling does improve and speed up overall transportation infrastructure.  Note that in every tolling debate (settled nowadays but was a hot topic when tolling began) those funding the no-tolling campaigns are mainly big trucking companies and suburban do-well commuters who don't use public transportation systems.  Today, it's the BigData dotcom and data-bingers who disproportionately benefit from social subsidy of Neutrality.

 

All the problems cited in the "Neutrality" campaign is not from lack of neutrality but a lack of competition in the last-mile connections.  The highly competitive wireless data industry was not bound by Net Neutrality rules until the 2015 ruling (but even afterwards still has more leeway than fixed line counterparts) and has all kinds of preferential contracts between service providers and big data users yet it has zero impact on free speech and has the most innovation.  The misguided attempt to interpret Net "Neutrality" has all but killed last mile fixed line broadband investments in the US over the last 5 years.  Thankfully 5G will finally be able to provide a credible alternative to fixed line.

 

PS: Linking the Big Money controlling Internet speech if there is no Net "Neutrality" is just nuts.  First, the 1% or special interests are not politically monochromatic.  Second, special interests are BIG spenders and ISP like media companies only see green.  Third, in the world of 4K video streaming political speech is negligible in bandwidth usage.

 

I have 2 options for Internet, cable and phone here in Cincinnati, Spectrum (previously Time Warner) or Cincinnati Bell. Cincinnati Bell started wiring the entire city with fiber optic lines and replacing the old lines, the fiber optic lines went all the way up to the house. Before that Time Warner offered slow speeds and throttled everything between Thanksgiving and the New Year. When Cincinnati Bell started installing the fiber optic lines Time Warner started bleeding customers badly. Suddenly under Spectrum they are offering comparable speeds (100mb instead of 10mb as TW) with no change in hardware or wiring.

 

As for the Neutrality part it concerns the companies that provide service to the customers and the major companies that provide streaming content. Why do you think that NetFlix has had to raise prices? They were being told by Comcast and the others to pay them extra or their services would be throttled. This is what Net Neutrality is about.

 

As for 5g it does me no good, I don't use a smart phone or tablet with data service, just wifi. I can't afford the cost of a smart phone and the plans for them and they would do no good for my home pc connections anyways.

Link to comment
zzz72w3r

zzz72w3r

Posted
Posted

Net "Neutrality" is a misnomer.  At its core is an economic issue and where you stand depends on your view of market vs. government. 

 

The previous administration prefers more government regulations but it resulted in the collapse of fixed line investments and further entrenchment of local monopolies.  The current FCC wants to reintroduce some market forces.  More market <> censorship.

 

Personally I doubt The Donald even understands what FCC does.

Link to comment
zzz72w3r

zzz72w3r

Posted
Posted

 

Just because something has "Neutrality" in the name does not make it universally benign.  This debate is basically about a rule mandating no tolling or social tolling only (i.e. gasoline taxes) for highways and bridges.  Roads should be "neutral" but most people also understand that tolling does improve and speed up overall transportation infrastructure.  Note that in every tolling debate (settled nowadays but was a hot topic when tolling began) those funding the no-tolling campaigns are mainly big trucking companies and suburban do-well commuters who don't use public transportation systems.  Today, it's the BigData dotcom and data-bingers who disproportionately benefit from social subsidy of Neutrality.

 

All the problems cited in the "Neutrality" campaign is not from lack of neutrality but a lack of competition in the last-mile connections.  The highly competitive wireless data industry was not bound by Net Neutrality rules until the 2015 ruling (but even afterwards still has more leeway than fixed line counterparts) and has all kinds of preferential contracts between service providers and big data users yet it has zero impact on free speech and has the most innovation.  The misguided attempt to interpret Net "Neutrality" has all but killed last mile fixed line broadband investments in the US over the last 5 years.  Thankfully 5G will finally be able to provide a credible alternative to fixed line.

 

PS: Linking the Big Money controlling Internet speech if there is no Net "Neutrality" is just nuts.  First, the 1% or special interests are not politically monochromatic.  Second, special interests are BIG spenders and ISP like media companies only see green.  Third, in the world of 4K video streaming political speech is negligible in bandwidth usage.

 

 

I have 2 options for Internet, cable and phone here in Cincinnati, Spectrum (previously Time Warner) or Cincinnati Bell. Cincinnati Bell started wiring the entire city with fiber optic lines and replacing the old lines, the fiber optic lines went all the way up to the house. Before that Time Warner offered slow speeds and throttled everything between Thanksgiving and the New Year. When Cincinnati Bell started installing the fiber optic lines Time Warner started bleeding customers badly. Suddenly under Spectrum they are offering comparable speeds (100mb instead of 10mb as TW) with no change in hardware or wiring.

 

 

As for the Neutrality part it concerns the companies that provide service to the customers and the major companies that provide streaming content. Why do you think that NetFlix has had to raise prices? They were being told by Comcast and the others to pay them extra or their services would be throttled. This is what Net Neutrality is about.

 

As for 5g it does me no good, I don't use a smart phone or tablet with data service, just wifi. I can't afford the cost of a smart phone and the plans for them and they would do no good for my home pc connections anyways.

 

 

The scaremongering campaign of Net Neutrality is no different than when tolling was introduced decades ago that trucking companies threatened of hyperinflation and suburban drivers hypocritically calling toll bridges and tunnels as cutting off city access for the poor.  Neither happened because market forces and common sense prevailed.  Why shouldn't Netflix users pay more so that non-video bingers can pay less?  The problem is that without competition everyone pays as much as monopolies can extract so with "Neutrality" non-Netflix users ended up paying more than their share and Netflix users pay much less, while the monopolies pocketing more than they deserved.  The so called Net Neutrality is nothing but socializing Internet infrastructure investments and there is nothing "neutral" about it. 

 

These are the two choices.  We need to either regulate ISP like real utilities which means having metered pricing (all-you-can-eat contradicts everything utilities stand for) based on explicit return-on-investment formulae; or remove barriers and let mark forces dictate innovation and deployment of capital.  For political convenience the half-ass "utility" ruling of the former FCC (monopoly status and with it the protection but without the explicit link of price control and investment oversight) got us the worst of the former option (higher prices and mis-allocation of capital) and the current FCC wants to try the other way.       

Link to comment
Rooker

Rooker

Posted
Posted

Imagine political campaigns where the 1% pay tons of money to the ISPs to prioritize their favorite candidates. How many ISPs are unscrupulous enough to accept money to slow down their opponents' websites?

 

All of them. ALL OF THEM.

"Nice website you got there. Be a shame if it took everybody 5 minutes to load every page."

 

Link to comment
zzz72w3r

zzz72w3r

Posted
Posted

 

How much did The FCC chairman get "donated" by Comcast and Time Warner? It may not just be them but you know damn well they did.

 

He literally used to work for Verizon ....

 

 

Tom Wheeler was the top lobbyist FOR the industry...

 

EDIT: Tom Wheeler was Obama's chairman whose half-ass "utility" ruling for Net Neutrality was so terrible that AFAIK not a single economist thought would make things better.  It made things worse.

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

 

Everyone is freaking out over nothing imo it will never get passed.

i hope you are right. :~:

 

They've been fighting for this for along time and the amount of backing companies/citizens against it is an outstanding number. You can already see the cables companies trying to plee to the people that it isn't as bad as we think it is and that they're on our side xD

 

So yeah its not going to pass

Link to comment
flutie

flutie

Posted
Posted

All this bull and nobody is going to die? *Walks away disappointed*

do you want to pay for KB, MB, GB, or TB downloads, If LL dies, your "All this bull and nobody is going to die? *Walks away disappointed* Means Shit To you, but, to us gamers, meanes  , KB cost will MONEY. YOU ARE A GAMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

The FCC is and has always been looking out for our best interests, so trust the FCC and the government to do their job. Just have unquestioning faith you don't even need to learn about this boring bill thats what we're here for its all this bill that this bill this and law law law... its just all so soooo boring, so just go about your lives they got our backs ;)

 

#notashill

Link to comment
flutie

flutie

Posted
Posted

The FCC is and has always been looking out for our best interests, so trust the FCC and the government to do their job. Just have unquestioning faith you don't even need to learn about this boring bill thats what we're here for its all this bill that this bill this and law law law... its just all so soooo boring, so just go about your lives they got our backs ;)

 

#notashill

Really , WHY? e FCC is and has always been looking out for our best interests, WHY?

 

Link to comment
Astravanger

Astravanger

Posted
Posted

Hey, doesn't it affect usa only? Aren't there laws prohibiting this from ever happening in europe? What about russia? I mean yeah they kinda banned google at some point there and are against torrent piracy real bad but I'm not sure putin and his kgb bunch will try this crap, it's not really their style to get info slower.....

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I read somewhere they could possibly cause slow downs on webpages based in america so I am not sure if thats user or client side but if its client side everyone will be affected

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use