Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[DC Tom]

36 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Lol wrong again. Just not interested in the opinion of someone who disagrees with something but hides behind smart ass comments...

 

U offer nothing in conversation

 

And not only do you not add to the conversation, you are explicitly avoiding having a conversation.  All you've done is post youtube videos, tell people you don't care what they think, and hide behind smart-ass comments. 

 

You don't even meet the incredibly low bar you've set for others.  

[westerndecline]

21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

OK...  I'll play...

 

What do you feel is the appropriate response to a new comer whose entire posting history consists of a series of self-aggrandizing youtube ranting hot takes which are short on facts and high on "feels", a malinformed Hugo Chavez-esque attack on the merits of private sector innovation and private ownership all while staking claims of a libertarian belief system, and petulant "lalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu" type responses to critiques of the first two articles?

Ad hominem...

 

 

Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it

[DC Tom]

Just now, westerndecline said:

Ad hominem...

 

 

Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it

 

What discussion?  You done nothing but post youtube videos.  You're complaining about people not having a discussion you're not having?  What the !@#$ is wrong with you?

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, westerndecline said:

Ad hominem...

 

 

Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it

 

If someone posts an accurate description of your posting history but you disagree with it, take a moment for a little introspection before declaring it "ad hominem".

 

If you skip taking showers for a week and someone tells you that you stink, it's not a personal attack, it's just the truth.

[westerndecline]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

If someone posts an accurate description of your posting history but you disagree with it, take a moment for a little introspection before declaring it "ad hominem".

 

If you skip taking showers for a week and someone tells you that you stink, it's not a personal attack, it's just the truth.

More ad hominem, u are not discussing ideas. U just disagree with the video ( if u watched it) and are attacking the poster.

 

 

It's a common error in epistemology

Notice u r not talking about net neutrality....

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Ad hominem...

 

 

Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it

You don't know what an ad hominem attack is.  An ad hominem attack is an attack against the character of the person making an argument instead of attacking the argument.

 

However, you seem to think it means "any critique of my posting style which I don't like".  In fact, you probably believe I'm making an ad hominem attack right now.

 

That isn't how reasonable people engage in discussion.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

More ad hominem, u are not discussing ideas. U just disagree with the video ( if u watched it) and are attacking the poster.

 

 

It's a common error in epistemology

Notice u r not talking about net neutrality....

But just posting a video isn't an idea or a discussion. Like I wouldn't post a picture of the Mona Lisa and then start bemoaning a lack of discourse in contemporary Florentine Renaissance painting.

[westerndecline]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You don't know what an ad hominem attack is.  An ad hominem attack is an attack against the character of the person making an argument instead of attacking the argument.

 

However, you seem to think it means "any critique of my posting style which I don't like".  In fact, you probably believe I'm making an ad hominem attack right now.

 

That isn't how reasonable people engage in discussion.

Strawman

 

Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol....

 

Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now.

 

Ignore list

 

 

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

But just posting a video isn't an idea or a discussion. Like I wouldn't post a picture of the Mona Lisa and then start bemoaning a lack of discourse in contemporary Florentine Renaissance painting.

I disagree with your comparison....

 

If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content.

 

Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content...

 

It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore

 

Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

 

I disagree with your comparison....

 

If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content.

 

Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content...

 

It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore

 

Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing

Displaying content effectively, with the aim of generating conversation, is all about delivery. I'm pretty sure if you had posted a summary of the videos and a primer on your position you'd be getting a better response.

 

And you must know that 'if u don't like it, then just ignore' is ridiculous. 

[GG]

The obvious needs to be stated.

 

You're an idiot

[Luka]

What in the !@#$ is going on in here?

 

My simple explanation for the simpletons is this.

 

Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio.

What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here?

Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA.

 

You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market.

 

For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means.

[TakeYouToTasker]

14 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Strawman

 

Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol....

 

Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now.

 

Ignore list

No one is creating a false narrative.  No one attacked your character.  Your posting style, and responses to critiques of your posting style, are what has been attacked.

 

And I'm not interested in having a serious discussion with you as you haven't demonstrated the value of having a serious discussion with.  That's the entire point I'm trying to make:

 

If your goal is to have a conversation, perhaps you should stop acting like an !@#$, and begin behaving like a person who wants to have a conversation.

 

 

[DC Tom]

25 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Strawman

 

Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol....

 

Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now.

 

Ignore list

 

 

I disagree with your comparison....

 

If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content.

 

Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content...

 

It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore

 

Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing

 

Nobody attacked your character, because you have none.  Stop being a schmuck.

[row_33]

so we're getting !@#$ed by this no matter what

 

so who is giving me the kandycoated predicted results?

[westerndecline]

30 minutes ago, Luka said:

What in the !@#$ is going on in here?

 

My simple explanation for the simpletons is this.

 

Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio.

What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here?

Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA.

 

You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market.

 

For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means.

I disagree our vote is meaningless...  I just think most people are retarded or can be bought ...( George Carlin fan here) " the people suck"

 

It's not a secret that money has captured government in many ways. 

 

I'm of the opinion that the internet is like the utility companies or interstate highway .... It's a public welfare issue.

 

U start charging for content based on corporations bottom line the internet willbe like CNN and the new York times ...

 

As for the fcc. Speech has always been decided in the courts. If u want law interpreted by corporations instead of elected representatives, I don't think you understand what a libertarian is. 

 

What you are advocating is basically fascism on the right

Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline

[Luka]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

so we're getting !@#$ed by this no matter what

 

so who is giving me the kandycoated predicted results?

 

Best case scenario, the government takes a step back, we go through some aches and pains while competition in the ISP market grows and then all it takes is one ISP to offer access to everything for one flat fee.

Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes.

[GG]

30 minutes ago, Luka said:

What in the !@#$ is going on in here?

 

My simple explanation for the simpletons is this.

 

Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio.

What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here?

Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA.

 

You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market.

 

For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means.

 

The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: 

 

GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET.

[westerndecline]

3 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

Best case scenario, the government takes a step back, we go through some aches and pains while competition in the ISP market grows and then all it takes is one ISP to offer access to everything for one flat fee.

Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes.

I am open to this idea, like a two year trial period....

 

I am for less government where possible. Markets react in unpredictable fashion tho obviously. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline

[Luka]

19 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: 

 

GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET.

 

The FCC has proposed that the FCC should not regulate the internet? Or are you saying the new rules?

Either way the government should not be involved in regulating the internet. It's the one bastion of freedom of speech. It's the same reason other countries keep a tight grip on it.

[Azalin]

21 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes.

 

 

Wireless is where all this is going. Trust me, telecom is dying to get away from physical connectivity in first/last mile delivery.

[Luka]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

Wireless is where all this is going. Trust me, telecom is dying to get away from physical connectivity in first/last mile delivery.

 

That'd be great and all, but the technology isn't there. Same as fiber, the infrastructure couldn't handle the surge in usage. Hell, even now, if you live in a populated enough area, the towers can become overwhelmed.

[GG]

14 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

The FCC has proposed that the FCC should not regulate the internet? Or are you saying the new rules?

Either way the government should not be involved in regulating the internet. It's the one bastion of freedom of speech. It's the same reason other countries keep a tight grip on it.

The proposed rulemaking will eliminate ancient Title 2 governance of the Internet that was put in place by Obama.  

[Azalin]

59 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

That'd be great and all, but the technology isn't there. Same as fiber, the infrastructure couldn't handle the surge in usage. Hell, even now, if you live in a populated enough area, the towers can become overwhelmed.

 

But that's good, for ISPs, content providers, online commerce, and subscribers. The technology will always lag demand, and ISPs are constantly upgrading to try to meet that ever-increasing demand.

[westerndecline]

If proponents are against net neutrality, and their argument is mainly surrounded by the idea that in a year or two an isp will provide everything, then why didn't cable television become an instrument where everyone could have a show and market whatever they wanted??

 

Why would the isp allow it's grip on power to be diminished ?

I'm for a two year trial, I'm always for trying less government

 

But I guarantee a merger will occur in at least two years....

An example is why would a record company allow for its extinction.

 

If I can just go on a free site, sing a hit song.

 

Why do I need the record company...?

 

This is obviously already happening and it just seems like an ideological pov is blinding the righties towards tech changing the environment of commerce.

 

If green energy crerates all this free energy, the answer is not to outlaw green tech, and force fuel consumption.

Will utility companies now lobby the govt to outlaw solar panels on my roof??

 

That's asinine 

 

 

[boyst]

4 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

You're a ****ty poster.  Not in the shitposting sense, but just a bad effort overall.  I get away with shitposting because...well I don't actually know why but the point is you suck haha

[Greybeard]

On 11/22/2017 at 7:52 PM, GG said:

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

       So if it was the other way around, guess who pays the bill at the end of the day.  The same people.  The only difference in either situation when it comes to financial issues is who is doing the charging and how much.  

[OCinBuffalo]

On 12/1/2017 at 3:32 AM, Ol Dirty B said:

 

 

Damn, I almost got one...

 

EDIT:

 

And, hey westernpissant: posting is an act. It is also a choice. Criticizing someone's actions, is the opposite of criticizing their person. QED, stop with all this "fallacy of the week" crap, and accept that others are criticizing what you do, not who you are. Nobody is making up a narrative, and, that's not even how a strawman argument works, so go back to wiki and try again.

 

If who you are means you can't help but make the same schitty choices over and over? Then, your actions do more to prove you're an unmitigated moron,  than any words others might chose.

 

You don't have to post garbage, yet you chose to. You don't have to put people on ignore, which 99/100 is a stupid choice, because the ignoree is then free to hilariously crush your posts, and you, and you are none the wiser. But you've made that choice too.

 

We are our choices. And yeah, criticizing someone's choices is: judgment.  But, judgment is what separates us from the animals. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 9:42 AM, Greybeard said:

       So if it was the other way around, guess who pays the bill at the end of the day.  The same people.  The only difference in either situation when it comes to financial issues is who is doing the charging and how much.  

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill.  In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

[row_33]

47 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill.  In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

 

you have such a naive and tender heart, bless you...

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

26 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you have such a naive and tender heart, bless you...

 

Netflix can't pass along their costs to anyone but their customers.

[OCinBuffalo]

37 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you have such a naive and tender heart, bless you...

 

Why is it naive to believe that Netflix and Google, who brazenly tried to make a business conflict into a political morality play, are not helpless victims in all of this?

 

For the 50th time, this is about hardware vs. software. Software almost always wins. Why? Because people use software, and it's infinitely more tangible to them. Studies: 3 months after purchase people stop giving a F about their hardware, while their attachment to their software only rises(see: mass refusal to migrate from Windows XP). Thus, hardware companies try to lock you into their hardware, by controlling the software that it runs/making things exclusive, etc. Phone manufacturers are losing this battle as we speak, as HTML 5 makes a roaring comeback. In 3 years, there's a 80% chance "the App store" is gone, never to return. In 5 years that number approaches 100%. Sure, there may be some thin client/hybrid holdovers, but they will all be written in web, not native(phone company hardware) technologies and architecture. All new enterprise apps already are.

 

My analysis above(which usually costs $450/hr), is merely one example in a long-standing pattern: Software always finds a way around whatever hardware does. Why? Because software can move a lot faster than hardware. Once one overcomes hardware roadblocks, they usually stay overcome: because they can't rewire 1+ million deployed devices.

 

This is the general history of IT, from Microsoft DOS being run on non-IBM PCs( the horror), to things like React Native(facebook stack that lets you write 1 set of code for both IPhone and Android, but with a crap license == don't use it, use its competition, like Vue), so, WHY do software companies need special government protection, when they historically have a 80-90% chance of beating whatever the hardware people do?

Edited December 5, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[westerndecline]

8 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Why is it naive to believe that Netflix and Google, who brazenly tried to make a business conflict into a political morality play, are not helpless victims in all of this?

 

For the 50th time, this is about hardware vs. software. Software almost always wins. Why? Because people use software, and it's infinitely more tangible to them. Studies: 3 months after purchase people stop giving a F about their hardware, while their attachment to their software only rises(see: mass refusal to migrate from Windows XP). Thus, hardware companies try to lock you into their hardware, by controlling the software that it runs/making things exclusive, etc. Phone manufacturers are losing this battle as we speak, as HTML 5 makes a roaring comeback. In 3 years, there's a 80% chance "the App store" is gone, never to return. In 5 years that number approaches 100%. Sure, there may be some thin client/hybrid holdovers, but they will all be written in web, not native(phone company hardware) technologies and architecture. All new enterprise apps already are.

 

My analysis above(which usually costs $450/hr), is merely one example in a long-standing pattern: Software always finds a way around whatever hardware does. Why? Because software can move a lot faster than hardware. Once one overcomes hardware roadblocks, they usually stay overcome: because they can't rewire 1+ million deployed devices.

 

This is the general history of IT, from Microsoft DOS being run on non-IBM PCs( the horror), to things like React Native(facebook stack that lets you write 1 set of code for both IPhone and Android, but with a crap license == don't use it, use its competition, like Vue), so, WHY do software companies need special government protection, when they historically have a 80-90% chance of beating whatever the hardware people do?

Duh...

[OCinBuffalo]

59 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Duh...

And you wonder, seriously, why you've been called an idiot on this board? 

 

[westerndecline]

3 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

And you wonder, seriously, why you've been called an idiot on this board? 

 

What u stated was obvious about hardware and software

 

What's your point

[DC Tom]

Oh, this is great.  My favorite narcissist and my new favorite dolt arguing, and all I see is a string of "You've chosen to ignore..."

[westerndecline]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Oh, this is great.  My favorite narcissist and my new favorite dolt arguing, and all I see is a string of "You've chosen to ignore..."

Congratulations dick face

[OCinBuffalo]

On 12/5/2017 at 8:51 PM, DC Tom said:

Oh, this is great.  My favorite narcissist and my new favorite dolt arguing, and all I see is a string of "You've chosen to ignore..."

Tom, by definition? Your favorite narcissist is: you.

 

Or, are you going to hide behind your "I've gone and got the right prescriptions, so, I'm above all criticism thing, again"? You're on medication for bipolar disorder ...yet you feel it's responsible for you to diagnose others? You are living in a crabpot. You want to drag every other crab who might get out(or only belongs there by your preening), back down into it, so they stay with you. It's like South Buffalo. Or, pretty much South Everycity. But that's the thing: I've been to almost every South/East/West Everycity, and I've seen you coming, ever since Highgate Street in Buffalo...a mile away.

On 12/5/2017 at 9:03 PM, westerndecline said:

Congratulations dick face

 

When faced with improper use of logical fallacy...you respond with ad hominem? 

 

 God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better. DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

Edited December 8, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[westerndecline]

6 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Tom, by definition? You're favorite narcissist is: you.

 

Or, are you going to hide behind your "I've gone and got the right prescriptions, so, I'm above all criticism thing again"?

 

When faced with improper use of logical fallacy...you respond with ad hominem? 

 

 God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better. DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

Lol can you show the logical fallacy ?

[B-Man]

9 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

 

 

 God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better.

 

DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

 

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Lol can you show the logical fallacy ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[westerndecline]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.