Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[OCinBuffalo]

19 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Lol can you show the logical fallacy ?

Can you go look up ad hominem, and provide a definition, as well as an example of its practical use, to this board?

Edited December 8, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[westerndecline]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

Can you go look up adhominem, and provide a definition, as well as an example of its practical use, to this board?

When attack a person personally insteadof their arguments

 

 

Which is what Tom did, so I returned the favor

 

If he's constantly using ad hominem. It's impossible to debate

 

 

U see the difference???

Not to mention stalking....

[OCinBuffalo]

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

When attack a person personally insteadof their arguments

 

 

Which is what Tom did, so I returned the favor

 

If he's constantly using ad hominem. It's impossible to debate

 

 

U see the difference???

Not to mention stalking....

You just called DC_Tom a name {{ 

}}

 

yet you've been invoking "ad hominem" for the last 3 pages. It's not impossible to debate, because there is no debate: you are either an unmitigated moron, or, you're a hypocrite.

 

Choose. I eagerly await() your response.

[row_33]

Tra la la

lala la la

tra la la 

lala la la

 

Flipping like a pancake 

popping like a cork

fleagle bingo drooper and snork

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Tra la la

lala la la

tra la la 

lala la la

 

Flipping like a pancake 

popping like a cork

fleagle bingo drooper and snork

 

 

Which...unfortunately, is about the best we can expect from you here, isn't it?

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Which...unfortunately, is about the best we can expect from you here, isn't it?

 

You get a participation trophy for that one.

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

You get a participation trophy for that one.

 

 

Speaking of irony....

[row_33]

Well duh

[B-Man]

20 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Tra la la

lala la la

tra la la 

lala la la

 

Flipping like a pancake 

popping like a cork

fleagle bingo drooper and snork

 

 

 

Thanks...........................an obscure 60's  "saturday morning" show reference was just what I needed as a break from the 

"OC setting up an unaware westerndecline" faceoff

 

 

 

.

Edited December 8, 2017 by B-Man

[row_33]

It was a great show, they all had their own breakfast cereals as well, but the Danger Island segments were a bit spooky for young kids.

 

besides, love is kinda crazy with a spooky little tramp like blue.....

 

 

 

[westerndecline]

21 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

You just called DC_Tom a name {{ 

}}

 

yet you've been invoking "ad hominem" for the last 3 pages. It's not impossible to debate, because there is no debate: you are either an unmitigated moron, or, you're a hypocrite.

 

Choose. I eagerly await() your response.

 

 

If u keep posting reasons

 

And Tom keeps calling u a dumbass ( ad hominem)

 

You then call him a dick face Because, BECAUSE 

 

HE WONT DEBATE

 

 

that's called a person who u can't debate because they refuse to debate

 

Get it????

 

Ppl can't be this !@#$in stupid

[OCinBuffalo]

Just now, westerndecline said:

 

 

If u keep posting reasons

 

And Tom keeps calling u a dumbass ( ad hominem)

 

You then call him a dick face Because, BECAUSE 

 

HE WONT DEBATE

 

 

that's called a person who u can't debate because they refuse to debate

 

Get it????

 

Quoted for...I dunno...perhaps some poster with experience in mental health can aid in explaining...this abortion. Rest assured: I will keep posting...reason.

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Thanks...........................an obscure 60's  "saturday morning" show reference was just what I needed as a break from the 

"OC setting up an unaware westerndecline" faceoff

 

 

 

.

I'm not old enough to remember your nostalgia, and never going to care. Perhaps you can share it with the other nurses on your shift. 

[B-Man]

BREAKING: Net Neutrality Repealed, Left Loses Its DAMN MIND https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691/breaking-net-neutrality-repealed-left-loses-its-ben-sh

 

 

LIVE look at planet earth after FCC repeals Obama-era net neutrality rules:

 

 

[Paulus]

Can any supporters of removing net neutrality tell me why it is a good thing? I'm beat, sorry.

[GG]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Can any supporters of removing net neutrality tell me why it is a good thing? I'm beat, sorry.

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Can any supporters of removing net neutrality tell me why it is a good thing? I'm beat, sorry.

 

Look no further than this very thread:

 

On 11/22/2017 at 6:41 PM, GG said:

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

 

On 11/22/2017 at 6:52 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?

 

On 11/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Azalin said:

 

Not only ridiculous, but obvious. All anyone needs to do is look at the relative lack of progress in telecom up to January 8th, 1982 compared with the explosion of innovation between then and 2015 to see exactly what government regulation of the telecom industry did versus what deregulation did.

 

People need to stop making this a political issue, and should always support keeping federal regulators out of it.

 

 

 

 

And since when has government ever needed to prove anything before seizing regulatory power over something?

 

On 12/1/2017 at 3:28 PM, GG said:

 

The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: 

 

GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 1:45 PM, 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.

 

And this article in particular is good:

 

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

BREAKING: Net Neutrality Repealed, Left Loses Its DAMN MIND https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691/breaking-net-neutrality-repealed-left-loses-its-ben-sh

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Azalin

[DC Tom]

42 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

 

That alone should be enough reason for everyone.  Even if you support Net Neutrality, it makes zero sense to do it within the framework of a century-old law.

 

If Democrats had ANY sense, they'd see Trump's rescinding of Obama's bull **** for what it is: a chance to address these issues correctly via legislation.  Too bad they're crypto-fascists who've lost sight of the concept of "legislature."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[SWATeam]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

No, no...  now that the poor internet companies can charge giants like Netflix their fair share, I’m sure prices will drop for everyone else!

 

And I’m sure Netflix won’t pass on these extra costs to the consumer, either.

Edited December 15, 2017 by SWATeam

[GG]

3 hours ago, joesixpack said:

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Both my cell and my land cable connection lack any kind of data caps.

 

I can't understand how anyone has any sympathy for the likes of Verizon, Comcast/Xfinity, Time Warner and the like here. They're certainly not above reproach.

 

[Paulus]

11 hours ago, GG said:

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

 

I'll have to agree with Ted.................

 

Quote

 

Ted Cruz

✔ @tedcruz

Snowflake, believing online propaganda: "OMG w/o net neutrality, the Internet is gone!"

Informed observer: "You know, the FCC issued that rule in 2015. The Internet grew up wonderfully free from govt regulation & this restores the status quo ante."

Snowflake: "Uh, never mind..."

9:06 PM - Dec 14, 2017

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

I'll have to agree with Ted.................

 

 

 

I think ol' ted is neglecting the change in internet traffic that's happened since the mid 2010s.

 

[GG]

4 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

 

12 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Both my cell and my land cable connection lack any kind of data caps.

 

I can't understand how anyone has any sympathy for the likes of Verizon, Comcast/Xfinity, Time Warner and the like here. They're certainly not above reproach.

 

 

Never took you for a Bernie Bro.  How about not sympathy, but understanding that every company should be allowed to earn a return on its investment without the gov't distorting the market, especially in favor of companies who don't pay for content or transit?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, GG said:

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

 

 

Never took you for a Bernie Bro.  How about not sympathy, but understanding that every company should be allowed to earn a return on its investment without the gov't distorting the market, especially in favor of companies who don't pay for content or transit?

 

Again, I think this has less to do with Netflix and Google, and more to do with non-corporate and below-board streamers.

 

And if you think Verizon and Comcast/Xfinity aren't earning a return, you're clearly not paying attention.

 

[Paulus]

11 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Look no further than this very thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this article in particular is good:

 

 

Thanks, still doesn't change my mind much, outside of the argument that removing the regulations will for localities to allow more ISPs. This is a YUGE problem, IMHO. I really don't know why localities prevent new ISPs from entering the market. I find it disgusting, really. The question is, "why do localities do such things?"

 

If removing NN forces localities to allow more infrastructure building, then a compelling argument has been made, for me at least. 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Again, I think this has less to do with Netflix and Google, and more to do with non-corporate and below-board streamers.

 

And if you think Verizon and Comcast/Xfinity aren't earning a return, you're clearly not paying attention.

 

 

It has to do with both, as has been discussed over the years if you've been paying attention.

 

You're right, I know absolutely nothing about the financial condition of TMT companies.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

It has to do with both, as has been discussed over the years if you've been paying attention.

 

You're right, I know absolutely nothing about the financial condition of TMT companies.

So then you're ok with ISPs essentially having the ability to block whatever packets they wish on their networks. Got it.

 

[Paulus]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

I heard this on the radio.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/%3famp=1

 

The article states differently, but still a high enough percentage to question this repeal.

[B-Man]

MATTHEW WALTHER: Net neutrality is dead. Good riddance.

Even if there were no other compelling arguments in favor of killing net neutrality (though there are), the end of net neutrality would be welcome because it will frustrate the hopes of the largest group temper tantrum thrown by non-toddlers in recent American history.

 

Has this country ever seen a more simperingly childish mob than the one responsible for the outcry over this boring prudential question concerning the allocation of hertz? Has so much canned emotion ever been spilled over so bland and technocratic and uniquely prudential an issue? Having strong feelings about net neutrality — which essentially mandates that your internet service provider treats all internet traffic and data equally — is like getting upset over a public-access TV debate on the generic ballot or the proceedings of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.

 

If nothing else, ludicrous statements like the one from the heads of the New York, Brooklyn, and Queens Public Library systems calling the proposed change “appalling” and the gravest threat to education this country faces do the helpful work of reminding us that, like public schools, libraries in this country are now little more than transmission centers for digital entertainment.

 

Meanwhile, Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has received death threats against his children.

 

 

The choreographed temper tantrum has been… sadly typical.

[GG]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

I heard this on the radio.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/%3famp=1

 

The article states differently, but still a high enough percentage to question this repeal.

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

 

I could care less about Google, or even Netflix. What I do care about is now both ends of the spectrum are going to charge me MORE for the same service I have today while actually providing me with less simply because they now can. I also care that now they'll have greater controls over my being able to work around their greed.

 

Not good for any consumer, sorry. Great for corporations though. Their accounts will undoubtedly fatten.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I could care less about Google, or even Netflix. What I do care about is now both ends of the spectrum are going to charge me MORE for the same service I have today while actually providing me with less simply because they now can. I also care that now they'll have greater controls over my being able to work around their greed.

 

Not good for any consumer, sorry. Great for corporations though. Their accounts will undoubtedly fatten.

 

 

That is utter crap, Bernie.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, GG said:

 

That is utter crap, Bernie.  

 

So, then, enlightened one...tell me again how netflix fees won't increase and how they'll just absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers.

 

Also, while you're at it, you can illustrate how this will somehow make my ISP bills cheaper too, thanks.

 

Oh and as a bonus, maybe you could demonstrate how they're not going to make it harder to stream content off-the-books.

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

So, then, enlightened one...tell me again how netflix fees won't increase and how they'll just absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers.

 

Also, while you're at it, you can illustrate how this will somehow make my ISP bills cheaper too, thanks.

 

Oh and as a bonus, maybe you could demonstrate how they're not going to make it harder to stream content off-the-books.

 

 

Holy hell, can you misunderstand the concept any more?

 

Of course Netflix fees will increase because they won't be getting a cheap ride anymore.  And that's the point.  As a non-Netflix subscriber, why should my broadband cost subsidize you?

 

Your ISP bill may not go down, but it surely won't go up as much because ISPs won't be passing the costs to all consumers, because now they can appropriately charge the bandwidth hogs.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

30 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

So then you're ok with ISPs essentially having the ability to block whatever packets they wish on their networks. Got it.

 

All other arguments aside, what in the world makes you think you have the right and moral authority to tell an individual or private entity what they have to allow within their own networks?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All other arguments aside, what in the world makes you think you have the right and moral authority to tell an individual or private entity what they have to allow within their own networks?

 

 

I wasn't aware I needed moral authority to deal with an amoral corporation. Who knew?

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

I wasn't aware I needed moral authority to deal with an amoral corporation. Who knew?

Typically those who don't know are those who lack a fundamental understanding of rights.

 

What gives you the right?

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Typically those who don't know are those who lack a fundamental understanding of rights.

 

What gives you the right?

 

 

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?