PDA

View Full Version : I have a question about net neutrality..



Bailey
12-23-2010, 06:22 AM
I am in an argument with a family member about NN he thinks its the feds just wanting to enforce anti_trust regulations but I think its more of a way for the feds to get a toe in the door to control the internet. Does anyone have a source of info that bests discribes this situation?

fettpett
12-23-2010, 07:53 AM
yeah, look into the new law either passed or almost passed by Congress this year. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

They have already taken down several torrent sites and forced others to move to domains outside the US. wont take long for them to adjust to get rid of any kind of website they want.

Also remember that the Congress that just left was one of the Oldest in US history and many of them don't know the ass end of a mouse from a laptop. Fucking morons

Bailey
12-23-2010, 08:04 AM
Cool thanks :)

fettpett
12-23-2010, 08:07 AM
np

NJCardFan
12-23-2010, 10:23 AM
I am in an argument with a family member about NN he thinks its the feds just wanting to enforce anti_trust regulations but I think its more of a way for the feds to get a toe in the door to control the internet. Does anyone have a source of info that bests discribes this situation?

I believe you are right. Left or right, there is nothing more informative than the internet. Control information and you control the masses.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Net neutrality was an issue raised by a myriad of private businesses who have had a growing (and valid) concern regarding the major providers of bandwidth and their moves towards becoming internet content providers. Its never been about government control.

Imagine if the highway system was privately owned. Think of all the gas stations and fast food chains off the exits. Well, now imagine the owners of the highway system want to get into the fast food and gas station business. So they build new exits that funnel traffic to their new gas station and fast food restaurants. Then they start to close down exits to those other businesses, or charge them exorbitant fees (in addition to the fees they already pay) in order to continue the same level of service they had before. Don't pay the extortion fees? Shut the exit down, and all the customers are funneled to their own stores.

That is roughly analogous to what content providers on the internet fear. That is what net neutrality is meant to address. It would ideally prevent those highway owners from unfairly diverting traffic, or charging unfair "extortion" fees.

Net neutrality doesn't really give the government any sort of control over the net.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 11:54 AM
yeah, look into the new law either passed or almost passed by Congress this year. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804

They have already taken down several torrent sites and forced others to move to domains outside the US. wont take long for them to adjust to get rid of any kind of website they want.

Also remember that the Congress that just left was one of the Oldest in US history and many of them don't know the ass end of a mouse from a laptop. Fucking morons


That's not a net neutrality bill... that's copyright legislation... I'm sure lobbied for (and perhaps even written by) those wonderful organizations, the RIAA and MPAA. They're all about draconian net censorship, at any cost to us or our freedoms, in order to stop you from downloading movies and mp3's for free. We have much more to fear here, than we do from net neutrality.

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 11:59 AM
If Wilbur agrees with it and a democrat administration wants it, it's bad for America.
Nuff said.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 12:08 PM
If Wilbur agrees with it and a democrat administration wants it, it's bad for America.
Nuff said.

Quite frankly, it surprises me that conservative politicians don't really support net neutrality.. seeing as how they tend to think free markets are a good thing. They certainly pay lip service to that principle... but I suppose that's what it really is... lip service.

If you like free markets, you should like net neutrality.

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:11 PM
Quite frankly, it surprises me that conservative politicians don't really support net neutrality.. seeing as how they tend to think free markets are a good thing.

If you like free markets, you should like net neutrality.
You build the rail road and then pay for the tracks, another man with an engine and cars demands to use your tracks for free. That's what it's about, free my ass!

fettpett
12-23-2010, 12:12 PM
That's not a net neutrality bill... that's copyright legislation... I'm sure lobbied for (and perhaps even written by) those wonderful organizations, the RIAA and MPAA. They're all about draconian net censorship, at any cost to us or our freedoms, in order to stop you from downloading movies and mp3's for free. We have much more to fear here, than we do from net neutrality.

and violates net neutrality, the RIAA and MPAA can go fuck themselves

wilbur
12-23-2010, 12:21 PM
You build the rail road and then pay for the tracks, another man with an engine and cars demands to use your tracks for free. That's what it's about, free my ass!

For fucks sake...

The engine owners and cars already pay fees. Then the rail road owners decide they want people to use THEIR engines.... so they rig their rail roads to work better with their own cars, unless customers AND engine owners pay additional fees. Get it?

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:22 PM
For fucks sake...

The engine owners and cars already pay fees. Then the rail road owners decide they want people to use THEIR engines.... so they rig their rail roads to work better with their own cars, unless customers AND engine owners pay additional fees. Get it?
Build your own damn railroad!

Zathras
12-23-2010, 12:26 PM
Why are people arguing with this idiot wilbur? We've proven again and again how wrong he is but he doesn't seem to get it. When he posts yet another lame assed argument (you know, every time he posts?), just point and laugh and then move on.

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:28 PM
Why are people arguing with this idiot wilbur? We've proven again and again how wrong he is but he doesn't seem to get it. When he posts yet another lame assed argument (you know, every time he posts?), just point and laugh and then move on.

It does make it easier for us, if there is any doubt as to an issue, wait and see how Wilbur weighs in.

Zathras
12-23-2010, 12:31 PM
It does make it easier for us, if there is any doubt as to an issue, wait and see how Wilbur weighs in.

...And then pick the opposite direction the idiot wilbur has taken. Hadn't thought of it that way.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 12:35 PM
Build your own damn railroad!

<facepalm>

wilbur
12-23-2010, 12:36 PM
and violates net neutrality, the RIAA and MPAA can go fuck themselves

Definitely. Too bad the other participants in this thread can't (or are unwilling) see where the real threat to their freedom is coming from....

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:40 PM
<facepalm>

I see your facepalm and raise you........
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/facepalm.jpg

wilbur
12-23-2010, 12:47 PM
...And then pick the opposite direction the idiot wilbur has taken. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Sweet... that gives me *all* the power.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 12:49 PM
If Wilbur agrees with it and a democrat administration wants it, it's bad for America.
Nuff said.

lol i love how honest you are about your thought process

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:51 PM
lol i love how honest you are about your thought process

It saves me time and energy for more important decisions.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Net neutrality was an issue raised by a myriad of private businesses who have had a growing (and valid) concern regarding the major providers of bandwidth and their moves towards becoming internet content providers. Its never been about government control.

Imagine if the highway system was privately owned. Think of all the gas stations and fast food chains off the exits. Well, now imagine the owners of the highway system want to get into the fast food and gas station business. So they build new exits that funnel traffic to their new gas station and fast food restaurants. Then they start to close down exits to those other businesses, or charge them exorbitant fees (in addition to the fees they already pay) in order to continue the same level of service they had before. Don't pay the extortion fees? Shut the exit down, and all the customers are funneled to their own stores.

That is roughly analogous to what content providers on the internet fear. That is what net neutrality is meant to address. It would ideally prevent those highway owners from unfairly diverting traffic, or charging unfair "extortion" fees.

Net neutrality doesn't really give the government any sort of control over the net.

That does clear some things up for me. I'm admittedly not easily understanding this conflict as well as I'd like to. Alot of pretty principled parties on both sides with good arguments.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 12:53 PM
suppose you get your internet through AT&T, and you have a netflix account, but then AT&T decides they're gonna offer their own video service. suddenly netflix isn't as fast as it was before, because AT&T has given priority to their own service over Netflix.

they can restrict bandwidth to non-AT&T sites or sites that compete with AT&T or otherwise act against the interests of AT&T. so now if you wanted to watch netflix it'll be slower unless you decide to switch to AT&T , then you get your fast internet back.


Right now, it all moves at the same speed, regardless of what content you are viewing. Net Neutrality focuses on companies creating a Two Tiered internet where sites they like are given priority and sites they don't get to trail behind at a slower rate.

Novaheart
12-23-2010, 12:57 PM
If Wilbur agrees with it and a democrat administration wants it, it's bad for America.
Nuff said.

That's not your best thinking there.

In major markets, Roadrunner and Verizon fucking with preferred access might not matter, because net-neutral companies might be able to compete as a selling point. But I have family members and friends in rural areas who only have access to a single provider and probably won't have choices for a long time.

Telling Roadrunner that they can sideline content or expedite content, would be like letting the phone company put calls to Dominoes on hold while putting calls to Pizza Hut through because Pizza Hut is paying the phone company a cut. It's not right. We want open neutral access, it's what we are paying for.

When broadband first started, we got wide open broadband. Slowly but surely they have given us less and less and charged us more and more. This is just another increment in that game.

It's important to remember that cable companies and phone companies who use public easements are utilities and in exchange for giving them special use and access to government land and private easements, we retain the RIGHT to regulate them as we see fit.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 12:58 PM
Telling Roadrunner that they can sideline content or expedite content, would be like letting the phone company put calls to Dominoes on hold while putting calls to Pizza Hut through because Pizza Hut is paying the phone company a cut. It's not right. We want open neutral access, it's what we are paying for.

This is a great example.

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 12:58 PM
That's not your best thinking there.

In major markets, Roadrunner and Verizon fucking with preferred access might not matter, because net-neutral companies might be able to compete as a selling point. But I have family members and friends in rural areas who only have access to a single provider and probably won't have choices for a long time.

Telling Roadrunner that they can sideline content or expedite content, would be like letting the phone company put calls to Dominoes on hold while putting calls to Pizza Hut through because Pizza Hut is paying the phone company a cut. It's not right. We want open neutral access, it's what we are paying for.

When broadband first started, we got wide open broadband. Slowly but surely they have given us less and less and charged us more and more. This is just another increment in that game.

It's important to remember that cable companies and phone companies who use public easements are utilities and in exchange for giving them special use and access to government land and private easements, we retain the RIGHT to regulate them as we see fit.
The problem originated between netflix and comcast. do some research and get back to me.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 12:59 PM
suppose you get your internet through AT&T, and you have a netflix account, but then AT&T decides they're gonna offer their own video service. suddenly netflix isn't as fast as it was before, because AT&T has given priority to their own service over Netflix.

they can restrict bandwidth to non-AT&T sites or sites that compete with AT&T or otherwise act against the interests of AT&T. so now if you wanted to watch netflix it'll be slower unless you decide to switch to AT&T , then you get your fast internet back.


Right now, it all moves at the same speed, regardless of what content you are viewing. Net Neutrality focuses on companies creating a Two Tiered internet where sites they like are given priority and sites they don't get to trail behind at a slower rate.

Then switch to another ISP. Once you let the feds in its just a matter of time until they are controlling it.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 12:59 PM
oh god...

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 01:00 PM
oh god...

He doesn't have an ISP or I would sign up.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:01 PM
Then switch to another ISP. Once you let the feds in its just a matter of time until they are controlling it.

How is this "letting the feds in"?

What exactly are the feds doing here?


the idea is basically telling people that things will stay the same, if you have fast internet you can access anything you want at the same speed, rather than having your ISP tell you what you can or can't at different speeds.

this will drive smaller businesses or websites out because major corporations will be given preferential treatment on the internet.


what's wrong with letting the internet be open as it currently is?

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:03 PM
Yes we want the government to regulate another field, they've done a bang up job with Healthcare, SS and the USPS. :rolleyes: and dont forget GM.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:03 PM
Is everyone going to just take sides because some liberals have an opinion?

It's astonishing how someone can go from saying they don't understand an issue to firmly standing and arguing in a matter of a few hours.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:03 PM
Yes we want the government to regulate another field, they've done a bang up job with Healthcare, SS and the USPS. :rolleyes: and dont forget GM.

what

are

you

talking

about?!


what part of net neutrality means "government is going to regulate it"?

and...healthcare?! oh godd my bvrain

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:05 PM
How is this "letting the feds in"?

What exactly are the feds doing here?


the idea is basically telling people that things will stay the same, if you have fast internet you can access anything you want at the same speed, rather than having your ISP tell you what you can or can't at different speeds.

this will drive smaller businesses or websites out because major corporations will be given preferential treatment on the internet.


what's wrong with letting the internet be open as it currently is?


BECAUSE ASS, THEY WONT STOP AT THAT. Then they will regulate what plans ISP's will be allowed to come out with or what they will be able to charge. EVER HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENERGY crisis in CA when the state said you can only charge a certain amount for energy? They almost ran out of electricity

Novaheart
12-23-2010, 01:05 PM
That does clear some things up for me. I'm admittedly not easily understanding this conflict as well as I'd like to. Alot of pretty principled parties on both sides with good arguments.

The "conservative" position on this one makes no sense. On the one hand, these folks are given to accusing the "mainstream media" of being liberal, corrupt, and less careful one allude to ethnic conspiracies. On the other hand, they are cheering on the "mainstream media" having the ability to limit or frustrate content based on profit.

They might be deluding themselves based in their perceptions generated by talk radio. What they have never understood or accepted is that liberals "lost the talk radio war" for no other reason than the fact that the medium does not appeal to liberals. That and Amy Goodman's craggy alcoholic voice would make Mark LuhVinn cringe.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:07 PM
what

are

you

talking

about?!


what part of net neutrality means "government is going to regulate it"?
and...healthcare?! oh godd my bvrain

You're right the gov hasnt regulated the HC field whatsoever. Oh thats right the HCR bill that just passed caused people premiums to skyrocket.

Everything the feds touch gets more regulated and drives up in price. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY THEY WANT TO DO NOW.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:08 PM
Don't diss Amy Goodman brah

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:08 PM
Is everyone going to just take sides because some liberals have an opinion?

It's astonishing how someone can go from saying they don't understand an issue to firmly standing and arguing in a matter of a few hours.

No I had a side I just wanted to hash out some particulars.

Novaheart
12-23-2010, 01:08 PM
BECAUSE ASS, THEY WONT STOP AT THAT. Then they will regulate what plans ISP's will be allowed to come out with or what they will be able to charge. EVER HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENERGY crisis in CA when the state said you can only charge a certain amount for energy? They almost ran out of electricity

Most states regulate what utilities can charge for power. Many states, red states even, get power through publicly owned electric cooperatives.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:10 PM
You're right the gov hasnt regulated the HC field whatsoever. Oh thats right the HCR bill that just passed caused people premiums to skyrocket.

which provisions of the bill, that have been implemented, have caused premiums to skyrocket? is it the death panels?

also the health care industry runs the government, it's not the other way around.




Everything the feds touch gets more regulated and drives up in price. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY THEY WANT TO DO NOW.

YEah? like Corn?

or...maybe you're talking about broadcast television or radio under the regulations of the FCC? those are hella expensive

oh wait

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:11 PM
Most states regulate what utilities can charge for power. Many states, red states even, get power through publicly owned electric cooperatives.


Thats my point instead of allowing the market to fix the price CA set prices at a certain rate and when it cost more to generate the power then what they were able to charge for it the state had brown outs and shortages.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:15 PM
which provisions of the bill, that have been implemented, have caused premiums to skyrocket? is it the death panels?

also the health care industry runs the government, it's not the other way around.





YEah? like Corn?

or...maybe you're talking about broadcast television or radio under the regulations of the FCC? those are hella expensive

oh wait


Well when they deregulated cable and allowed choice the price of TV service went down. The FCC has neutered radio to the point if you say poo poo you'll get fined. Next is corn once the feds got involved in that and started giving subsidies for ethanol THE PRICE OF MY FOOD WENT UP.


Can you name me one thing the Government got involved in that the price of which didnt go up?

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:17 PM
lol okay bailey you're right

wilbur
12-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Then switch to another ISP. Once you let the feds in its just a matter of time until they are controlling it.

As nova pointed out already, the feds are already in. Broadband providers are essentially public utilities and government granted monopolies. In most markets there is no competition, nor is there likely to be, any time soon (if ever).

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:20 PM
no see things are either government-controlled or free market. duh

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:24 PM
no see things are either government-controlled or free market. duh

Well lets keep as free market as possible ok? They last free bastion of information in the world and you want more control ceded to the feds.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 01:25 PM
Well lets keep as free market as possible ok? They last free bastion of information in the world and you want more control ceded to the feds.

THATS THE POINT OF NET NEUTRALITY.

Monopolies are the exact OPPOSITE of free market...

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:27 PM
My other bone of contention is how the FCC did a end run around the congress and courts knowing full well they wouldn't be able to get it done with the coming Congress. I wonder if they'll be an challenges in the courts about this.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:28 PM
THATS THE POINT OF NET NEUTRALITY.

Monopolies are the exact OPPOSITE of free market...

So you are saying allowing the government to control what the ISP's do is allowing more freedom in the market? sounds like you are trading one master for another.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 01:30 PM
That's not your best thinking there.

In major markets, Roadrunner and Verizon fucking with preferred access might not matter, because net-neutral companies might be able to compete as a selling point. But I have family members and friends in rural areas who only have access to a single provider and probably won't have choices for a long time.

Telling Roadrunner that they can sideline content or expedite content, would be like letting the phone company put calls to Dominoes on hold while putting calls to Pizza Hut through because Pizza Hut is paying the phone company a cut. It's not right. We want open neutral access, it's what we are paying for.

When broadband first started, we got wide open broadband. Slowly but surely they have given us less and less and charged us more and more. This is just another increment in that game.

It's important to remember that cable companies and phone companies who use public easements are utilities and in exchange for giving them special use and access to government land and private easements, we retain the RIGHT to regulate them as we see fit.

That in of itself is not a free market. So if that's what is occuring, that is what the governments main mission is....to eliminate private entities from rigging the free market.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:32 PM
So you are saying allowing the government to control what the ISP's do is allowing more freedom in the market? sounds like you are trading one master for another.

Do you think that a monopoly allows more freedom in the market?

If not, do you think laws aimed at preventing or reducing monopolies are good for market freedom?

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:34 PM
That in of itself is not a free market. So if that's what is occuring, that is what the governments main mission is....to eliminate private entities from rigging the free market.

Lots of people have some delusion that private entities are always more free market and government is always less.

They forget that powerful private entities can and do game the system in their favor just as much as the most corrupt American government.

Often times, the government is used to stop private entities from ruining the system and allowing competitors to have a chance. This is a pro-free market government, and this type of government has to prevent the big private guys from rigging the system in their own favor. This is not BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM, not even close, not even on the horizon.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Do you think that a monopoly allows more freedom in the market?

If not, do you think laws aimed at preventing or reducing monopolies are good for market freedom?

The word MONOPOLY is by definition the anti thesis of freedom, free markets and thus my understanding of being conservative. People had better do a soul check if they think otherwise

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Lots of people have some delusion that private entities are always more free market and government is always less.

They forget that powerful private entities can and do game the system in their favor just as much as the most corrupt American government.

Often times, the government is used to stop private entities from ruining the system and allowing competitors to have a chance. This is a pro-free market government, and this type of government has to prevent the big private guys from rigging the system in their own favor. This is not BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM, not even close, not even on the horizon.

Big Government fascism.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:38 PM
Do you think that a monopoly allows more freedom in the market?

If not, do you think laws aimed at preventing or reducing monopolies are good for market freedom?

We are not talking ATT here there are for the most part many ISP's. Only interference on a government level that should happen is not allowing something like what happened to ATT before they broke it up. You only had one telephone provider now you have many. IMHO is the only thing that should be regulated. I think ISP's should be able to charge someone more if they are using more bandwidth then a normal user.

I am assuming you think you should only be charged a flat rate for access no matter the usage?

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:40 PM
This isn't about charging someone for using more bandwidth.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:41 PM
Lots of people have some delusion that private entities are always more free market and government is always less.

They forget that powerful private entities can and do game the system in their favor just as much as the most corrupt American government.

Often times, the government is used to stop private entities from ruining the system and allowing competitors to have a chance. This is a pro-free market government, and this type of government has to prevent the big private guys from rigging the system in their own favor. This is not BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM, not even close, not even on the horizon.

Well in a total free market isn't the main goal to drive your competitors out of business? Sounds like you want everything equeal.

Novaheart
12-23-2010, 01:42 PM
The problem originated between netflix and comcast. do some research and get back to me.

I'm aware of the excuse, it's the reason that I am worried about.

Years ago I dreamed of "a day when some Japanese company will beam internet access in from space, and I will be able to tell all these people to go to hell". That day is getting closer. Until then, I want net neutrality.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:43 PM
This isn't about charging someone for using more bandwidth.

I know it isnt but I heard a side argument that people dont want to pay for more bandwidth, it should be all equeal.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Well in a total free market isn't the main goal to drive your competitors out of business?

So, in a total free market as you see it, the end result would be one major corporation running everything after it buys out or defeats all it's competitors? Do you consider that ideal?

Not every free market person wants that.


Sounds like you want everything equeal.

Not exactly.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 01:46 PM
So, in a total free market as you see it, the end result would be one major corporation running everything after it buys out or defeats all it's competitors? Do you consider that ideal?

Not every free market person wants that.



Not exactly.



You do know this will end up in the courts and it will go down in defeat?(NN)

wilbur
12-23-2010, 02:12 PM
I know it isnt but I heard a side argument that people dont want to pay for more bandwidth, it should be all equeal.

You probably heard that, thanks to the broadband providers. That's how they are trying to frame the issue. They know if they can make it sound like companies/people are looking for handouts, well... they'll have all the support they need to prevent neutrality. But that's just spin.

in reality... companies and people already pay for the bandwidth they use.... if they need more bandwidth they pay more. Net neutrality doesnt change that.

malloc
12-23-2010, 03:03 PM
The resident idiot libtards of this board are wrong as usual with every argument they make. According to Wilbur, Wee Wee and Novaheart all the major carrier companies are a monopoly. There is no competition in the market, so they will become content providers themselves, and choke out the existing content providers if the government doesn't regulate how the major carriers employ their infrastructure. They claim the net neutrality efforts on behalf of the government is for the good of the consumer, and not a government power grab.

Hasn't this been the same argument posed for every government power grab/crony capitalism movement government and big business have ever pursued?

Claim 1: The major carriers are a monopoly and there is no competition.

Result False: I can choose between 4 different service providers in my area, Cox Communications cable internet, Mediacom Cable Internet, Qwest DSL, and Sprint satellite internet. Most, maybe not all, but most markets are like this. Perhaps in cities and states where regulations keep competition out of the market this is an issue, but areas without excessive regulations don't have these problems.

Claim 2: The major carriers will all become content providers and use their infrastructure to choke out competition.

Result Unlikely Possibility: Look at how much money, and how much OS leverage Microsoft has put into capturing some of the search engine market from Google. First they tried with MS Live, and now they re-branded it as Bing. Even with all the advertising and leveraging their OS monopoly to make Bing the default search engine on OEM Windows installs, they've still failed. On the internet getting there first and getting bookmarked is key. If carrier companies try to do this, they will lose customers and field a lot of complaints.

Look at your history libtards. When companies are allowed to move in to new areas and choke out the competition, it's almost always done with the help of a crony government.

Claim 3: A government must regulate a monopoly to protect consumers.

Result False: Historically, the way a government deals with a monopoly is to break up that monopoly and reduce regulations which inhibit new companies from entering the market. It wasn't until government started getting in bed with big business, and creating legal, regulated monopolies that we had crony capitalism screwing over consumers. A prime example of this would be Frannie May and Freddy Mac. They broke into the secondary mortgage market with the blessing of Big Government. Through government regulation and unfair government blessed practices they drove all competition out of the secondary mortgage market. They then failed their investors and consumers and the fail was so big precisely because they were the only game in town. That is how crony capitalism works, and that is exactly what so-called "net neutrality" is all about.

Anti-trust laws were created solely for the purpose of providing competition, that is not done through granting a monopoly license in exchange for heavy regulation. That is simply State Capitalism in practice, and a position Wee Wee has come out against, yet here he is rooting for it.

Claim 4: This is not a government power grab.

Result False: Once these carriers and their customers accept a government granted monopoly in exchange for regulations they are chained to the whims of executive agencies with little to no oversight for life. What happens with the FCC at the behest of Obamao decides that open conservative discussion boards like this one are seditious to the party, and must be filtered out, and that gets written into regulations? What happens when porn sites are found by the FCC to be obscene and that the kids must be saved through regulations? The carries would then have no choice, they would have to bow to big government regulations.


What you State Capitalists are forgetting is that the equipment that makes up this infrastructure, the switches, the cables, the fiber, etc. are the private property of the business which invested in them, paid for them, installed them, and employs people to run them. They aren't public property, they aren't the property of Comcast's customers or the U.S. government. Are the resident libtards advocating theft in the name of the government again? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.

I would think you big government proponents would have learned by now: If you want to get screwed over really, really big, allow Big Business and Big Government to get into bed together. That way, you'll get screwed over from any conceivable angle.

m00
12-23-2010, 03:29 PM
Again, I want to point out that the Internet has always operated under Net Neutrality. It's not like this is some new thing cooked up by Liberals. The FCC is only involved because for the first time since the birth of the Internet have ISPs looked to challenge the long standing practice of Net Neutrality.

To be completely frank with you guys, the conservative position in terms of maintaining the status quo should be for Net Neutrality. It has nothing to do with access for everyone, or all these stupid ideological side arguments. It has to do with fundamentally changing how the Internet operates in practice.

Let me give you guys a solid example.

go into you command prompt and do a tracert to www.conservativeunderground.com. Now count how many networks / providers your packets go through where neither you nor this board is a customer. For me, it's 5. Why? Because a routing algorithm indicates that's the shortest route.

All Net Neutrality is at its core is an agreement that says you can't change the quality of service for packets passing through your network based on their data. Every network has to make a "best effort" of routing packets that go through it, regardless of their content. This is how the Internet has always operated. Why this is important is because ISPs want to start getting into the content business and offering "tiered service" meaning you pay differently depending on how you use the bandwidth. For example, that NetFlix is a great service is very inconvenient when Comcast wants to also have online video. Under Net Neutrality (and the existing Internet operations), Comcast could not start dropping Netflix's packets (really, all packets of streaming video that aren't Comcast Content) that go through a Comcast network.

Where this gets dangerous is because my packet's journey to ConservativeUnderground.com could easily have taken me through a Comcast network, even though neither of us are their customers. Think about the implications of that, and why Net Neutrality is fundamental to the operation of the Internet in its current form.

So again, this isn't an ideology fight. This is a fight for the Internet working as it always has (incredibly free market and competitive) which is the Net Neutrality side, and then anti-competitive and anti-free market behavior which is the other side.

Bailey
12-23-2010, 03:56 PM
The resident idiot libtards of this board are wrong as usual with every argument they make. According to Wilbur, Wee Wee and Novaheart all the major carrier companies are a monopoly. There is no competition in the market, so they will become content providers themselves, and choke out the existing content providers if the government doesn't regulate how the major carriers employ their infrastructure. They claim the net neutrality efforts on behalf of the government is for the good of the consumer, and not a government power grab.

Hasn't this been the same argument posed for every government power grab/crony capitalism movement government and big business have ever pursued?

Claim 1: The major carriers are a monopoly and there is no competition.

Result False: I can choose between 4 different service providers in my area, Cox Communications cable internet, Mediacom Cable Internet, Qwest DSL, and Sprint satellite internet. Most, maybe not all, but most markets are like this. Perhaps in cities and states where regulations keep competition out of the market this is an issue, but areas without excessive regulations don't have these problems.

Claim 2: The major carriers will all become content providers and use their infrastructure to choke out competition.

Result Unlikely Possibility: Look at how much money, and how much OS leverage Microsoft has put into capturing some of the search engine market from Google. First they tried with MS Live, and now they re-branded it as Bing. Even with all the advertising and leveraging their OS monopoly to make Bing the default search engine on OEM Windows installs, they've still failed. On the internet getting there first and getting bookmarked is key. If carrier companies try to do this, they will lose customers and field a lot of complaints.

Look at your history libtards. When companies are allowed to move in to new areas and choke out the competition, it's almost always done with the help of a crony government.

Claim 3: A government must regulate a monopoly to protect consumers.

Result False: Historically, the way a government deals with a monopoly is to break up that monopoly and reduce regulations which inhibit new companies from entering the market. It wasn't until government started getting in bed with big business, and creating legal, regulated monopolies that we had crony capitalism screwing over consumers. A prime example of this would be Frannie May and Freddy Mac. They broke into the secondary mortgage market with the blessing of Big Government. Through government regulation and unfair government blessed practices they drove all competition out of the secondary mortgage market. They then failed their investors and consumers and the fail was so big precisely because they were the only game in town. That is how crony capitalism works, and that is exactly what so-called "net neutrality" is all about.

Anti-trust laws were created solely for the purpose of providing competition, that is not done through granting a monopoly license in exchange for heavy regulation. That is simply State Capitalism in practice, and a position Wee Wee has come out against, yet here he is rooting for it.

Claim 4: This is not a government power grab.

Result False: Once these carriers and their customers accept a government granted monopoly in exchange for regulations they are chained to the whims of executive agencies with little to no oversight for life. What happens with the FCC at the behest of Obamao decides that open conservative discussion boards like this one are seditious to the party, and must be filtered out, and that gets written into regulations? What happens when porn sites are found by the FCC to be obscene and that the kids must be saved through regulations? The carries would then have no choice, they would have to bow to big government regulations.


What you State Capitalists are forgetting is that the equipment that makes up this infrastructure, the switches, the cables, the fiber, etc. are the private property of the business which invested in them, paid for them, installed them, and employs people to run them. They aren't public property, they aren't the property of Comcast's customers or the U.S. government. Are the resident libtards advocating theft in the name of the government again? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.

I would think you big government proponents would have learned by now: If you want to get screwed over really, really big, allow Big Business and Big Government to get into bed together. That way, you'll get screwed over from any conceivable angle.


This is what i'm talking about.

malloc
12-23-2010, 04:08 PM
Again, I want to point out that the Internet has always operated under Net Neutrality. It's not like this is some new thing cooked up by Liberals. The FCC is only involved because for the first time since the birth of the Internet have ISPs looked to challenge the long standing practice of Net Neutrality.

So again, this isn't an ideology fight. This is a fight for the Internet working as it always has (incredibly free market and competitive) which is the Net Neutrality side, and then anti-competitive and anti-free market behavior which is the other side.


I'm pretty square on how the internet operates and what net neutrality is in principle. I think the internet will remain mostly neutral without government regulation causing even more problems than they solve. Consumer demand is what will keep the net mostly neutral.

By mostly neutral, I mean there are limits and barriers. With more and more bandwidth intensive applications being rolled out onto the internet every day, carriers are going to run into routing and throughput maximums, and when that happens, carriers are going to have to filter and QoS traffic just to keep traffic moving. Infrastructure can and does expand to accommodate this natural progression of traffic, however infrastructure expansion takes capital and resources, both of which are a function of time.

For instance, let's say tomorrow I invent a new "must have" internet application that maxes the throughput of NOCs in your area. Would you rather have high latency and low bandwidth choke all of the traffic to and from your house, or would you rather see my application throttled until the NOC can be ramped up to meet the needs of it's customers? Under government regulation the NOC may not have a choice, and you may be stuck with less than adequate service until the NOC has the resources to expand it's throughput.

Mark my words, if we code net neutrality into regulation or legislation, it is only a matter a time before transmission of government deemed "inappropriate" content is also heavily regulated. Look at the history of the FCC in broadcast radio.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 04:37 PM
Well in a total free market isn't the main goal to drive your competitors out of business? Sounds like you want everything equeal.

Negative

The goal of a free market is to provide the best product at the lowest cost to the consumer. In a truly free market, the competition between competitors never ends in one driving the other "out of business". One may be more prefered over the other, but the innovation and competitive nature keeps things interesting.

If a monopoly exists, then it's because they are playing the game with a loaded (see government) deck.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 04:41 PM
Mark my words, if we code net neutrality into regulation or legislation, it is only a matter a time before transmission of government deemed "inappropriate" content is also heavily regulated. Look at the history of the FCC in broadcast radio.

That has been my conclusion as well. They sure are painting FCC involvement as a win win though.

I have no answer as to how to fix the ISP problem though.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 05:01 PM
Mark my words, if we code net neutrality into regulation or legislation, it is only a matter a time before transmission of government deemed "inappropriate" content is also heavily regulated. Look at the history of the FCC in broadcast radio.

All one needs to do is look at current events in Britain to see where the greatest threat to internet freedom comes from - the censorship brigade. Today its porn sites, tomorrow its vulgar sites, the next its slightly offensive sites, and so on.

Australia, Germany.... look at where the internet is censored heavily and where content is regulated... then look at why - in each place, you'll find that it all started with the sex police. Thankfully we shot down .xxx here...

On the other hand, ensuring that packets are treated equally seems like a small risk (especially with such a small regulatory footprint)... and in my opinion, it comes with much less risk than trusting our broadband providers - some of worst, most anti-competitive corporate citizens that exist today - to behave themselves. C'mon...

malloc
12-23-2010, 05:28 PM
All one needs to do is look at current events in Britain to see where the greatest threat to internet freedom comes from - the censorship brigade. Today its porn sites, tomorrow its vulgar sites, the next its slightly offensive sites, and so on.

Australia, Germany.... look at where the internet is censored heavily and where content is regulated... then look at why - in each place, you'll find that it all started with the sex police. Thankfully we shot down .xxx here...


Why choose "censorship brigade" and "sex police" when naming the agencies which advocate for content regulation? The "censorship brigade" and "sex police" did not regulate content in these countries, their governments write and enforce the regulation. So in your above statement exchange your stand-in phrases with the word government, and you can see why people who work in the industry, like myself, are worried.



All one needs to do is look at current events in Britain to see where the greatest threat to internet freedom comes from - government regulation.

look at where the internet is censored heavily and where content is regulated... then look at why - in each place, you'll find that it all started with the government.




On the other hand, ensuring that packets are treated equally seems like a small risk (especially with such a small regulatory footprint)...

It's not such a small risk once you realize that regulation which ensures packets are treated equally removes a companies freedom to manage it's own resources, such as my example above with a local NOC not being able to meet bandwidth requirements for the latest "must have" internet application. This "small risk" also ignores the fact that the government is asserting "public" control over even more privately owned property. Once this control is established, the control will be at the whim of special interest groups, some of which would like to regulate content.



and in my opinion, it comes with much less risk than trusting our broadband providers - some of worst, most anti-competitive corporate citizens that exist today - to behave themselves. C'mon...

Again, the solution to anti-competitive companies is not to grant them a monopoly license and then attempt to regulate them into submission. Going about providing consumer protection through regulation of monopoly ensures that these "evil" companies are rewarded with permanent monopolies while politicians are rewarded with more campaign funding in exchange for favors. This system of crony capitalism screws consumers and constituents alike. The solution is provide for more competition through anti-trust divestment along with an easement of the regulatory burden incurred when entering the market in question.

Novaheart
12-23-2010, 05:51 PM
The problem originated between netflix and comcast. do some research and get back to me.

I think you're trying to be clever, and I would prefer you simply say what you mean.

This issue did not originate between netflix and comcast, the original issue was homepages, and the fact that Verizon or somebody wanted to force users to use the ISP homepage rather than Google, so they could load it up with garbage and convince advertisers that there was value to it.

And while we're on the subject, if I haven't stated this before, it's my personal belief that once a webpage has been designed, the designer should be put to death. If he is allowed to live, he will only fuck up the page. I am so sick of overloaded webpages with jumpy crap and stuff that takes a dump on your screen if you simply move your cursor over it, not to mention shit that makes noise without being told to.

wilbur
12-23-2010, 05:53 PM
Why choose "censorship brigade" and "sex police" when naming the agencies which advocate for content regulation? The "censorship brigade" and "sex police" did not regulate content in these countries, their governments write and enforce the regulation. So in your above statement exchange your stand-in phrases with the word government, and you can see why people who work in the industry, like myself, are worried.


"People who work in the industry"? People who work in the industry have divided opinions, but in my experience, popular opinion favors net neutrality.

I used "censorship brigade" and "sex police" because they properly describe the underlying motivations and character of the government involvement, in all these instances.



It's not such a small risk once you realize that regulation which ensures packets are treated equally removes a companies freedom to manage it's own resources, such as my example above with a local NOC not being able to meet bandwidth requirements for the latest "must have" internet application. This "small risk" also ignores the fact that the government is asserting "public" control over even more privately owned property. Once this control is established, the control will be at the whim of special interest groups, some of which would like to regulate content.


This is a straw man. Net neutrality does not ensure that packets are treated equally. It ensures that ISP's can't charge a fee to make sure some packets get treated "more equally" than others. They can still shape their traffic anyway they want, to ensure the best possible service to their customers.



Again, the solution to anti-competitive companies is not to grant them a monopoly license and then attempt to regulate them into submission. Going about providing consumer protection through regulation of monopoly ensures that these "evil" companies are rewarded with permanent monopolies while politicians are rewarded with more campaign funding in exchange for favors. This system of crony capitalism screws consumers and constituents alike. The solution is provide for more competition through anti-trust divestment along with an easement of the regulatory burden incurred when entering the market in question.

Net neutrality does not grant companies a "monopoly license". Net neutrality isnt mutually exclusive with competition. We need both.

m00
12-23-2010, 06:00 PM
I'm pretty square on how the internet operates and what net neutrality is in principle. I think the internet will remain mostly neutral without government regulation causing even more problems than they solve. Consumer demand is what will keep the net mostly neutral.

I'll tell you what scares me.

I work for an online games company. Our business model relies on the timely delivery of packets through the internet, both because of the nature of our products and due to digital distribution.

Absent net neutrality, one of our competitors could set themselves up as a "premium service" for an ISP (by forking over a lot of money), and the ISP could either downgrade the QoS of packets coming from our servers, or just drop them completely. This is not free market; this is a closed market.

Now I imagine we're big enough that we could probably play this game... but I really fear for the small startups. As soon as ISPs start getting the power to do this sort of thing, you will see ISPs behaving as content publishers and locking out innovative startups that compete with the services they publish. This is exactly where netflix is coming from.

Consumer demand is partially out of the equation, because it's possible that our customers are not Comcast customers but the traffic to and from our customers go through Comcast networks. As I said we are probably big enough to "buy into" whatever scheme the ISPs cook up to hold our packets hostage, but this would hurt our bottom line and ultimately our staffing. The small startups and entrepreneurs are who this is really going to hurt, and its those guys who really drive innovation.

What removing Net Neutrality will do is create a segmented, closed Internet. And it will be another drag on the economy, because it will cost more to be a startup if god forbid you compete with any business an ISP is partnered with. Imagine if all interstate highways were privatized toll roads, and then the holding companies wanted to charge a different toll and have different lanes depending on the brand of car you drive. Want to drive on Interstate 95? Welp, there are 5 lanes for Toyota and 1 lane for Honda. And Toyota drivers have to pay 25 cents and Honda drivers have to pay $3. Sorry, no Fords allowed. "Get your own damn Interstate." This is exactly what has to be prevented from happening to the Internet.

malloc
12-23-2010, 06:44 PM
"People who work in the industry"? People who work in the industry have divided opinions, but in my experience, popular opinion favors net neutrality.

I used "censorship brigade" and "sex police" because they properly describe the underlying motivations and character of the government involvement, in all these instances.

By "people who work in the industry, like me", I mean people's who's paychecks depend on selling adult content over the internet. A good 90% of our clients are adult sites.

Does the underlying motivation of government really matter, or is the product of government what matters? Did the motivation for SCHIP, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, or the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban matter more than the adverse and irresponsible effects they caused? No, the motivation behind an action means very little compared to the results of the action. Net Neutrality legislation will open the door to censorship and the regulatory framework which will be set up with the motivation of keeping the internet "neutral", can and will be used to keep certain sites with "inappropriate" content suppressed. Big government regulation is a factory which produces nothing but unintended consequences and lobbyist involvement. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way.



This is a straw man. Net neutrality does not ensure that packets are treated equally.


On the other hand, ensuring that packets are treated equally seems like a small risk (especially with such a small regulatory footprint)...

Well, which is it wilbur? Is the implementation of Net Neutrality ensuring that all packets are equal or not? Are you arguing with yourself over this?



It ensures that ISP's can't charge a fee to make sure some packets get treated "more equally" than others.


The ISP owns the hardware, the lines, they are the private property of the company. Are you proposing the government dictate pricing structures for the usage of the ISP's property to the ISP who owns the property? Isn't the ISP allowed to generate profit from it's own investments as the ISP sees fit? Is it O.K. for the government to tell a magazine company that it must publish equal size ads at equal prices for every advertising customer the magazine has? Does the government tell the station which is airing the super bowl that it must place a ceiling on commercial air time?

Some services are going to be more valuable to more customers than others. The market scarcity involved here is bandwidth. Bandwidth is not infinite, so sooner or later the laws of supply and demand must enter the market. If a competitor of YouTube wants to pay Comcast a boat load of money to get it's traffic a higher priority than YouTube itself, YouTube must compete or lose. If that competitor offers a crappy product, the boatload of money they pay to Comcast will just hasten the demise of that competitor.



They can still shape their traffic anyway they want, to ensure the best possible service to their customers.


In reality, if a bandwidth hogging new service is introduced, and an ISP cannot handle the traffic and attempts to throttle this traffic, lawsuits citing this new regulation will abound.



Net neutrality does not grant companies a "monopoly license". Net neutrality isnt mutually exclusive with competition. We need both.

We don't need both. We need competition. Competition makes the entire argument moot, as competitors will drive each other's prices down. What this net neutrality scheme does is save the big players from competition so long as they behave the way the government thinks they should.

malloc
12-23-2010, 06:53 PM
Now I imagine we're big enough that we could probably play this game... but I really fear for the small startups. As soon as ISPs start getting the power to do this sort of thing, you will see ISPs behaving as content publishers and locking out innovative startups that compete with the services they publish. This is exactly where netflix is coming from.

Consumer demand is partially out of the equation, because it's possible that our customers are not Comcast customers but the traffic to and from our customers go through Comcast networks. As I said we are probably big enough to "buy into" whatever scheme the ISPs cook up to hold our packets hostage, but this would hurt our bottom line and ultimately our staffing. The small startups and entrepreneurs are who this is really going to hurt, and its those guys who really drive innovation.

What removing Net Neutrality will do is create a segmented, closed Internet. And it will be another drag on the economy, because it will cost more to be a startup if god forbid you compete with any business an ISP is partnered with.

I think you are scared of the wrong thing. Think about the billions of desktops around the world that make requests to Google's global load balanced servers. Each request traverses many ISPs, carriers and NOCs, and each request has a myriad of endpoints depending on geolocation. For the segmented, closed Internet you are describing to come about, Google would have to strike a deal with hundreds of ISPs in as many countries to make sure it's traffic is given priority on each network. Furthermore, net neutrality legislation in the United States would have no effect on foreign ISPs which would be traversed, and a neutrality scheme in other nations would only exasperate the complexity of the problem. Each peer along the path between me and Google would have to buy into Google's elevated service proposal in order for Google's plans of world domination to work. That's not going to happen, as each ISP will be approached by other competitors.

So the basic premise of the argument is that a top down, planned approach to the internet will be superior for consumers when compared to an unregulated approach. That approach doesn't work well for any economy, or any other industry, why would a centrally planned market improve the internet? A free market ensures consumer demand is met in the face of scarcity, and that same free market has been working on the internet for decades, and will continue to serve it well in the future, so long as the government does it's job of enforcing contracts and enforcing anti-trust laws.

You fear a tiered internet over government regulation of content. A tiered internet is technically and legally very, very challenging to bring about. Government regulation of content is only a bureaucrat's pen stroke away.

m00
12-23-2010, 08:21 PM
So the basic premise of the argument is that a top down, planned approach to the internet will be superior for consumers when compared to an unregulated approach. That approach doesn't work well for any economy, or any other industry, why would a centrally planned market improve the internet?

We're not talking about "improving the Internet," we're talking about "keeping the Internet the way it is." Anti-government arguments aside (and believe me, I'm pretty anti-government), the Internet works. And I like how it works. Part of how it works is with this concept of fair treatment of packets that we call Net Neutrality.

Being against Net Neutrality means wanting to change how the Internet works (specifically, in the direction of tiered services). Not the other way around. So the real questions is: why would promoting anti-competitive behavior improve the Internet?

malloc
12-23-2010, 08:40 PM
We're not talking about "improving the Internet," we're talking about "keeping the Internet the way it is." Anti-government arguments aside (and believe me, I'm pretty anti-government), the Internet works. And I like how it works. Part of how it works is with this concept of fair treatment of packets that we call Net Neutrality.

Being against Net Neutrality means wanting to change how the Internet works (specifically, in the direction of tiered services). Not the other way around. So the real questions is: why would promoting anti-competitive behavior improve the Internet?

The internet has "grown up" as a bottom up, grassroots type movement as all markets have. If the internet had been "kept the way it is" back in 1992, what would have happened? The internet has a long history of promoting good technology and good behavior on it's own. It also has a long history of leaving the corpses of bad technology and bad behavior in it's path. Look at what happened to AOL when it charged extortionist hourly rates, or real player which tried to corner the streaming video market. The internet is one of the last bastions of freedom not saddled with government regulation and partisan squabbling and it's best left that way, even if that means allowing ISPs the opportunity to try different schemes. If those schemes end up on the bad side of consumers, those schemes will go the way of Real Player and AOL's hourly rate.

Changing the internet into a top down government regulated utility would be fundamentally "changing" the internet, allowing it to remain a free of government regulation would be preserving the real structure of the internet. Being against Net Neutrality is not wanting to change how the internet works, it's wanting to allow the internet to develop in it's own way without regulations which historically stifle innovation and growth, ultimately leading to a stagnation in technology because new technology must fit within government allocated bounds.

You should read the statements of the dissenting FCC commissioners. It doesn't sound to me at all like they support a tiered internet. They specifically support allowing the internet to develop as it has developed so well; absent government, top down, control:




What had been bottom-up, non-governmental, and grassroots based Internet governance will become politicized. Today, the United States is abandoning the longstanding bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the Internet from state meddling in favor of a preference for top-down control by unelected political appointees, three of whom will decide what constitutes "reasonable" behavior. …

LINK (http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303746A3.pdf)




First, the factual record does not support government intervention. Second, the majority's claim that consumers will benefit from this government overreach is unsupported and deeply flawed. Third, the majority's focus on preserving network operators' current conditions will distort tomorrow's Internet. Fourth, the majority puts the Commission in the unworkable role of Internet referee. Fifth, the majority fails to marshal a sustainable legal foundation.

LINK (http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303746A5.pdf)


If you want the internet to continue to function with the freedom it has enjoyed in the past, then this blatant government power grab should not be for you. Government regulation of the internet is a huge, massive change which will cripple the future of the Internet. A few ISPs attempting to change pricing structures which is ultimately very likely to fail is a small change and will become just another corpse like Real Player.

Rockntractor
12-23-2010, 11:01 PM
We're not talking about "improving the Internet," we're talking about "keeping the Internet the way it is." Anti-government arguments aside (and believe me, I'm pretty anti-government), the Internet works. And I like how it works. Part of how it works is with this concept of fair treatment of packets that we call Net Neutrality.

Being against Net Neutrality means wanting to change how the Internet works (specifically, in the direction of tiered services). Not the other way around. So the real questions is: why would promoting anti-competitive behavior improve the Internet?

I thought you were a Libertarian.

m00
12-23-2010, 11:17 PM
I thought you were a Libertarian.

I am, what's it to ya?

wilbur
12-29-2010, 03:07 PM
annnd I'm back



By "people who work in the industry, like me", I mean people's who's paychecks depend on selling adult content over the internet. A good 90% of our clients are adult sites.

Does the underlying motivation of government really matter, or is the product of government what matters? Did the motivation for SCHIP, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, or the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban matter more than the adverse and irresponsible effects they caused? No, the motivation behind an action means very little compared to the results of the action. Net Neutrality legislation will open the door to censorship and the regulatory framework which will be set up with the motivation of keeping the internet "neutral", can and will be used to keep certain sites with "inappropriate" content suppressed.

Huh? The "neutral" in "net neutrality" has nothing to do with speech, or opinion, or political neutrality, or censorship of "appropriate" or "inappropriate" content. Absolutely nothing. Well, I take that back. It prevents it. Net neutrality essentially turns broadband ISP's into common carriers... and if you have forgotten, the internet grew at first over wired telephony where common carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier) regulations (aka, net neutrality style restrictions) had jurisdiction. These sorts of regulations are well tested and have quite a long history. The internet got its start while under them, as I said.


Big government regulation is a factory which produces nothing but unintended consequences and lobbyist involvement. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way.


I think its blindingly obvious that government regulation *can* produce or encourage many desirable states of affairs and quite frankly... I think anyone who would say that *no* government regulation has ever done so is a damn lunatic. But anyways, if you are such a person, well.... take your battle elsewhere and lets not pretend this has anything to do with the internet, net neutrality, broadband providers, etc. Your beef is with *all* government regulation - not the particulars of net neutrality.

And none of this is to say that we shouldn't be cautious, or discount the possibility of catastrophe, from new regulation. Of course we should. But your position seems to be veering close to full on anarchy.



Well, which is it wilbur? Is the implementation of Net Neutrality ensuring that all packets are equal or not? Are you arguing with yourself over this?


No - though I should have been clearer, and I assumed you were familiar with the common principles behind net neutrality. All packets are equal based on content (but not on volume). If you work for an ISP you should understand this.... the 1's and 0's in one packet do not cost more than the 1's and 0's in another packet, regardless of what those 1's and 0's represent. Why this is an issue today is because the new internet providers in the broadband era are facing a new dilemma. IP based content offerings from the likes of google, apple, independent voip providers, et al, are coming to fruition and are becoming legitimate competitors to services offered by the (much consolidated) cable/telephony companies.

This is why pretty much everybody *except* the telco's and broadband providers favor net neutrality. The early internet was already under net neutrality style protections, and technology hadnt matured enough to pose any significant threat to the offerings of some providers.



The ISP owns the hardware, the lines, they are the private property of the company. Are you proposing the government dictate pricing structures for the usage of the ISP's property to the ISP who owns the property? Isn't the ISP allowed to generate profit from it's own investments as the ISP sees fit? Is it O.K. for the government to tell a magazine company that it must publish equal size ads at equal prices for every advertising customer the magazine has? Does the government tell the station which is airing the super bowl that it must place a ceiling on commercial air time?


Very wrong analogies. Try this one instead. The telephone companies aren't allowed to misroute conversations of people who work for their competitors, for example. This is what net neutrality aims to do for the internet (now that is has moved off the telephone wires).



Some services are going to be more valuable to more customers than others. The market scarcity involved here is bandwidth. Bandwidth is not infinite, so sooner or later the laws of supply and demand must enter the market. If a competitor of YouTube wants to pay Comcast a boat load of money to get it's traffic a higher priority than YouTube itself, YouTube must compete or lose. If that competitor offers a crappy product, the boatload of money they pay to Comcast will just hasten the demise of that competitor.


You mean Youtube must pay extra tolls - not compete based upon the merits of their offerings - or lose. Don't you see what this does?! This creates a potentially *enormous* barrier to entry in the internet market place, more so than there already is - especially for the little guys who want to compete with by developing new and potentially better offerings. The lower the barriers to entry, the freer the markets. A true free market must have no barriers to entry.

Net neutrality is meant to preserve that minimal barrier to entry, and to prevent ISP's from erecting artificial ones.



In reality, if a bandwidth hogging new service is introduced, and an ISP cannot handle the traffic and attempts to throttle this traffic, lawsuits citing this new regulation will abound.


Once again, you arent recognizing the mechanics of net neutrality. ISP's will still be able to shape traffic how they see fit. If they are getting burdened by bittorrent, they can still throttle bittorrent. But under net neutrality, they can't throttle bittorrent's serving certain files, over others, for additional fees.



We don't need both. We need competition. Competition makes the entire argument moot, as competitors will drive each other's prices down. What this net neutrality scheme does is save the big players from competition so long as they behave the way the government thinks they should.

Competition is something we will simply do not have, and will not have in the broadband market for a very, very long time. But even so, please explain, please explain how net neutrality actually protects anybody from competition?!? If I were to guess, I think you are mistaking the ability to absorb extra tolls and taxes imposed by carriers as "competition". But that's horribly backwards, since what your really doing is encouraging more artificial barriers to entry, and actually stifling competition.

Net neutrality is meant to preserve competition among the content providers on the internet. Net neutrality became in issue precisely because telco's making moves towards the sort of anti-competitive pricing schemes that its advocates feared.

Molon Labe
01-06-2011, 12:30 PM
Here's some great informtion on this subject. I'm beginning to be of the opinion that the FCC should be hands off.

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality (http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/)

FACT: The Net Neutrality cause is a response to a hypothetical problem. We’ve never had this problem. It’s a hypothesis, by those who are simply afraid of business.

So… greedy companies “might” restrict us from things, or they “might” prioritize content delivery to the highest payer. We need to give the government the authority to regulate the internet for the first time ever in order to protect us from what alarmists think companies “might” do.

So the logic for Net Neutrality legislation is that we need to regulate the internet in order to keep it free. Yes that is the logic.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHxc-AzslMo&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU&feature=player_embedded

wilbur
01-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Here's some great informtion on this subject. I'm beginning to be of the opinion that the FCC should be hands off.

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality (http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/)

FACT: The Net Neutrality cause is a response to a hypothetical problem. We’ve never had this problem. It’s a hypothesis, by those who are simply afraid of business.


Net neutrality became a big issue when a number of years ago, the CEO of ATT basically outlined his desire for the type of tiered pricing and packet content discrimination that net neutrality opponents are afraid of. Its the telecoms wet dream and ultimate ambition to get a piece of every single transaction that happens over their wires... there is an unthinkable amount of money in it for them, if they can make it happen - they are laying the groundwork now, and have an enthusiastic team of anti-government, pro-corp republicans helping them to bring that dream to fruition.

And the internet will suffer as a result.



So… greedy companies “might” restrict us from things, or they “might” prioritize content delivery to the highest payer. We need to give the government the authority to regulate the internet for the first time ever in order to protect us from what alarmists think companies “might” do.


Or one might say it like this:

So… the greedy FCC ”might" censor us, or "might" use this as a wedge to control the internet (though we can't really say how). We need to give our (most anti-competitive, dishonest, monopoly power wielding) businesses the freedom of deregulation in order to protect us from what alarmists think the FCC “might” do.

Also keep in mind, as I said in a previous post... net neutrality does for broadband what common-carrier status did for phone lines... you know.. the place where the internet got its start.

Novaheart
01-06-2011, 12:55 PM
... net neutrality does for broadband what common-carrier status did for phone lines... you know.. the place where the internet got its start.

q

Molon Labe
01-06-2011, 06:41 PM
Net neutrality became a big issue when a number of years ago, the CEO of ATT basically outlined his desire for the type of tiered pricing and packet content discrimination that net neutrality opponents are afraid of. Its the telecoms wet dream and ultimate ambition to get a piece of every single transaction that happens over their wires... there is an unthinkable amount of money in it for them, if they can make it happen - they are laying the groundwork now, and have an enthusiastic team of anti-government, pro-corp republicans helping them to bring that dream to fruition.

And the internet will suffer as a result.

Or one might say it like this:

So… the greedy FCC ”might" censor us, or "might" use this as a wedge to control the internet (though we can't really say how). We need to give our (most anti-competitive, dishonest, monopoly power wielding) businesses the freedom of deregulation in order to protect us from what alarmists think the FCC “might” do.

Also keep in mind, as I said in a previous post... net neutrality does for broadband what common-carrier status did for phone lines... you know.. the place where the internet got its start.

I know the government is "supposed" to protect people from fraud in a perfect world....but that's not what's occurred under the FCC in any sense. So the FCC "might" censor becomes the FCC "has" in the past and probably "will" do it again. The FCC "has" and probably "will" get involved with things it has no business in as the video explained clearly the areas of regulation creep it's already engaged in.

A company like ATT would not exist in a free market. In addition there would probably be dozens of companies that would offer said services.

I would rather have the freedom for many choices and go elsewhere in the likelihood that someone like an ATT would try to force tiered pricing and content discrimination, rather than what we have now which is what maybe 4-6 quality companies?

I'm still learning about all of this, so I have not made up my mind, but if the government really did "protect" us from fraud the way it was intended, I might lean the other direction.

m00
01-06-2011, 10:51 PM
Wilbur -

I think you are fighting a lost cause here. I personal see Net Neutrality as a practical necessity, but unfortunately it's become wrapped up in identity politics where "neutrality" has been equated to "socialism" or "censorship" which simply isn't the case. Heck, rockntractor implied I couldn't be a Libertarian if I thought we should keep Net Neutrality. As if this were a political matter.

It's like saying "What, you believe the husband and wife should pool their income and have a joint bank account? You're a COMMUNIST, how could you possibly be a Republican." :p

wilbur
01-07-2011, 08:31 AM
Wilbur -

I think you are fighting a lost cause here. I personal see Net Neutrality as a practical necessity, but unfortunately it's become wrapped up in identity politics where "neutrality" has been equated to "socialism" or "censorship" which simply isn't the case. Heck, rockntractor implied I couldn't be a Libertarian if I thought we should keep Net Neutrality. As if this were a political matter.

It's like saying "What, you believe the husband and wife should pool their income and have a joint bank account? You're a COMMUNIST, how could you possibly be a Republican." :p

Yea, its really bizarre to have witnessed its rise to the limelight, and to see it become just another partisan ideological battle... as someone in the field, Net Neutrality has been an issue in front of me for almost 10 years now (yikes), where it was discussed and debated for nearly that entire time without so much as one single partisan utterance.

A few pundits get a hold of it, and all that real debate is over..

Molon Labe
01-07-2011, 08:38 AM
Wilbur -

I think you are fighting a lost cause here. I personal see Net Neutrality as a practical necessity, but unfortunately it's become wrapped up in identity politics where "neutrality" has been equated to "socialism" or "censorship" which simply isn't the case. Heck, rockntractor implied I couldn't be a Libertarian if I thought we should keep Net Neutrality. As if this were a political matter.

It's like saying "What, you believe the husband and wife should pool their income and have a joint bank account? You're a COMMUNIST, how could you possibly be a Republican." :p

I may be mistaken, but I don't think I see that you can't be Libertarian if you hold that belief. And I don't think just because Wilbur comes from a more leftist belief that he is trying to politicize the issue.

I personally just see more of a problem creeping in once an agency (FCC) that has questionable procedures to begin with, now get's involved to "fix" the problem

Your right too many people think every topic for discussion should be politicized. If I've come across that way then, I did not intend to.

wilbur
01-07-2011, 10:37 AM
I will say one other thing about net neutrality.

I've lived with the issues for many years. I fully expected that, once the issue trickled on over to Washington, that the torch would have been picked up by the republicans. So its a little shocking and surprising now to see the issue take the twists and turns that it has.

Of course, this was even before 9/11, a time when the republican party had a little semblance of sanity left in it. It took me a little while to catch up to the new reality after that.

And its also been illuminating to see an issue that I have a fair bit of experience with (compared to the general population) twisted and mangled by punditry. Rush says "All you need to know about net neutrality is that is supported by Soros and the Democrats"... well, all I need to know about Rush is, that he speaks militantly, and with irresponsible certitude, about shit he doesnt know the first thing about. But we knew that already.. right? Right?!

Molon Labe
01-07-2011, 10:46 AM
I will say one other thing about net neutrality.

I've lived with the issues for many years. I fully expected that, once the issue trickled on over to Washington, that the torch would have been picked up by the republicans. So its a little shocking and surprising now to see the issue take the twists and turns that it has.

Of course, this was even before 9/11, a time when the republican party had a little semblance of sanity left in it. It took me a little while to catch up to the new reality after that.

And its also been illuminating to see an issue that I have a fair bit of experience with (compared to the general population) twisted and mangled by punditry. Rush says "All you need to know about net neutrality is that is supported by Soros and the Democrats"... well, all I need to know about Rush is, that he speaks militantly, and with irresponsible certitude, about shit he doesnt know the first thing about. But we knew that already.. right? Right?!

I don't listen to Rush or talk radio much anymore

How about this then.

Is there a solution to the problem without passing a law or getting a law making body involved?

wilbur
01-07-2011, 11:23 AM
I don't listen to Rush or talk radio much anymore

How about this then.

Is there a solution to the problem without passing a law or getting a law making body involved?

Quite frankly, I don't know. The only other thing that comes to mind is breaking up the broadband providers under anti-trust law... but that's still government involvement... and I think it would still require some form of net neutrality legislation.

Theres a bit of chicken/egg problem... we need healthy competition for the market to be able to self regulate, but I think we'll need regulation (or gov't involvement) in order to bring about healthy competition.

Back in the days of the ole' dialup ISP, you or I, with a relatively small investment and low overhead could set up an ISP and sell internet service in our towns. Even if the phone company decided to get in on the ISP market, you should be sure that they couldnt unfairly harm your services, because of their common carrier status (neutrality, as it were). So we had lots of competition, lots of providers to choose from. We had that competition precisely because of common carrier laws which required the telco's to treat your data the exact same as they treat themselves or others.

wilbur
01-07-2011, 11:38 AM
An interesting case that can give you some insight into the ways the cable companies maintain their monopolies, is through the story of the Greenlight ISP in Wilson, NC. Things like this are pretty common..

http://consumerist.com/2009/04/time-warner-cable-cannot-possibly-compete-with-the-small-city-of-wilson-nc.html