Net Neutrality

Dang, I had a Fox news article for you.

 

False, this *PERFECTLY* proves your side of the argument. This *IS* an academic argument and if you dont know this, you are not studying both sides of the argument to formulate your own opinion instead of regurgitating biased media.

 

Uh, no. What exactly do you think the argument is about?

 

No... ok.. so in this thread you have sited "studies" for which he asked you to provide them. You have multiple times insulted him for not "understanding" with no bases for argument other then you are some random poster on an internet forums making claims as an expert on a subject. Then you make an expert claim that this is not a research areas which is false (sorry, Im not going into personal details but I live in that environment). So, ya... that is the argument right now.

 

What would you study? It's literally an argument about how ISPs are allowed to route traffic and whether or not they are allowed to charge for certain things. The only studies I ever mentioned were about how customers will close a window if a site takes too long to load, and that's tangential so I didn't bother digging them up. I know he doesn't understand the subject because he keeps talking about cell phone networks which are in fact not particularly relevant.

Net Neutrality is not some cutting edge research argument, it's a policy argument about whether we, as a country, should allow ISPs to charge sites for access to customers, or more broadly, whether ISPs should be allowed to control what sites their customers can access. What the FCC is currently doing is revoking Title II classification of ISPs, which is what allows the FCC to regulate them.

 

thanks. its good to know at least a handful of people actually realize what's going on.

 

@2112Starman I will make a humble request. Please read the following two articles regarding this matter.

The first article perfectly summarizes the very complex issue of Net Neutrality without the obvious and typical political bias of a hack such as John Oliver. I apologize no humor in this article, but it does directly conflict with many of the nonsense and lies spouted by Mr. Oliver.

Source: Harvard Business Journal, March 31 2017, by Larry Downes https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation

The second article is from IEEE and presents both sides fairly.

Source: IEEE.ORG, Jan 18 2017, by Amy Nordrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/does-net-neutrality-help-or-harm-innovation


Past performance is a great indicator of future performance. Typically when the government is overly involved in anything, especially involving technology the end result is usually a costly disaster. The government bureaucracy makes advanced technology difficult to navigate. The free Capitalistic market is vastly superior to pick winners and losers.

Government should intervene in cases involving monopolistic practices or unfair trade. Otherwise the government should stay far away from determining the best future of the Internet.

Regarding the nonsense you mention of big business being evil controlling and spying. Big Government does the same. Lets stick to facts, not fear.

In closing, net neutrality is extremely complicated and my personal belief both extremes are wrong. We should have industry develop and implement the Internet with the market determining the right methodology. The government should monitor and intervene if needed. Making the Internet into a utility is a surefire method to destroy innovation and greatly hinder the future success of the United States.

 

As I previously said, philosophically speaking I would tend to align with the principles of net neutrality.

However- in this actual situation at hand, what we are talking about when referring to "specific content" that an ISP might want to slow down access to, we are talking about Netflix, Youtube, and porn.

As the articles linked to above suggest (just the kind I was asking for BTW) the current proposal is really about charging extra for delivering content that requires more bandwidth.

Slippery slope arguments about how free speech and democracy is going to break down because I might have to pay $2 more a month for my Netflix subscription just aren't compelling, sorry.

The author writes:

Yup. That sounds about right to me.

 

Ah the age old argument.

free capitalistic market is the source of just about every sociological ill in our society today (especially the USA). If they allowed some of the federal institutions today (such as power companies) to run as ISP's 10 years ago we would all have 10 gig fiber to our house right now ( I know so, I did a year gig working for one in as one of 3 people running its 50 million dollar data center backed by Netapp, Cisco UCS and VMware (NSX).

I have worked for government and yup, I agree that it can be a real pig, it really can. I was there when they shut down a 3 million dollar build environment (clone of production) after it was spun up 2 years earlier, never used and completely wasted. Terrible design and waist of money.

But people seem to have already forgot 2008 right?

Capitalism is a lot better with significant check and balances in place and that is an absolute. Government has its place running things (as long as you expect a leaky bucket). Im not ready to turn fire fighters over to private industry so that when the fire truck shows up to my house they ask for my credit card and if I dont, they drive off and let it burn down... because thats already what we had for things like health care.

Just look at our president. Private business mogul who immediately got in office and said "who knew this was so complex" and is completely and utterly incompetent at *governance*.

 

So the government should intervene in this case then. Since for most Americans they don't have a choice in what broadband provider to use.

They already charge you for that, why should they be allowed to blackmail a company as well? Your ISP already charges you for data, why should they also be allowed to blackmail Netflix?

Seriously, do none of you remember Ma Bell? It wasn't that long ago. There's your "past performance".

 

This is an incredibly shortsighted view. An ISP might want to slow down anything they choose to, if they are financially motivated to do so. Any belief to the contrary is pretty naive.

 

@2112Starman I give you sound, logical reasoning based upon researched facts. I get back political drivel and thick opinion.

I'm done and I'd put my professional credentials up to anything you have.

Sorry to waste your time.

 

What do you mean "blackmail"? It otherwise sounds like commerce to me.

 

That is kinda funny. You are arguing economics and anyone who has studied economics knows that even in the university setting, its taught on a partisan line and there is no absolute, just like trying to prove gravity. My economics teacher was part of the Clinton administration in the 90's and was a fan of Robert Reich and of course taught from that slant. Economics has been studied and modeled by the largest super computers in the world and had not been "figured out" so you making a claim of reason and logic is of course illogical.

To prove this in quite the epic manor you said:

"Past performance is a great indicator of future performance. Typically when the government is overly involved in anything, especially involving technology the end result is usually a costly disaster. The government bureaucracy makes advanced technology difficult to navigate. The free Capitalistic market is vastly superior to pick winners and losers. "

I would love you to prove that statement and when you do... prepare for your Nobel Peace Prize in economics.

 

Such as? What might they want to slow down, other than streaming video, or other high bandwidth activity?

 

My proof of FREE MARKET versus Government controlled market. Where do I pick up my prize?

 

That comparison has nothing to do what so ever with the argument I made. And you called me politically motivated... ha!

to boot, you have a picture of South Korea as its example!!!! You best look into their government type lol!

"South Korea is a strange country, where capitalism, socialism and communism blend and coexist. Our economic system is capitalist, our social structure is socialist, and our mindsets are communist. We adopt capitalism for our economic development, but strive for socialist welfare and demand equal distribution of wealth."

For your info since you already made a strange assumption, Im more a fan of Canadian and western European democracy. Seems to work a lot better then what we got. Lets compare their internet with ours to get back on topic.

While you stand on your high horse about free capitalism.. you think that actually exists here lol... really... last I checked .1% of the population has 90% of the wealth. Ya, thats great. Considering Im sure you are not in that .1%... why do you stand against your own best interest?

 

"Pay us extra money or we won't properly load balance traffic coming from the area your servers are in". That isn't exaggeration, it's literally what Comcast did to Netflix.

If you don't pay them, they will slow you down. The bandwidth argument is nonsense, that's why they charge customers for that and impose data caps (a practice that in leaked memos has been revealed to be about profit rather than bandwidth anyways).

 

This has unfortunately turned into a purely political discussion and I have a personal rule to avoid politics with friends and family because it either divides us or makes us feel stupid from self inflicted extremism. I choose my friends.

 

Dead People Are Posting Anti-Net Neutrality Comments to the FCC Website

“Friends of recently-deceased individuals…confirmed their friends could not have posted the comments posthumously.”