Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask yourself, "Can I trust my cable provider to be fair?" they were suing for the right to be as unfair as they want and to squeeze more money from us and by god you guys took their side over the American consumer, how screwed up is that?

I trust the private sector more than government. Question is, can we trust the bureaucrats, some who support things like the 'Fairness Doctrine' where they want to control info? Obama himself said there is too much information out there. He started AttackWatch so people could report thought crimes.

In the private sector, if you don't like the practices of a business, you go elsewhere or start your own business and make rules you think are fair. Competition means everyone can find something they like. You are not obligated to support any business. With government, it's their way or the highway and you have no choice.

Bolded: The govt doesnt want to control the info they are promoting NO CONTROL. Promoting equal treatment of all websites.

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

If the government doesn't want to control what people have access to why does it keep so many things secret?

 

[RDD_1210]

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

Wow.

Just, wow.

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And he punts!

Wow.

Just, wow.

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. That does not exist in the United States, and never has, because the Bush administration made a stupid ruling that made it impossible for the FCC to tell providers that they can't play favorites with their own data. I proved that, more than once, and you have insisted that my links don't count because you think the guy that is blaming Bush is a corporate shill.

That says a hell of a lot about you, and nothing about me.

 

[mamooth]

Damn near every developed nation on earth has faster internet than the USA at a cheaper price.

QM, alas, prefers the US system, where the eeeeeeevil gubmint is forbidden from making internet access cheap and unrestricted. In the libertarian mind, those socialists may have cheap fast unrestricted internet, but it's still bad because ... because ... um ... FREEDOM!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Because no one can possibly be right unless they agree with massive government control.

LOL, "massive government control".

What was wrong with the way the internet worked before last week in your opinion?

For one thing, the lack of Megaupload.

Possibly OT: what the hell is Megaupload?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I trust the private sector more than government. Question is, can we trust the bureaucrats, some who support things like the 'Fairness Doctrine' where they want to control info? Obama himself said there is too much information out there. He started AttackWatch so people could report thought crimes.

In the private sector, if you don't like the practices of a business, you go elsewhere or start your own business and make rules you think are fair. Competition means everyone can find something they like. You are not obligated to support any business. With government, it's their way or the highway and you have no choice.

Bolded: The govt doesnt want to control the info they are promoting NO CONTROL. Promoting equal treatment of all websites.

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

If the government doesn't want to control what people have access to why does it keep so many things secret?

Are you still referring to Net Neutrality or Govt in general?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wow.

Just, wow.

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks.

Thats not what Net Neutrality is.

net·work neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality

1.
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

And this is why you have a crazy opinion of it. How could a judge strike down something that never existed? He cant

That does not exist in the United States, and never has, because the Bush administration made a stupid ruling that made it impossible for the FCC to tell providers that they can't play favorites with their own data. I proved that, more than once, and you have insisted that my links don't count because you think the guy that is blaming Bush is a corporate shill.

That says a hell of a lot about you, and nothing about me.

Wrong. Read the definition of Net Neutrality. You are wrong.

Here, learn something:

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[5] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.[6][7]

Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[8] Despite this claim, there has been a single case where an Internet service provider, Comcast, intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications.[9]

Just like I said. You say trust that this wont happen but it has in the past

Still other companies have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[10]

Just like I said. They are going to make internet like cell phone data packages

Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.[12]

The last bolded is your position. Your posistion doesnt cover or isnt available in many areas.

 

[Plasmaball]

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

well no, this isnt correct either, but typical you would be wrong as usual.

We'll just have to see if for some strange reason our computers slow down, huh? You guys are a bunch of goofballs.
Nothing has changed from last week where my computer is just as fast as it was then and I'm pretty darn sure that it will be as fast if not faster in the future.

the nothing to hide argument.

 

[Plasmaball]

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

Net Neutrality does exist its responsible for the internet as you currently enjoy it.

Dude you are arguing about something you believe is NOT in place. IT IS. NET NEUTRALITY IS WHY THE INTERNET IS THE WAY IT IS NOW.

Thats why we are confused why you are against it. you're really not. You are for it but you (for some reason) believe that its not really there

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

Here is a hypothetical graph that could happen if Net Neutrality is taken away

i mean who wouldnt want this type of system? You want to watch USMB traffic die off? Get rid of NN.

 

[Plasmaball]

Good grief, it's amazing how some panic when government doesn't have control over something. What to do? Libs are in a panic. How horrible would it be if they couldn't copy and paste the daily talking points as quickly? I think we'll survive.

Ask yourself, "Can I trust my cable provider to be fair?" they were suing for the right to be as unfair as they want and to squeeze more money from us and by god you guys took their side over the American consumer, how screwed up is that?

I trust the private sector more than government. Question is, can we trust the bureaucrats, some who support things like the 'Fairness Doctrine' where they want to control info? Obama himself said there is too much information out there. He started AttackWatch so people could report thought crimes.

In the private sector, if you don't like the practices of a business, you go elsewhere or start your own business and make rules you think are fair. Competition means everyone can find something they like. You are not obligated to support any business. With government, it's their way or the highway and you have no choice.

tinfoil away!
This topic is clearly beyond your education level. This isnt what the topic is about. Conspiracies is down a few sections.

 

[Contumacious]

The one thing that net neutrality advocates continually overlook is that bandwidth is scarce. It is scarce in America as it is scarce in both Asia and Europe. Furthermore, building and maintaining a network is a very capital-intensive endeavor with low return-on-investment. For example, earlier this year, Google and six other companies pooled together resources to fund a $300 million fiber optic link between the West coast and Japan. Constructing this line will take several years and won’t be complete until 2011.

Similarly, to build a new backbone on land, entrepreneurs must: pay for permits, conduct environmental studies, rent or buy property, recruit labor, apply for technology licenses, purchase construction materials, install fiber optics, manage network equipment, and even play the game of politics. All told breaking new ground in an urban environment like Dallas can cost up to $1 million per mile.

Yet, if net neutrality legislation is enacted, the federal government will essentially be telling ISPs that they no longer own their own networks (i.e., network operators can no longer do whatever they want with their own property). Thus, this has become a battle over property rights. And as a result, many entrepreneurs and capitalists will no longer invest in the capital resources necessary to maintain or upgrade the facilities.

 

[Plasmaball]

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

1) any google search ( in so long as it loads fast enough) will show you that NN did or does exist.

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

note the title.

No matter what you think of network neutrality — for it, against it, it’s complicated, who cares — the fact that a federal court just struck down most of the FCC’s net neutrality rules is clearly cause for concern.

This is the first sentence in the piece. NN does exist, so until you understand this simple concept we cant go any further.

Let me get this straight, that title, and the first sentence of the opinion piece, says that there is no net neutrality, and that the federal government regulates the internet, both of which are the points I have made, and that somehow proves me wrong.

It then goes on to argue that the FCC is going to ruin everything, and that we need less government on the internet, which, once again, is my position.

One of us is really confused, and it ain't the windbag.

how motherfucking retarded are you.

See the underline is what you said, the larger print is what i Copied from the piece.

the fact that a federal court just struck down most of the FCC’s net neutrality rules is clearly cause for concern

meaning NN does exist you fucking retard. Im done with you. You are literally too stupid for the internet.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its like hes saying this website doesnt exist. I asked him how someone can strike down something that doesnt exist. I guess he doesnt get that either

 

[RDD_1210]

Wow.

Just, wow.

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. That does not exist in the United States, and never has, because the Bush administration made a stupid ruling that made it impossible for the FCC to tell providers that they can't play favorites with their own data. I proved that, more than once, and you have insisted that my links don't count because you think the guy that is blaming Bush is a corporate shill.

That says a hell of a lot about you, and nothing about me.

LOL, you idiot. It absolutely existed, but it was struck down last week because of the precedent you are referring to, which will cause it to cease to exist going forward but it certainly existed before. How dense can you possibly be?

So all of the stories about Net Neutrality coming to an end and being overturned are incorrect? They are telling fairy tales about something that never existed??

 

[RDD_1210]

The one thing that net neutrality advocates continually overlook is that bandwidth is scarce. It is scarce in America as it is scarce in both Asia and Europe. Furthermore, building and maintaining a network is a very capital-intensive endeavor with low return-on-investment. For example, earlier this year, Google and six other companies pooled together resources to fund a $300 million fiber optic link between the West coast and Japan. Constructing this line will take several years and won’t be complete until 2011.

Similarly, to build a new backbone on land, entrepreneurs must: pay for permits, conduct environmental studies, rent or buy property, recruit labor, apply for technology licenses, purchase construction materials, install fiber optics, manage network equipment, and even play the game of politics. All told breaking new ground in an urban environment like Dallas can cost up to $1 million per mile.

Yet, if net neutrality legislation is enacted, the federal government will essentially be telling ISPs that they no longer own their own networks (i.e., network operators can no longer do whatever they want with their own property). Thus, this has become a battle over property rights. And as a result, many entrepreneurs and capitalists will no longer invest in the capital resources necessary to maintain or upgrade the facilities.

Can you provide a link when you copy and paste someone elses opinion.

 

[RDD_1210]

Its like hes saying this website doesnt exist. I asked him how someone can strike down something that doesnt exist. I guess he doesnt get that either

This is a perfect example of someone who literally knows nothing about a topic, decided to read an article and cherry picked one paragraph then base his entire opinion on that, even though his interpretation is so ridiculously wrong it's actually funny to everyone else who understands the issue.

He thinks he's being smart but everyone is just laughing at him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks.

Thats not what Net Neutrality is.



And this is why you have a crazy opinion of it. How could a judge strike down something that never existed? He cant




Wrong. Read the definition of Net Neutrality. You are wrong.

Here, learn something:



Just like I said. You say trust that this wont happen but it has in the past

Still other companies have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[10]

Just like I said. They are going to make internet like cell phone data packages

Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.[12]

The last bolded is your position. Your posistion doesnt cover or isnt available in many areas.

Now you think you are smarter than UC Berkley about the internet.

NET NEUTRALITY: definition

Great job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1) any google search ( in so long as it loads fast enough) will show you that NN did or does exist.

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

note the title.

This is the first sentence in the piece. NN does exist, so until you understand this simple concept we cant go any further.

Let me get this straight, that title, and the first sentence of the opinion piece, says that there is no net neutrality, and that the federal government regulates the internet, both of which are the points I have made, and that somehow proves me wrong.

It then goes on to argue that the FCC is going to ruin everything, and that we need less government on the internet, which, once again, is my position.

One of us is really confused, and it ain't the windbag.

how motherfucking retarded are you.

See the underline is what you said, the larger print is what i Copied from the piece.

the fact that a federal court just struck down most of the FCC’s net neutrality rules is clearly cause for concern

meaning NN does exist you fucking retard. Im done with you. You are literally too stupid for the internet.

And it goes on to say what, again?

But not for the reasons you think. Others are saying that the FCC just lost the battle but “can finally win the war” — if the agency formally “reclassifies” broadband as a heavily regulated “common carrier” (like traditional telephone services). Actually, the FCC lost the battle, but it just won the war over regulating the internet. It no longer needs to bother with reclassification, a process so difficult and drawn-out it was always a political fantasy anyway.
The FCC’s broad new powers should worry everyone, whatever they think of net neutrality. Because beneath the clever rallying cries of “net neutrality!” lurks a wide range of potential issues. Most concerns are imaginary or simply misplaced. The real concerns would be better addressed through other approaches — like focusing on abuses of market power that harm competition.

Damn, just what I said.

Want to keep making my point for me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think Net Neutrality never existed. I'm pretty sure you're so far lost you don't even know what you're actually arguing about.

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. That does not exist in the United States, and never has, because the Bush administration made a stupid ruling that made it impossible for the FCC to tell providers that they can't play favorites with their own data. I proved that, more than once, and you have insisted that my links don't count because you think the guy that is blaming Bush is a corporate shill.

That says a hell of a lot about you, and nothing about me.

LOL, you idiot. It absolutely existed, but it was struck down last week because of the precedent you are referring to, which will cause it to cease to exist going forward but it certainly existed before. How dense can you possibly be?

So all of the stories about Net Neutrality coming to an end and being overturned are incorrect? They are telling fairy tales about something that never existed??

This is going to destroy your faith in reporters, but the exact same fucking thing happend in 2010.

Google Scholar

Perhaps you should stop believing everything you read.

On the other hand, you could pretend that the newspaper that told you net neutrality was over in 2010 was talking about the decision last week.

Alternatively, you could keep inditing that I am wrong even after I provided proof that they couldn't implement the rules the very first time they tried, thus proving that net neutrality never existed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its like hes saying this website doesnt exist. I asked him how someone can strike down something that doesnt exist. I guess he doesnt get that either

This is a perfect example of someone who literally knows nothing about a topic, decided to read an article and cherry picked one paragraph then base his entire opinion on that, even though his interpretation is so ridiculously wrong it's actually funny to everyone else who understands the issue.

He thinks he's being smart but everyone is just laughing at him.

I just provided a case from 2010 that had all the idiots up in arms about all the same things you are whinging about, yet you still insist that there were rules in place that prevent the problems that don't exist.