BTW the internet is about to die

[Felya]

I'm not fine with it at all. I would just make my decision via the market, rather than whining to a politician. If more people were willing to do this, this whole issue would be moot. It's pathetic how helpless and complacent consumers have become. But hey, if you're going to be dependent, you might as well be dependent on a politician, since they're such a stellar class of people.

What market? It sets a president for every ISP. You can't build your own Internet access. The politicians are supposed to represent you. This has nothing to do with depending on government, but consumer rights. You being not fine with it at all, but insulting people who in fact share that sentiment, is what empowers the government to do this.

[Vargur]

RIP ✞ teh internet

[Magpai]

There is no such violation of their right to refuse service on terms they don't agree to. They are not being forced to provide service on any terms, they are being forced to make any service that they do provide fall under certain terms. There is no forced providing of service.

This isn't a new concept. Gas stations cannot sell leaded gasoline, for example.

"We do it already" is not an argument, unless the subject is "do we do this already or not?".

[Wells]

"We do it already" is not an argument, unless the subject is "do we do this already or not?".

Stop saying we don't have the right to do things that we already do with no one having a problem with it then.

[Felya]

You can refuse to buy the service, duh.

Really, you have got to do better than this if you're going to keep going the "pretentious intellectual" route.

Your ISP has no right to the Internet. You are suggesting that phone companies should be permitted to break calls made to competitors and any inhibition there of is government dependance?

[ujx]

Oh damn that article from november sure rang true. I can barely post now my internet is so dead.

[Wells]

Your ISP has no right to the Internet. You are suggesting that phone companies should be permitted to break calls made to competitors and any inhibition there of is government dependance?

Networks work so much better when they routinely block chunks of themselves off for refusing to pay fees to other chunks!

Markets!

[Sett]

Oh damn that article from november sure rang true. I can barely post now my internet is so dead.

This made me laugh for a good minute.

[Felya]

Networks work so much better when they routinely block chunks of themselves off for refusing to pay fees to other chunks!

Markets!

I like to think about what limits access to Internet in places like China and what has the right to limit access to the Internet here. It's amazing how communism and capitalism can reach similar ends, but by their own unique means.

[Wells]

I like to think about what limits access to Internet in places like China and what has the right to limit access to the Internet here. It's amazing how communism and capitalism can reach similar ends, but by their own unique means.

Power is power.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

"We do it already" is not an argument, unless the subject is "do we do this already or not?".

So do you believe that gas stations should be able to sell leaded gasoline or do you have an actual argument as to why such regulation on ISPs would be bad? I'm not really sure why I'm bothering to ask this because I have a feeling you didn't understand the point of the comparison in the first place.

[Deleted]

Maybe if we gave the internet guns, it would stop the tyranny!

You sir, just won.

[Mackeyser]

Seems to me you have it backwards. Not letting cable companies tailor data speeds to the needs of the customer is what will throttle youtube, netflix, and other such sites. Think about it--if you have to provide the *same* speed for a company moving 5 gb per second as one moving 100 TB per second, what's going to happen to the infrastructure? What's wrong with letting business charge for the service they provide? Not every customer is the same, and not every need is the same. In the end, internet companies doing well is good for everyone. It's good for the consumer. It's good for the cable company. It's good for the infrastructure. Placing arbitrary legal limits on the technology will do no one any good. It will create bottlenecks that will slow the most popular sites and force people into other places. That's not good for anyone.

No it's not.

What you have is the Time Warner sonsobitches basically want to create their own version of Netflix. Then they throttle Netflix's traffic and advertise how Netflix sucks and with Time Warner On Demand movies, you get better picture and no wait...blah, blah, blah...

It's monopolistic bullshit.

Once again, it's monopolists who hide their wolfish tendencies within the sheepish, democratic sheep's clothing of the free market where a dollar is a vote for the meritocratic product and consumers are allowed to make an educated choice and products have few and low barriers to entry to the market.

It's all bullshit. You'll never see that ad where Time Warner or Comcast comes out and says, "hey, fuck Netflix. We made them an offer they couldn't refuse. So listen. You take our movies, capisce? 'Cause Netflix? Well, they don't work around here no more..."

Much as they might LIKE to make that ad in a bit of a Jack Nicholson inspired "A Few Good Men" type admission... Nope. PR will prevail and the telcos and cable companies will continue to act like monopolies and fight for monopolistic practices while preaching falsely about a free market and competition.

If Karma works the way it should, all of these executives are destined to be pubic hairs on a cat who eats his own shit and can't stop licking himself...