FCC Policy Change

[Xisa]

Cable companies will give bandwidth preference to the highest bidder and have the ability to limit or deny bandwidth to particular sectors of the internet.

It effectively gives ISP's unlimited ability to censor and control bandwidth as they please.

Ugh, the ISP will not being limiting bandwidth. The connections themselves will take care of that. It's called QoS (Quality of Service), and it means packets from certain address have pipe priority.

Companies that buy the "fast lane" (God damn do I hate that term) will be placed higher in QoS. Everyone else will just have to wait their turn. If that means a site that didn't sign up for QoS has to wait so long for bandwidth that their users literally time out to connect....tough shit!

The other downside being is if too many people buy QoS, it doesn't work. It has to be limited, meaning it'll be priced outside of the reach of anyone but the wealthiest of businesses.

It's much, much worse than you're making it out to be

[THE Bigzoman]

The only "essential" part of economics is having shelter so the weather doesn't kill you and food/water so you can live long enough to reproduce. When you are missing something you need, you got it from someone else. That's an economy, point blank. Technically, anything outside of that is "fluff" and "not necessary".

As I said, are there paid avenues of what I mentioned? Sure, but those things were on the Internet looooooong before it was so commercialized. The only reason those businesses make money is because they made a better version than the free systems, so people used those instead. The business is a side effect of people using communications, entertainment and education online, not the cause.

Correlations =/= causation

Your definition of essential is rather short sighted and naive. The needs of society changes, and the Internet is a need of modern society. It was not 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. But it is now.

Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean it's imaginary.

It's essential for businesses to minimize costs when they can and get their product out to whomever they can. It's essential for consumers to maximize their utility by partaking in the services of said business.

When the internet first came accessible, consumers and businesses used the internet to do exactly that.

So yes, it was a cause to said effect.

Rather then call me naive, can you give me a counterexample to my claim that I didn't already include before you lept into the conversation? Or can I assume that you're just grasping at straws as usual?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

It is well within the rightful liberty of providers to what is being described. If you don't like the way a nonessential service is sold, don't buy that nonessential service.

What do you think is essential? I can get by without a phone, easily, but that's essential. I can't even function in the world anymore without the internet because of how ingrained in doing shit it is, not even only for entertainment but work cooperation, applying to jobs, etc.

[Lahis]

And people are going to be okay with that? o.O

Of course people will be okay with it. It's the free market, supply and demand will make sure nothing bad will ever happen to us!

[Elegiac]

And people are going to be okay with that? o.O

The majority of people don't give a shit about anything but their immediate circumstances unless directed otherwise.

[DEATHETERNAL]

This isn't about being offered a nonessential product. It's giving a select few firms (and the firms in the pocketbook) the power to dictate the resources that we have access to just because they want to.

It isn't "If you wanna buy from X, you gotta pay us more"! It's "we know you pay us monthly, but we just honestly want the humane society puppies to burn in hell so the pet store that pays us a fat stack per month seems more appealing to you. So fuck YO internet when you go look at abadonend puppies on the humane society website"

When the solution to that problem becomes forcing them to offer a nonessential product in specific manner whether they want to or not, that is certainly what it becomes about. No liberty is being violated by the actions being discussed, yet the proposed solution is the stripping away of the economic liberty of those now allowed to commit the actions being discussed. That, I cannot support.

We are told that one who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. I say that one who would sacrifice the liberty of others for his own economy, deserves less than neither.

What do you think is essential? I can get by without a phone, easily, but that's essential. I can't even function in the world anymore without the internet because of how ingrained in doing shit it is, not even only for entertainment but work cooperation, applying to jobs, etc.

Again, that which is essential on a national level can be nonessential on an individual level. When that is true and the impacts of proposed actions have meaningful impacts only on the individual level instead of the national level, there is no legitimate justification for the seizure of liberty to prevent those actions from taking place.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

What do you think is essential? I can get by without a phone, easily, but that's essential. I can't even function in the world anymore without the internet because of how ingrained in doing shit it is, not even only for entertainment but work cooperation, applying to jobs, etc.

It's kind of funny, really. They say you can easily land a job without an internet -- How? I'm eighteen trying to land a job, even the ones with "Help wanted" on their front door redirect me to a website and walking in just doesn't seem to be the way to go anymore.

So yeah, I guess you could do without it but have fun going without internet when everyone else has it.

The majority of people don't give a shit about anything but their immediate circumstances unless directed otherwise.

But it's the internet. It'd be like screwing the chariot races back in the good old days and you'd certainly have a riot on your hands.

Honestly, if we can't rely on people on sticking up for one of the most relevant things in their day to day life (With some people even defending the big guy here) then I dunno what to say.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

When the solution to that problem becomes forcing them to offer a nonessential product in specific manner whether they want to or not, that is certainly what it becomes about. No liberty is being violated by the actions being discussed, yet the proposed solution is the stripping away of the economic liberty of those now allowed to commit the actions being discussed. That, I cannot support.

We are told that one who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. I say that one who would sacrifice the liberty of others for his own economy, deserves less than neither.

You're ridiculous. You claim to favor liberty but you are in favor of actions and policies that lead to oligarchy. You care more for unrealistic ideals than you do for people.

[THE Bigzoman]

I never said anything about the labor market. I didn't refer to any market at all. I was specifically stating that the internet in modern society is a necessity for your average joe.

So you did not say

Most jobs and most institutes of higher education require it.

as a premises for "...a necessity for an average joe"?

[Elegiac]

When the solution to that problem becomes forcing them to offer a nonessential product in specific manner whether they want to or not, that is certainly what it becomes about. No liberty is being violated by the actions being discussed, yet the proposed solution is the stripping away of the economic liberty of those now allowed to commit the actions being discussed. That, I cannot support.

We are told that one who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. I say that one who would sacrifice the liberty of others for his own economy, deserves less than neither.

Maybe we should start charging premiums for people's access to books and education since, you know, public libraries and schools hurt the 'economic liberty' of bookstores and private schools? The internet represents a public good and should not be at the mercy of a cartel of providers who are not accountable to the general public.

And no, -you- (as in, conservatives who like to butcher quotes to suit their agenda) are told that. The actual quote is "he who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security".

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

So you did not say as a premises for "...a necessity for an average joe"?

So do average people not have the right to seek to better themselves, then? Or do necessities only apply if you're rich enough to become necessary to become richer?

[DEATHETERNAL]

You're ridiculous. You claim to favor liberty but you are in favor of actions and policies that lead to oligarchy. You care more for unrealistic ideals than you do for people.

I care for the liberty of those people. What they choose to do with it, is their choice. They can choose to fall or they can choose to rise with that liberty. It is not my place to take away their liberty for their own good. As for oligarchy, democracy trends toward oligarchy. Do you also then care more for unrealistic democratic ideals than you do for people, or do you not support democracy? We can play that game and accomplish nothing for quite some time.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe we should start charging premiums for people's access to books and education since, you know, public libraries and schools hurt the 'economic liberty' of bookstores and private schools? The internet represents a public good and should not be at the mercy of a cartel of providers who are not accountable to the general public.

And no, -you- (as in, conservatives who like to butcher quotes to suit their agenda) are told that. The actual quote is "he who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security".

And how do public libraries and schools detract from the economic liberty of bookstores and private schools? The answer is simply, but I wonder if you have the answer beneath the sarcasm.

As for the quote, care to explain how I changed the meaning? If I did not, then what is your issue?

[satimy]

Somehow Obama appointing the former leading lobbyist for the internet companies as fcc commisioner and a former lobbyist for the internet companies as the head of anti trust law for the DOJ is a failure of the free market.

[Elegiac]

And how do public libraries and schools detract from the economic liberty of bookstores and private schools? The answer is simply, but I wonder if you have the answer beneath the sarcasm.

As for the quote, care to explain how I changed the meaning? If I did not, then what is your issue?

They don't, in the same way that forcing neutrality upon what is essentially a cartel of ISPs is not infringing on their 'economic liberty'.

Franklin was not against exchanging liberty for security, he was warning against exchanging essential liberties for fleeting security. What has happened here is the exchange of everyone's liberty for the 'liberty' of a privileged few.

- - - Updated - - -

Somehow Obama appointing the former leading lobbyist for the internet companies as fcc commisioner and a former lobbyist for the internet companies as the head of anti trust law for the DOJ is a failure of the free market.

If the market regulated itself then there would be no issue with either of them being appointed.

[LilSaihah]

Maybe we should start charging premiums for people's access to books and education since, you know, public libraries and schools hurt the 'economic liberty' of bookstores and private schools? The internet represents a public good and should not be at the mercy of a cartel of providers who are not accountable to the general public.

And no, -you- (as in, conservatives who like to butcher quotes to suit their agenda) are told that. The actual quote is "he who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security".

I don't know if this analogy quite works without actually having a publicly owned ISP. For what it's worth, that could make for an interesting solution.

[THE Bigzoman]

So do average people not have the right to seek to better themselves, then? Or do necessities only apply if you're rich enough to become necessary to become richer?

You clearly jumped into the thread and haven't read many of my posts if you think that even comes close to what I am implying.

[Elegiac]

I don't know if this analogy quite works without actually having a publicly owned ISP. For what it's worth, that could make for an interesting solution.

I wouldn't mind ISP being a government monopoly, no.

[DEATHETERNAL]

They don't, in the same way that forcing neutrality upon what is essentially a cartel of ISPs is not infringing on their 'economic liberty'.

Franklin was not against exchanging liberty for security, he was warning against exchanging essential liberties for fleeting security. What has happened here is the exchange of everyone's liberty for the 'liberty' of a privileged few.

You are correct that they don't beyond indirectly by the taxation used to fund them. You are incorrect in saying that lack of violation of economic liberty also applies to telling internet providers how they can offer to sell a nonessential service. Forcing a company to run its business in a way it does not wish when the manner in which it wishes to perform business violates the liberty of no one is without question a seizure of the economic liberty of that company.

No one receives any liberty as a result of the seizure of the liberty of the providers being discussed as there is no loss of liberty resulting from not being offered a nonessential product. As for essential liberties, economic liberty is one of the essential liberties for the existence of a free people.

I wouldn't mind ISP being a government monopoly, no.

That explains that then... How you can see the institution of a government monopoly as not being a seizure of economic liberty is beyond me.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I care for the liberty of those people. What they choose to do with it, is their choice. They can choose to fall or they can choose to rise with that liberty. It is not my place to take away their liberty for their own good. As for oligarchy, democracy trends toward oligarchy. Do you also then care more for unrealistic democratic ideals than you do for people, or do you not support democracy? We can play that game and accomplish nothing for quite some time.

What do you define as democracy? Do you mean absolute democracy or limited democracy? Because I agree if we're talking absolute democracy. If you're talking about a more limited democracy, then there are many steps we can take towards preventing that. You're not actually even arguing against my point, if anything you're reinforcing it because net neutrality would be a step towards preventing oligarchy.

So yeah, I support limited democracy with measures being taken to maintain that democracy rather than shifting towards oligarchy.

No one receives any liberty as a result of the seizure of the liberty of the providers being discussed as there is no loss of liberty resulting from not being offered a nonessential product. As for essential liberties, economic liberty is one of the essential liberties for the existence of a free people.

The amount of bullshit...

Economic liberty is very strictly regulated. You cannot sell people tainted food, you cannot overtly lie in the advertising of products, the list goes on and on.

[TheGravemind]

The majority of people don't give a shit about anything but their immediate circumstances unless directed otherwise.

This is what fuels my misanthropy. I can't stand the fact that a significant number of people are appallingly myopic and indifferent about the plight of other human beings abroad. disgusting