FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[PC2]

> Someone who thinks his internet will be faster without NN

lmao

It's funny being in IT and watching people whine about how their internet is slow because data crowding. It's like they don't even understand the most basic fundamentals of how the internet even works.

The speed difference will depend on the value of the data. Higher value categories will be faster. For example medical data and live TV sources can afford to pay a bit more and in exchange get the better performance that the category deserves.

[Edge-]

Two minutes of relatively unconvincing typing yes.

So it went from, "lol tryhard" to "I'm not even going to pretend I'm engaging in discussion", which isn't really that far of a leap.

Righto then, enjoy your night if you have no interest in actually trying to have a discussion.

The speed difference will depend on the value of the data. Higher value categories will be faster. For example medical data and live TV sources can afford to pay a bit more and in exchange get the better performance that the category deserves.

This is literally fantasy. ISP's will do what they've done in the past, and do elsewhere, and throttle the speed of competitors services, they'll offer packages to live those limitations for an extra charge.

Beyond that, what you're talking about is creating an internet where startups are constantly thunderfucked by huge, established corporations that can potentially spend big money with ISP's to ensure their data isn't throttled, while those of small competitors is.

That's not a good thing, no more than those large corporations buying up every competitor they can to eliminate competition.

You're essentially arguing for and increased chance of monopolies, which is kinda antithetical to the "free market" that many so revere (spoilers, it doesn't actually exist and never has).

[Theodarzna]

So it went from, "lol tryhard" to "I'm not even going to pretend I'm engaging in discussion", which isn't really that far of a leap.

Righto then, enjoy your night if you have no interest in actually trying to have a discussion.

What discussion is there to have?

The juxtaposition of saying you want a free and open internet whilst otherwise trying to argue the technical minutia to justify simultaneously purging plausible allies in protecting the internet is not a discussion you want to have because you believe firmly in your technicality making you right and refuse to see the plausibility that it looks bad to hold those two positions.

If you cannot grant that it looks bad or at least isn't conducive to having an ally than what point is the conversation?

I mean look at it like this, if what a Conservative leaning person see's is an amoral greedy corporation out to make Google, Twitter, Reddit ect pay through the nose and a bunch of platform administrators and moderators who would just as soon see no plausible platform expressed for views they don't like, Why bother helping protect the internet?

Sure sure, you can argue the technicalities and minutia, but in the end that is simply digging in versus self reflection.

[Edge-]

What discussion is there to have?

The juxtaposition of saying you want a free and open internet whilst otherwise trying to argue the technical minutia to justify simultaneously purging plausible allies in protecting the internet is not a discussion you want to have because you believe firmly in your technicality making you right and refuse to see the plausibility that it looks bad to hold those two positions.

That's not at all what I'm arguing, you're conflating two different things. Again.

1. Content, which is what's hosted on the sites. The sites have control over it.

2. The data flowing about, which is currently treated without discrimination by ISP's but will soon be freely manipulated by them. This has nothing to do with what content appears on a particular site.

If you want to continue to conflate those two different things, which are very different issues, go for it. You'll just continue to be wrong, and people will call you out for being wrong about it.

If you cannot grant that it looks bad or at least isn't conducive to having an ally than what point is the conversation?

No, because it's a strawman. I get it, you like going after strawmen. It gets boring pretty quickly.

I mean look at it like this, if what a Conservative leaning person see's is an amoral greedy corporation out to make Google, Twitter, Reddit ect pay through the nose and a bunch of platform administrators and moderators who would just as soon see no plausible platform expressed for views they don't like, Why bother helping protect the internet?

If snowflakes get mad that sites punish them for breaking their rules, that's their problem. They can create their own competitors, or move to other competitors. We've already seen that a bit with a number of alt-righters fleeing to a Russian social media site because Facebook etc. are being less tolerate of their hate and white supremacist bullshit that breaks their rules.

They're mad that their video calling for the extermination of black people got demonetized by Google now, how mad will they be when ISP's decide to block or dramatically slow traffic to YouTube to promote their own video service? Or if their chosen hate-site doesn't have the deep pockets to pay for a fast-lane so gets the 56kbs treatement?

Sure sure, you can argue the technicalities and minutia, but in the end that is simply digging in versus self reflection.

Nobody is arguing technicalities or minutia. We're still speaking at a very high level here, if you think this is "minutia" I really don't know what to tell you other than your view of the issue is dramatically warped and twisted.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The speed difference will depend on the value of the data. Higher value categories will be faster. For example medical data and live TV sources can afford to pay a bit more and in exchange get the better performance that the category deserves.

You did know that cable providers already provide higher speed packages, and higher bandwidth packages, and our "tubes" aren't anywhere near being clogged up, right?

And once we do reach the point of clogging on certain pathways, they can (and do) just build more infrastructure to remove that bandwidth limit in that area.

Everything you're saying comes straight out of the most ignorant corners of (ironically) the internet.

[PC2]

This is literally fantasy. ISP's will do what they've done in the past, and do elsewhere, and throttle the speed of competitors services, they'll offer packages to live those limitations for an extra charge.

Beyond that, what you're talking about is creating an internet where startups are constantly thunderfucked by huge, established corporations that can potentially spend big money with ISP's to ensure their data isn't throttled, while those of small competitors is.

That's not a good thing, no more than those large corporations buying up every competitor they can to eliminate competition.

You're essentially arguing for and increased chance of monopolies, which is kinda antithetical to the "free market" that many so revere (spoilers, it doesn't actually exist and never has).

Net neutrality is not a free market concept. It is forced egalitarianism of data, but all data is not equal.

Those startups will get the demand and funds that fit the prioritization level of their data. Being a startup doesn't automatically mean the organization deserves to be treated the same as other organizations who are contributing more to internet infrastructure.

[Edge-]

Net neutrality is not a free market concept. It is forced egalitarianism of data, but all data is not equal.

Currently, yes, just like water, electricity, and other essential utilities. Because we found out a while ago that not ensuring equal and fair access to these essential utilities was a really bad idea.

The internet is no different than electricity for a large number of companies, without it they literally cannot operate. Mine is one of them, if the net goes down there's very little that we can actually do. Yeah, some stuff isn't reliant on internet, but the overwhelming majority of our work is.

Those startups will get the demand and funds that fits the prioritization level of their data. Being a startup doesn't automatically mean the organization deserves to be treated the same as other organizations who are contributing more to internet infrastructure.

Again, so you're arguing for de-facto monopolies as large corporations are able to easily buy their way out of any potential caps while new startups are left throttled because they don't have the funds.

Why do you want to have more opportunities for monopolies?

[PC2]

Currently, yes, just like water, electricity, and other essential utilities. Because we found out a while ago that not ensuring equal and fair access to these essential utilities was a really bad idea.

The internet is no different than electricity for a large number of companies, without it they literally cannot operate. Mine is one of them, if the net goes down there's very little that we can actually do. Yeah, some stuff isn't reliant on internet, but the overwhelming majority of our work is.

Again, so you're arguing for de-facto monopolies as large corporations are able to easily buy their way out of any potential caps while new startups are left throttled because they don't have the funds.

Why do you want to have more opportunities for monopolies?

With free market policies you don't have to use force to break up the dominant company. If they don't wisely manage their funds in relation to the true amount of value they are getting back from the data, they will decline. If the large corporations keep dominating it's because those startups didn't have a good enough service/product, not because Google/Facebook/etc made them fail.

[Edge-]

With free market policies you don't have to use force to break up the dominant company. If they don't wisely manage their funds in relation to the true amount of value they are getting back from the data, they will decline.

It's possible, yes. But the problem is we've never really seen that happen with monopolies in industries, which is why we have created numerous regulations to prevent them.

Ever wonder why most areas in the US really only have 1 major ISP, rather than a robust competitive marketplace? It's because they're not very effective, and this is what happens when those protections aren't strictly enforced. I'd love to have more options than "Comcast, who I loathe but at least have decent speeds/high data cap" and "Small company I currently use with slower speeds, a higher price, and low data caps, but great customer service." Literally two options, that aren't even really that equal, and I don't live in the middle of nowhere. I'd love to have more, and if your argument held any water there would be more.

But you know, it doesn't hold water, so this is what we're left with.

If the large corporations keep dominating it's because those startups didn't have a good enough service/product, not because Google/Facebook/etc made them fail.

Yeah, because startups can so easily compete with multi-billion dollar companies who have long, established histories. They do occasionally, and we see them grow rapidly and either be acquired by the bigger companies or carve out a niche for themselves, but would completely fuck over chances for a lot of smaller startups by inherently putting them at yet another disadvantage - they wouldn't have the capitol and agreements to ensure that their traffic isn't throttled. And when a video startup that wants to compete with YouTube comes out of the gate only able to support 480p videos because their traffic is throttled and they can't afford to pay the ISP's to unthrottle it, what chances do you think they even have?

[PC2]

Yeah, because startups can so easily compete with multi-billion dollar companies who have long, established histories. They do occasionally, and we see them grow rapidly and either be acquired by the bigger companies or carve out a niche for themselves, but would completely fuck over chances for a lot of smaller startups by inherently putting them at yet another disadvantage - they wouldn't have the capitol and agreements to ensure that their traffic isn't throttled. And when a video startup that wants to compete with YouTube comes out of the gate only able to support 480p videos because their traffic is throttled and they can't afford to pay the ISP's to unthrottle it, what chances do you think they even have?

I don't care that much about helping small startups, I mainly care about creating the incentives that make efficiency and innovation profitable in general. There is nothing wrong with a multi-billion dollar company using their economies of scale to put them at an advantage over small companies. In fact the countries that prioritize values that help small businesses in relation to large ones are putting themselves at a significant disadvantage to US and Chinese based companies.

[Edge-]

I don't care that much about helping small startups, I mainly care about creating the incentives that make efficiency and innovation profitable in general.

So you don't care about competition? Because that's who those startups become. You don't just plop down a $500+ billion dollar company when you start your business, it takes time to grow.

Startups are the competition that's supposed to drive that efficiency and innovation, because they're looking to out-compete larger companies on a level playing field. They're having to come out with new ideas to do that. Simultaneously, the existing massive corporations are looking to either buy those new ideas from the smaller companies, or to come up with them first so that they can own them and prevent competitors from getting it.

With the threat of those startups lessened due to the barrier of entry potentially increasing (so fewer startups/competition), the motivation to innovate drops. The motivation to be more efficient is there, lowering costs is always going to be important, but why spend so much time and effort and, most importantly money, on innovating when you don't have to worry about as many competitors?

There is nothing wrong with a multi-billion dollar company using their economies of scale to put them at an advantage over small companies.

To a point, no. But when you end up with monopolies, yes, there is. Monopolies benefit the company, full stop. They don't benefit their workers (except the executives), they don't benefit the industry they monopolize, they don't benefit the economy, they don't benefit the common or social good.

We already learned this lesson in the United States, that's why regulations were created to prevent monopolies. They've been weakened over the years, so we're left with oligopolies that we have now (see: the airline industry, which is heavily criticized for being largely controlled by 4 major carriers that don't even really bother to compete). We should not need to learn it a second time, and the fact that you're essentially advocating for monopolies return is kinda scary, dude.

In fact the countries that prioritize values that help small businesses in relation to large ones are putting themselves at a significant disadvantage to US and Chinese based companies.

I...this is well beyond the scope of this thread, but this is pretty ludicrous.

[Dontrike]

The speed difference will depend on the value of the data. Higher value categories will be faster. For example medical data and live TV sources can afford to pay a bit more and in exchange get the better performance that the category deserves.

So you admit those that pay the ISPs more will have an easier time getting their content to consumers faster. That's exactly the problem.

[PC2]

So you don't care about competition? Because that's who those startups become. You don't just plop down a $500+ billion dollar company when you start your business, it takes time to grow.

Startups are the competition that's supposed to drive that efficiency and innovation, because they're looking to out-compete larger companies on a level playing field. They're having to come out with new ideas to do that. Simultaneously, the existing massive corporations are looking to either buy those new ideas from the smaller companies, or to come up with them first so that they can own them and prevent competitors from getting it.

With the threat of those startups lessened due to the barrier of entry potentially increasing (so fewer startups/competition), the motivation to innovate drops. The motivation to be more efficient is there, lowering costs is always going to be important, but why spend so much time and effort and, most importantly money, on innovating when you don't have to worry about as many competitors?

To a point, no. But when you end up with monopolies, yes, there is. Monopolies benefit the company, full stop. They don't benefit their workers (except the executives), they don't benefit the industry they monopolize, they don't benefit the economy, they don't benefit the common or social good.

We already learned this lesson in the United States, that's why regulations were created to prevent monopolies. They've been weakened over the years, so we're left with oligopolies that we have now (see: the airline industry, which is heavily criticized for being largely controlled by 4 major carriers that don't even really bother to compete). We should not need to learn it a second time, and the fact that you're essentially advocating for monopolies return is kinda scary, dude.

I...this is well beyond the scope of this thread, but this is pretty ludicrous.

Technically I don't care about new competition compared to overall incentives. For example Google and Facebook don't have much competition, yet they still constantly invest in research and innovation. Improvement is profitable even when new startups don't have much of a chance. There could also be a strong thesis that technology advancing makes a few oligopoly-like organizations inevitable.

[Acidbaron]

Technically I don't care about new competition compared to overall incentives. For example Google and Facebook don't have much competition, yet they still constantly invest in research and innovation. Improvement is profitable even when new startups don't have much of a chance. There could also be a strong thesis that technology advancing makes a few oligopoly-like organizations inevitable.

Advocating for monopolies, no wonder consumer rights are what they are in the US with such an ideology.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Net neutrality is not a free market concept. It is forced egalitarianism of data, but all data is not equal.

Those startups will get the demand and funds that fit the prioritization level of their data. Being a startup doesn't automatically mean the organization deserves to be treated the same as other organizations who are contributing more to internet infrastructure.

You're still acting as if data is hindered by other data. It's not. Stop being deliberately obtuse just because reality destroys your reason for disliking NN.

If this were the early 1990's you might have a point, but in 2017 it's a huge joke to act like "unimportant" data hinders "important" data. And in your world, you seem to think that data prioritization should be based on who can pay the most money. Data slowdowns can happen for a number of reasons. Unless it's a DDOS attack (which most companies and big ISPs guard against these days anyway) then data does not slow down because of traffic or "unimportant data".

And even then, haven't you noticed something? When a DDOS attack happens AT A SPECIFIC DOMAIN, that DDOS attack goes through the same internet pathways and trunks that a lot of other data goes through. It doesn't slow down other traffic. ISPs have enormous data capacity. The only reason the target of the DDOS gets slowed down is because their servers become overloaded with requests and can't respond fast enough. So DDOS attacks, which would be the purest form of unimportant data, are only slowing down their targets, not the internet as a whole. Your logic is flawed in the face of reality.

Your objection to net neutrality is predicated entirely upon the belief of what is blatantly false.

[PC2]

Advocating for monopolies, no wonder consumer rights are what they are in the US with such an ideology.

Nah I don't advocate for monopolies, but I also don't advocate for small business for the sake of small business.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nah I don't advocate for monopolies, but I also don't advocate for small business for the sake of small business.

You also clearly don't believe that small business should be able to compete in a free and open market. Extorting money from small companies or have their websites load slow and frustrate consumers sounds like an egregiously bad idea for someone who likes free market.

But you claiming you like free market and you actually following the real principles of free market have always been at odds with each other.

[Acidbaron]

Nah I don't advocate for monopolies, but I also don't advocate for small business for the sake of small business.

While you may dispute that you are doing so, everything recently posted clearly indicates that.

Also i remember you being against unions for them setting up and strangling small business in the same manner but you don't seem to hold anything against corporations if they do that.

[Kiri]

Nah I don't advocate for monopolies, but I also don't advocate for small business for the sake of small business.

You advocate to strengthen the position of existing monopolies and to allow them to extend their monopolies to other markets. How is that not advocating for monopolies?
Consumers locked to one Cable Company cannot just go to competing video streaming services because the Cable Company one is no good. It is not physically possible for them (well, they could move, I guess...).
Again, Cable Companies are not being abused by internet companies. The latter provide the content that gets people to want to have fast internet, or internet at all. Cable Companies did not create any of the highly frequented sites. They did not create internet search engines from scratch or social networks. Just like an electrical company did not invent the PC. Yet, you argue that the electrical company should be able to deny you using their electricity to power your PC.

[Dezerte]

Removing net neutrality absolutely is a blow against the free market/capitalism. But it seems partisanship is more important than the ideals you supposedly believe in.