OT: Freedom of rights

[IAHawk2011]

Yes, the horror of returning to internet rules of TWO YEARS AGO!!! It's not like anyone can switch companies if their current carrier does something they don't like, it's like Nazi's have taken over telecommunications! Maybe you and Ned can go beat up some conservative speakers the next time they come to campus in the name of stopping internet fascism!

You’re right, they can’t. In many towns and cities there are only one or two ISPs. For a new ISP to establish itself, it would have to invest an obscene amount of money to establish the necessary infrastructure, only to come in and compete with whatever ISP(s) have already established themselves in the area. Google tried to do this with Google Fiber and is failing miserably. If that doesn’t tell you how difficult/impossible it is to break in to the market, I don’t know what will.

 

[ChiDoc]

You’re right, they can’t. In many towns and cities there are only one or two ISPs. For a new ISP to establish itself, it would have to invest an obscene amount of money to establish the necessary infrastructure, only to come in and compete with whatever ISP(s) have already established themselves in the area. Google tried to do this with Google Fiber and is failing miserably. If that doesn’t tell you how difficult/impossible it is to break in to the market, I don’t know what will.

Yes, and even the biggest critics of repealing net neutrality admit that the biggest drawback of it is that it will vastly reduce future competition to areas that are under served currently, while repealing it will vastly increase future investment to said areas, are you trying to prove my point for me? Good lord. I'm not that strongly for or against it, there are merits on both sides, but the arguments for it are so overblown it's absolutely hilarious, as you just proved to everyone by ignorantly proving my point. The internet was fine thanks to competition and consumer choice for 25 years, but all these idiots act like this is the third reich coming to take their internet, it's ridiculous.

 

[IAHawk2011]

Yes, and even the biggest critics of repealing net neutrality admit that the biggest drawback of it is that it will vastly reduce future competition to areas that are under served currently, while repealing it will vastly increase investment to said areas, are you trying to prove my point for me? Good lord. I'm not that strongly for or against it, there are merits on both sides, but the arguments for it are so overblown it's absolutely hilarious, as you just proved to everyone by ignorantly proving my point.

I don’t think you understand what point you are even trying to make. Repealing net neutrality is going to have little to no effect on competition in underserved areas. It is prohibitively expensive to create the infrastructure necessary to offer broadband internet access in a new area. Even if some company decides to invest the obscene amounts of money that it will cost, the current ISPs will just lower their prices long enough to run the new guy out of business before they jack their rates back up. We are pretty much beholden to the providers that currently exist, and they know that.

 

[ChiDoc]

I don’t think you understand what point you are even trying to make. Repealing net neutrality is going to have little to no effect on competition in underserved areas. It is prohibitively expensive to create the infrastructure necessary to offer broadband internet access in a new area. Even if some company decides to invest the obscene amounts of money that it will cost, the current ISPs will just lower their prices long enough to run the new guy out of business before they jack their rates back up. We are pretty much beholden to the providers that currently exist, and they know that.

You're so freaking brainwashed you don't even know the arguments against your position. Increased competition by increasing incentives of ISP's to invest in infrastructure is THE NUMBER ONE ARGUMENT by Commissioner Pai whether you know it or not. It's simple common sense that decreased pricing control of ISP's would decrease their willingness to make future investments, how ignorant do you have to be to even argue that? Try reading people you disagree with in the future rather than staying in an echo chamber 24/7, you'll come off as less of a caricature of an ideologue that way...

• William Brangham:
  
  "So, you, I understand, are not a fan of these net neutrality rules from a few years ago. What is your principal concern?"
  

Ajit Pai:


"Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.

My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up dis-incentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example.

And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality

 

[IAHawk2011]

You're so freaking brainwashed you don't even know the arguments against your position. Increased competition by increasing incentives of ISP's to invest in infrastructure is THE NUMBER ONE ARGUMENT by Commissioner Pai whether you know it or not. It's simple common sense that decreased pricing control of ISP's would decrease their willingness to make future investments, how ignorant do you have to be to even argue that? Try reading people you disagree with in the future rather than staying in an echo chamber 24/7, you'll come off as less of a caricature of an ideologue that way...

• William Brangham:
  
  "So, you, I understand, are not a fan of these net neutrality rules from a few years ago. What is your principal concern?"

Ajit Pai:


"Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.

My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up dis-incentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example.

And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality

You are literally doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. Not to mention, the “heavy-handed economic regulations” Mr. Pai is warning about DO NOT EXIST AT THE PRESENT TIME. There is currently nothing preventing service providers from building out broadband access in underserved areas. Nothing, of course, other than the fact that it is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Repealing net neutrality does literally nothing to solve those issues.

 

[ChiDoc]

You are literally doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. Not to mention, the “heavy-handed economic regulations” Mr. Pai is warning about DO NOT EXIST AT THE PRESENT TIME. There is currently nothing preventing service providers from building out broadband access in underserved areas. Nothing, of course, other than the fact that it is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Repealing net neutrality does literally nothing to solve those issues.

LMFAO! I already stated I can see the arguments from both sides, first you hilariously claim there’s no argument for increased competition, then claim Title 2 doesn’t de-incentivize investment, when there is a long history of it doing exactly that. Wow.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf

 

[IAHawk2011]

LMFAO! I already stated I can see the arguments from both sides, first you hilariously claim there’s no argument for increased competition, then claim Title 2 doesn’t de-incentivize investment, when there is a long history of it doing exactly that. Wow.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf

There is no substance to anything Pai said in that statement. He claims that Title II classification has had deleterious effects on small ISPs, but he never mentions how. Everything I have seen from him refers to these onerous economic regulations that are being placed on ISPs, but I’m not seeing any.

Furthermore, I mentioned that there is no incentive for ISPs to invest in new areas/communities. Every single one of the anecdotes given by Pai, except for one, is in reference to upgrading broadband speed, which is a completely different thing.

 

[Dauminator]

It's extraordinarily effective now.

 

[Eternal Return]

This is just absolutely patently absurd, there is example after example of exactly the opposite happening throughout American history. Try picking up a book and thinking for yourself sometime. Look up what Air Travel, energy, shipping, and phone calls used to cost before deregulation in the 70's and 80's. They have all decreased drastically after deregulation opened up competition that didn't exist because that regulation stopped new competition from entering the marketplace due to the expense of compliance. You actually think phone calls would be cheaper and better if they had never been deregulated? Based on what, the post office and the DMV?

You're basically arguing the post office can do a better job than fedex & UPS because "the government is all of us" but fedex & UPS is "almost none of us." What a hilarious joke of an argument. Meanwhile back in actual reality, UPS and Fedex are both cheaper and better than the USPS. It's not surprising at all someone this breathtakingly ignorant thinks we need "socialism in the mix." Also, I know an enormous number of average everyday Americans who have received the best medical care in the world at places like The Mayo Clinic who are lower middle class and have normal insurance, in places health care is nationalized this isn't possible, these types of places like Mayo literally only cater to the rich, your argument is just completely absurd. Where did you get this hilarious stuff that only people who work for giant law firms get this level of care? You're just hilariously wrong here.

I read up to the DMV part even though I'd already read the same thing you've written a million times previously. Get some new material. Anyway, since you mentioned UPS, here's an example of the wondrousness of UPS service and the TD Canada Trust worthiness of consumer trust (too f'ing funny that you mentioned UPS this week. I mean, worth its weight in gold, lol).

http://www.newsweek.com/ups-loses-846k-inheritance-offer-refund-shipping-fee-748764

 

[Eternal Return]

You are an idiot. You think UPS and Fed-X are less expensive than USPS? It isn't even remotely close.

Companies that own ISPs now own the internet. They can now slow down your access. Want faster access? Pay me more. Want faster Netflix? Pay me more.

What a jackass you are. You a Russian bot?

Check this out. I just replied to his post with this link. You're gonna laugh your ass off:

http://www.newsweek.com/ups-loses-846k-inheritance-offer-refund-shipping-fee-748764

 

[thrillpac]

I will preface this by telling you I am not going to insult you or try and belittle your points. I am strictly going to ask some questions and present my side.

Let me ask this question. Prior to 2015, were ISPs threatening to start controlling and charging for sites?

Why would they now? How is it going to suddenly be different now?

In the time the internet was not under government control, we went from 1200 baud modems, to gigabit fiber lines. Do you honestly believe that had the government been controlling things the entire time this would have happened? I sure don't. This was do to free market and limited regulation. Do you guys remember phones up until the late 70s and early 80s (maybe not, probably before most of your times)? The government heavily regulated the industry. You couldn't even buy a phone - phones were all issued from the phone companies and all followed exact requirements. Can you imagine if that were the case today?

President Clinton and a Republican controlled Congress came together to purposely keep the internet free of government control to allow free market to drive things. That seemed to work pretty darn well up until things were changed in 2015 by President Obama. I got to hand it to him, he is a name-smith. Net Nuetrality, sounds like something we should all want. Affordable Health Care Act. Yup, why wouldn't we want affordable health care?

Folks, for those that don't follow history beyond the last 30 days, this is the same thing that has happened repeatedly throughout history in this country. Railroads in the 1800s. Automobiles in the early 20th century. Utilities in the 30s and 40s. Phone industry in the 60s and 70s. You have to start asking yourself this - why? Follow the money - who stands to profit?

While left leaning governments will always push for more government control, it is not always because they think they can protect the little guy. It is usually pushed by a company concerned THEIR bottom line will take a hit. Ford with Auto Industry. Bell with Telephones. In this case, Google helped draft Net Nuetrality, but again why? They say it is because they don't want monopolies to take over. However, just like every other large company that pushed for government regulation, it is because they fear that their EXISTING monopoly will now be subject to competition. Of course Ford, and Bell and Google want regulations. The field was/is already slanted in their favor and their companies were profiting from it. No one could change the game because of the fed govt. The Googles and Facebooks of this world fit nicely into the fed regs so no one could challenge them. I have never understood why people hate the Walmarts of the world yet LOVE Google. They are both large corporations focused on making as much money as they can. There is no difference between them. EXCEPT the Googles of the world are better at spinning their position, and putting a "caring" face on.

Follow the money. They present it because they "care" and create some fear that seems very plausible. "Cars won't be safe if we remove government control (i.e. have free competition)." "Phone call quality will go down if we remove government control (i.e. allow free competition)". "ISPs will start charging you to view sites or they will outright block sites they don't agree with if we remove government control (i.e. all free competition again, like there was 2 YEARS AGO)."

Do you guys honestly believe, in the day and age we live in, that if an ISP started blocking content or charging their customers for content, that customers would not look elsewhere? Competition is the very thing that prevents this. And to folks worried about the rural areas, again, I ask you were people paying for that stuff 2 years ago? No. Why would they now? And if they did, that is a helluva a business opportunity for someone else to come in and take advantage of. They could be the "hero" of the little guy. Those existing companies would change their tune pretty quickly.

The last thing I will say is this. I won't call you stupid or dumb for having your opinion on this. You are entitled to it. This is definitely a polarizing issue. However, I personally feel that those companies and politicians supporting Net Nuetrality are lying through their teeth to the public about it and trying to scare the bejesus out of everyone. In 2014, your internet was not the pit of misery they tell you it will become. What I find interesting is that the very thing they tell you (internet will be controlled and you will lose freedom), is ironically exactly what they are fighting to retain. I would rather allow a free market decide where an industry goes rather than a federal government. The government controlling it is NOT freedom. It is protecting the financial interests of their largest donors at best, and a tool for controlling the people at worst. Our leaders in the 90s from both parties knew this and allowed it to be free for a reason.