re: FCC to free Internet From Obama's “Net Neutrality” Rules

quote:

---

So I'm supposed to believe that we will enter an internet wasteland and a massive price hike simply by going back to the way things were February 23 2015? My internet worked just fine then

---

Not only that. The only way you can possibly have concluded something different than him is tribalism

Just another stupid word liberals are now throwing around that means the same thing as a dozen words before it

It means they are so arrogant that they cannot possibly conceived of the idea that someone can genuinely disagree with them.

Just like when liberals assume opposition as a result of bigotry or sexism or whatever ism now they like to say it's the result of tribalism

The funny part is that their point of view is literally the definition of tribalism. I mean they can't even believe there are ideas other than their own

quote:

---

So I'm supposed to believe that we will enter an internet wasteland and a massive price hike simply by going back to the way things were February 23 2015? My internet worked just fine then

---

Nice straw man, telling.

If your strongest defense of this is that it won’t actually be apocalyptic, you’ve lost before you started.

quote:

---

How about we wait until it DOES happen, craft the policy based on the facts, and then hold violators accountable?

---

It already has happened.

Verizon received a letter recently regarding zero-rating services because they anti-competition and violated NN rules. Ajit Pai (former Verizon attorney and current FCC chairman) "rescinded and set aside" the letter as one of his first orders of business

1) I pay to access the internet at X speed through Comcasts infrastructure
2) Comcast charges content creators to deliver content to me
3) I pay for access to content from various companies
4) Comcast begins to create their own content and to deliver content
5) Comcast begins to charge content creators a higher price to deliver content to me. Now those content providers that I subscribe to have to either absorb the losses or to charge me more per month.
6) Then Comcast promotes their own content and delivery service and gives me access to it for a much lower cost (it doesn't count against my data caps) but if I choose to use the other service they throttle my speed or make me pay more money (because it counts against my data caps).

That's anti-competition and it allows ISPs to win content creation/delivery battles by manipulating internet traffic instead of providing a superior product.

I don't care if it's regulated as a common carrier. I'd be more than happy to see it partially rolled back with the exception of the rule saying that all traffic must be treated equally.

quote:

---

straw men and do some simple research.

---

How is literally living under the regulations we are changing a straw man? I'd consider alarmist outlandish pictures claiming what life would be like a straw man when literally two years ago under the exact same regulations (or lack thereof) did not result in that

quote:

---

It is a complete "could happen" scenario. There is way to know whether a ISP would actually do it.

---

Right.

The ISP COULD do something that would end up making them a lot more money. Not sure if they'll do it, though

quote:

---

How is literally living under the regulations we are changing a straw man? I'd consider alarmist outlandish pictures claiming what life would be like a straw man when literally two years ago under the exact same regulations (or lack thereof) did not result in that

---

That wasn't what I was referring to as your straw man. Its the implication that people are claiming the internet will turn into a wasteland. Whatever that even means.

As this thread already has pointed out numerous examples already, what prompted more of a push for net neutrality was because of the creeping behavior of ISP's that was ongoing at the time. Verizon and Comcast doing things like throttling Netflix. Cable companies extorting companies to pay fees to prevent them from throttling, carving out preferential treatment to steer customers away from certain businesses. Many costs which ultimately gets passed onto the consumer.

Now, what your argument is saying is a bit misleading. There is no option to go back to 2005 and live in a vacuum indefinitely. What you are actually saying is that you are accepting of going back to a period that allows the creep of that behavior indefinitely. To whatever end it ultimately finds itself. Which based on the millions annually ISP's are spending on lobbying for this, they clearly have big long-term plans.

What I am saying is it doesn't matter what I want or think it's happening. Life and my Netflix streaming worked perfectly fine. This shows how easily it can go back to the current regulations if there is too much creep. Otherwise I will price shop more than I do now and choose one of the several options available to me. The beauty of capitalism

quote:

---

What I am saying is it doesn't matter what I want or think it's happening. Life and my Netflix streaming worked perfectly fine. This shows how easily it can go back to the current regulations if there is too much creep. Otherwise I will price shop more than I do now and choose one of the several options available to me. The beauty of capitalism

---

Again:

Now, what your argument is saying is a bit misleading. There is no option to go back to 2015 and live in a vacuum indefinitely. What you are actually saying is that you are accepting of going back to a period that allows the creep of that behavior indefinitely. To whatever end it ultimately finds itself. Which based on the millions annually ISP's are spending on lobbying for this, they clearly have big long-term plans.

What you also haven't articulated is what benefit you think repealing this for consumers is? After all, this is a natural monopoly. If you are fortunate to have more than one choice of actual +25mbps broadband suppliers in your area you are in the minority of the country. What city do you live in exactly?

If people really want to solve this "possible" problem they will go after the local governments that are limiting competition among ISPs. People like Bonhoeffer simply want more government and really do not care that the problem lies in local regulation of ISPs.

Virtually every house in Louisiana has electricity coming to it but Entergy cannot be a ISP because of PSC regulations. They have the infrastructure, manpower and right of ways to be in the business tomorrow. Bonhoeffer doesn't want to do anything about that. Almost every city and town in Louisiana has granted exclusive cable TV licenses to one cable company or another. Bonhoeffer doesn't want to end that.

He wants some DC agency to have "utility authority" over the internet---the same authority the FCC has used to censor content, limit distribution, justify outrageous license fees for broadcast rights and set substandard standards throughout it's history.

Think about how ridiculous it is to lobby for expanded power over the internet by the FCC. That is Bonhoeffer.