- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Isn’t repealing net neutrality just going back to how it was for decades?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:34 pm to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:34 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
When the cost outweighs the benefit we can talk. Until then, I’ll be behind you for a legislative fix but I will point out how silly it is to in lieu of that advocate for a policy that will re-invite already observed anti consumer behavior because of unrealized fears from the measure that helped actually mitigate that harm.
Regulating under title II is anti consumer behavior, it just isn't included in your reading materials.
1
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Everybody has biases. It’s how you navigate and challenge them with self-awareness, self-skepticism, and critical thinking that separates out the rubes.
If you’re making statements like everybody else is flawed for having biases, inferring you are free of their influence, it’s sort of a sign you aren’t as enlightened as you might suggest.
If you’re making statements like everybody else is flawed for having biases, inferring you are free of their influence, it’s sort of a sign you aren’t as enlightened as you might suggest.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:37 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Regulating under title II is anti consumer behavior, it just isn't included in your reading materials
You just got done saying it’s the future harm we are worried about, are you moving the goal posts and saying that harm is already here?
What anti-consumer fallout has materialized so far? Details, specifics.
After we get that, we can weigh up the cost and benefits compared to what the abscence of Net Neutrality was observed to be doing and actively trending right before it’s implementation. I think it’s going to be a tough case to make.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:38 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It's pretty sad the state we're in, where people don't care if they're being led around like sheep.
until you explain this asinine statement i will just continue to laugh at your melt over netflix speed 
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:38 pm to Korkstand
quote:
That's because you have chosen to ignore the arguments and remain voluntarily ignorant.
Trump could come out publicly in favor of keeping NN and only then will the simpletons support it
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:40 pm to PrimeTime Money
Yes it would.
We should end this so called net neutrality now and demand that local and state government cannot create monopolies for ISP services with their franchise agreements and right of way restrictions.
We should end this so called net neutrality now and demand that local and state government cannot create monopolies for ISP services with their franchise agreements and right of way restrictions.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:40 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You just got done saying it’s the future harm we are worried about, are you moving the goal posts and saying that harm is already here?
That's the most asinine comprehension of a post, ever.
You're somewhere on the spectrum, aren't you?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I'm going to refuse to have discussions with irrational people but I'll tell you.
quote:You act as if Title II does all that. The reality is that big, powerful companies always find a way to achieve those things. The nature of infrastructure all but guarantees that local monopolies will be the norm. Is Title II a perfect solution? Absolutely not, but there likely is no perfect solution.
Title II grants incredible regulatory power to government like other utilities, which somehow find ways to limit competition, set up cronies and highly regulate service and pricing.
So if you want to talk about faith, here we go. I have absolute faith that profit-seeking entities with local monopolies will go as far as legally allowed to limit their competition and regulate their own industry, whether they set up cronies or not. It is a requirement of capitalism that they do so.
So forgive me if I have more faith in government exerting some force to protect the interests of consumers and the economy than I have in the free market's ability to arrive at a truly competitive market for what is by nearly every measure a utility.
quote:Everything has negative potential, including killing the current regulations without a replacement for them.
It's overkill with very negative potential.
quote:Sounds good. What happens in the meantime?
Amend the thing and try again.
quote:You severely overestimate the common man's give a frick-ness on the details of NN.
Most people would support without the overkill of title II
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:46 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
That's the most asinine comprehension of a post, ever.
You're somewhere on the spectrum, aren't you?
Seems straight forward.
You made an earlier appeal to the potential future harm that has not been observed yet as a justification for removing protections that mitigated actual observed consumer harm. Then changed the language when pushed on that flawed logic.
If you have convincing evidence of actual consumer harm that is of a greater magnitude than the harm that was observed and trending, leading up to the implementation of net neutrality, make the case.
Ad hominems are not a convincing argument.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:46 pm to SDVTiger
quote:If you think my argument is about Netflix speed, you still aren't paying attention.
until you explain this asinine statement i will just continue to laugh at your melt over netflix speed
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You act as if Title II does all that.
It does. It gives the federal state and local government to highly regulate the internet in the same way they do your other utilities. Brother in law Jim bob could be given a sweetheart deal and competition limited.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:50 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You made an earlier appeal to the potential future harm that has not been observed yet
But could have happened at any time under title II. Yes, it's that simple
Posted on 12/4/17 at 1:58 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Let's look at our other utilities, then. I get all the electricity I need at reasonable prices, and I can use it for whatever purpose I desire. I get all the water I need at reasonable prices, and I can use it for whatever purpose I desire. I get phone service at reasonable prices, and I can call whoever I desire. I get all the natural gas I need at reasonable prices, and I can use it for whatever purpose I desire.
It does. It gives the federal state and local government to highly regulate the internet in the same way they do your other utilities.
WHAT A frickING NIGHTMARE.
quote:Crony capitalism is a completely separate issue.
Brother in law Jim bob could be given a sweetheart deal and competition limited.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:05 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
But could have happened at any time under title II. Yes, it's that simple
But hasn’t.
So again, you are essentially making the argument that yet-to-have occurred potential future consumer harm is a justification for going back to a place where we had actual observed and trending consumer harm that this measure helped mitigate.
Not a really strong argument I have to say.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:07 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
But hasn’t
You haven't been robbed at gunpoint, does that mean it's not a present and future possibility?
Rational thought isn't your strong suite.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:08 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Crony capitalism is a completely separate issue.
Utilities are more prone to crony capitalism than any other sector.
How many choices of electricity and water suppliers do you have?
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:14 pm to Korkstand
quote:
you think my argument is about Netflix speed, you still aren't paying attention.
Well you arent dumbing it down enough. So i dont even know what you are arguing. It just seems like a lot of hearsay
So breakdown to those that arent on your level
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:16 pm to PrimeTime Money
The nature of content delivery and data requirements have changed significantly in the last few years let alone several decades. Cant tell if this OP is serious.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:17 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You haven't been robbed at gunpoint, does that mean it's not a present and future possibility?
Rational thought isn't your strong suite
Not sure that is the example a rightie should be using in this instance Roger.
I’ll let you think on it for a moment.
But to address the intended aspect of what you said, we know gun robberies occur and have occurred, so fearing them is rational. We make laws and regulations to punish and deter that crime. There is zero evidence this particular regulation has induced a grave harm. But we do know what actual harms it has helped mitigate.
Your argument is pretty silly, it’s the equivalence of saying, well we know laws against murder can lead to major government overreach, so we should just not have murder laws. Ignoring the consequence of legalizing murder and how that imposes a far greater realized harm than the fear of potential harmful future overreach.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 2:21 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:They are also more prone to becoming monopolies regardless of government involvement.
Utilities are more prone to crony capitalism than any other sector.
quote:Thankfully just one of each. Could you imagine a dozen companies servicing each neighborhood? A competitive utopia for consumers, right? Wrong. It's just 12 times more capex that must be recouped. Competition at that level WILL NOT HAPPEN, regardless of what local, state, or fed gov does. It's just not economically viable. It is wasteful and results in higher prices. The only way to create a competitive market is to do what Texas has done, separate the infrastructure company from the company that provides the service, and share the infrastructure with competing services.
How many choices of electricity and water suppliers do you have?
Does that open the door to more crony capitalism? Possibly, but crony capitalism exists in all industries. It is a separate issue with a different solution. The solution to crony capitalism is NOT to ignore other problems.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News