re: Isn’t repealing net neutrality just going back to how it was for decades?

quote:

---

More hyper partisan bullshite. You cannot have a discussion without it

---

Cry me a river snowflake.

You live and breathe with a 130,000 post count in a forum that has at least a dozen daily tribal threads calling wrong-thinkers variations of deranged filth. Where you have spent the last hour calling people that disagree with you partisan hacks, autistic, and intellectually inferior.

And now you get so triggered to the point you couldn’t even reply to the additional substance of the post because you can’t handle a jab at a tepid insinuation about the problematic inferential logic of your example with regards to right-wing orthodoxy?

Take a break and get a walk in or something.

That is Roger's thing now sadly. He accuses others of partisanship or race baiting... But can be found in every thread related to either subject attacking one side over and over.

quote:

---

Well you arent dumbing it down enough.

---

How dumb do I have to make it?

quote:

---

So i dont even know what you are arguing.

---

Clearly.

quote:

---

It just seems like a lot of hearsay
So breakdown to those that arent on your level

---

OK, let me try again.

An ISP charging its users a little extra to access Netflix (or to improve the experience) is a possibility, but I don't think it's very likely. It is too obviously anti-consumer, and would produce a lot of backlash. So here is a more likely scenario that will hopefully highlight how fricking awful a lack of NN can be:

Let's say Comcast has decided that it wants to extract more revenue, and Netflix is a juicy target. Rather than charge its users a Netflix fee, it would probably generate less public outrage if they charged the fee directly to Netflix. After all, Netflix can't access a huge chunk of the population without Comcast "allowing" it. And with no rules/laws/regulation preventing Comcast from doing this, Netflix basically just has to pay up. Big deal, Netflix can afford it, right? Well, either Netflix's content/quality will suffer as a result, or they will have to raise prices for everyone, whether they are Comcast customers or not. Still, big deal, eh? Well, it is a big deal, because Comcast has just distorted the market. Netflix has to absorb a completely arbitrary and unnecessary cost that it competitors may not have. Specifically, Comcast can create its own competing service, and of course they wouldn't have to pay the fees. Or, a sneakier method is via data caps that Netflix has to contend with, while Comcast's service would be exempt.

And that's just one example, because I know how hung up you are on Netflix. But let's try another.

Google is another juicy target, and millions of small websites rely on Google ads for revenue. Comcast decides to extort money from Google since it was so successful with Netflix. If Google doesn't pay the ransom, those millions of sites would lose a significant amount of revenue. Many would have to shut down. So many sites that entertain, educate, or otherwise provide valuable services would struggle or disappear. The impact would be felt by their hosting services, too, as they would lose the revenues from those customers. The advertisers that relied on those sites to serve their ads would suffer similarly.

And this same problem would extend to every single industry that relies on the internet.

quote:

---

Korkstand

---

Another great example.

quote:

---

RogerTheShrubber

---

So here's the thing, Roger. You've called me and other posters hyper partisan hacks for attributing anti-regulatory sentiments to the right (I mean, come on), meanwhile your entire argument seems to rest on the old "regulation invariably leads to crony capitalism" stuff. It's lazy.

You claim that "most people" (presumably including yourself) would support NN if not for the "overkill" that is Title II, yet you haven't given any example of what such a rule/law/regulation would look like.

Personally, I do my best to only argue the principles of NN, while trying to avoid arguing for or against any specific implementation of rules to enforce it. In other words, I try to only argue that regulation is necessary, while not advocating for Title II classification specifically.

So if you have an argument against government enforcement of NN principles, I'd like to hear it. If, instead, you will continue with your "crony capitalism" argument against Title II specifically for some reason, without laying out an alternative, then I'll have to classify you as yet another right-wing hack.

None of what you wrote bothers me and all I think you are saying is it could cost more cause they will charge google or netflix more and some sites will shut down

How many sites do you look at? Maybe its time for less internet for all

I couldnt imagine letting this get me all worked up like it has to some on here

quote:

---

None of what you wrote bothers me

---

If you have that little regard for politics and its influence on the economy, what are you doing here?

quote:

---

all I think you are saying is it could cost more cause they will charge google or netflix more and some sites will shut down

---

You still don't grasp the magnitude of this.

quote:

---

How many sites do you look at? Maybe its time for less internet for all

---

Jesus

quote:

---

I couldnt imagine letting this get me all worked up like it has to some on here

---

And that's pretty shitty, people aren't getting worked up about this. If ISPs are allowed to do the things they've proven they are willing to do, it WILL harm the economy bigly. And the worst part is it will be nearly impossible to quantify or identify the root cause when seemingly unrelated industries are affected, so here is my prediction on what will happen: our economy will lag behind the world in the coming decades, particularly in tech sectors, and our ISPs will be nearly entirely to blame. But rather than work together to fix this obvious problem, conservatives will find another big, bad regulatory "burden" to blame and frick up even more shite.

quote:

---

Treating monopolies like monopolies is generally a good idea.

Anyone who thinks internet providers are a good example of the free market should ask why theres collusion between such healthy competition.

---

Sounds like the issue is really about anti-trust matters. Why not address that issue rather than giving the government one more thing to regulate and potentially screw up?

quote:

---

It does. Fact.

---

quote:

---

No one gives a frick how you classify them chief

---

You sure seem to think we give a frick how you classify us, though.

quote:

---

you arent a big deal.

---

That's not what my momma always told me.

quote:

---

Simply write new amendments to title II which limits regulatory power.

---

Is that your solution? If so, why not say that to begin with rather than siding with the repeal NN folks?

quote:

---

Title ii was written for telephone companies.

---

I believe it was written to cover those "engaged in communication by wire or radio", but go on.

quote:

---

The telecommunications act of 96 offered vague language that appears to want to promote competition but in reality, doesnt.

---

Then how could it better promote competition? Keep in mind that competition at the infrastructure level is not economically desirable.

quote:

---

Title II promoted the creation of protected monopolies.

---

You call them "protected", I call them "regulated". Can you pinpoint language or specific ways that Title II protects monopolies rather than consumers?

quote:

---

blah blah

---

Nahhhh he torched you there. Y’all don’t put up with near as much partisan irrational shite as people with different opinions on here do, and bitch about it twice as much. It’s like the board is just a well polished one brain thought train and if someone so much as says “yeah maybe he shouldn’t retweet hoax vids” it’s all hell broken lose and going off the rails.