re: See what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal

quote:

---

you can't swap ISPs with NN in place does it really make a difference if they get rid of NN?

---

I think the answer is obviously yes. while the local monopoly is a consumer burden it's better than a monopoly where tigerdroppings is slower becsuse chicken doesn't pay enough to be in the fast lane.

quote:

---

People also arent considering that many of the isps are also competitors of streaming services such as Cox and Verizon Fios.
I am sure the isp/cable monopolies will treat the streaming services fairly

---

It is truly stunning how little liberals understand markets and competition.

It's also stunning how oblivious you are to the reality that literally zero of your arguments are even new.

They've been repeated and shown to be flawed for a hundred years.

But. No learning ever occurs

quote:

---

If they are still doing it, why keep NN?

I see a lot of if NN is gone then___ (negative reaction). Just trying to find something unbiased. Which is impossible on google. NN doing work.

---

Well when net neutrality is gone Google will be free to enter into a deal with Comcast to throttle your connection to competing search engines and there isn't shite you'll be able to do about it

All internet traffic could be required by law to be treated equally without ISPs being considered a utility. Seems like a win-win to me.

quote:

---

internet should be regulated similar to utilities. we have incentivized the shite out of these companies to build this infrastructure. also as someone in the software and web application industry this would be very concerning especially as people move to the cloud and become more reliant on these companies.

---

You realize that data isn't actually in the clouds right?

quote:

---

Ok but those are sites ON the internet. You still have access to the websites that you agree with. ISPs having control means that you wont have access to sites with which you agree.

---

But you are talking about a difference in degree, not in principle. At some point the difference in degree is irrelevant. Also, domains like Twitter have been caught purging items altogether, which is the equivalent gesture since they prevent it from being seen. If a cable company can get away with restricting what channels it offers, even though they are all 'TV' channels, then ISPs will get away with restricting what sites it offers even though they are all 'internet' sites.

We're going to have to re-frame this issue and start drawing some lines that are understood by all, as well as defining some items. For example, we need to define 'internet'. Is it just infrastructure-ish, where I use my equipment to establish a connection, but then have to enter a web address and manually go to websites like walking through a mall? Does the internet include my browser? I realize definitions for these items already exist if you open a dictionary. However, we heed definitions that are integrated with practicality, how things are used, etc. From there we can begin with appropriate definitions for ISP and so forth. We're jumping past fundamental issues:
is the internet a utility
is the internet a privilege
is the internet a right
is the internet neither of those two but something else
is an ISP the same as a cable company

And so on and so on.

quote:

---

“That wouldn’t happen here because uhm... reasons” - Ajit Pai, probably

---

Only credible if you have an obnoxiously oversized coffee mug.

quote:

---

But you are talking about a difference in degree, not in principle. At some point the difference in degree is irrelevant.

---

This. The argument of "you don't HAVE to use these websites" is asinine. Name a comparative way to reach a massive amount of users without using services such as YouTube or Twitter.

I'll wait.

The irony of Google and Amazon bitching about ISPs "possibly" censoring content is fricking hilarious. Google and Amazon have a much, MUCH larger reach then all the ISPs combined.

quote:

---

ou're honestly comparing ISPs in countries with a footprint smaller than most of our States to the entire US?

---

Serious question: Does that matter? I realize you may have great lenghts of fiber optic or things like that. But, what is it that makes the speed so crappy here in the US? That's something I've never understood. It can't be distance of transmission alone, right?

quote:

---

Serious question: Does that matter? I realize you may have great lenghts of fiber optic or things like that. But, what is it that makes the speed so crappy here in the US? That's something I've never understood. It can't be distance of transmission alone, right?

---

No, it's not distance. It's the overall capital investment. I can buy super awesome high speed transmission equipment because I don't have to pay for right of way and long fiber runs....or I can pay for right of way to BFE and long fiber runs.

You can't have both.

You either have access to remote rural areas, or you have high speeds to dense population centers.

You can't have both.

quote:

---

Serious question: Does that matter? I realize you may have great lenghts of fiber optic or things like that.

---

Well. If I want to upgrade service to people where there are 400 residents per square mile vs the same number of people distributed at 80 per square mile............