re: Sky Screamers Rejoice! Senate votes to repeal the repeal of Net Neutrality

quote:

---

s actually a huge deal. Facebook is seeing massive declines in users, as is twitter. Duck Duck Go is growing rapidly in popularity. Many content providers are leaving youtube for competing startups. There are lots of alternative social media and search engine sites starting to pop up as a response to the censorship and data collection

---

The frick you say. Who would have guessed?

quote:

---

Monopolies and ending NN is basically ending competition on the internet almost all together

---

ROFLMAO

Can you guys stop pretending you give a shite about monopolies

We have firmly established in this thread that even if there were 50 providers in a given area if all of them have tiered service you frickers want net neutrality

quote:

---

You keep saying that despite over and over again, us saying the opposite

---

Excuse me but I don't know who you are referring to when you say we because Breesus absolutely took that position

So you are telling me that if there were multiple isps basically everywhere but all of them retain the right to manage content you wouldn't be screaming for regulation? Just trying to find some clarity here

Nice try but both of you clearly expect net neutrality to be the standard if there are multiple isps which means that if it isn't you will still demanded which was my question. Read better

Moreover when directly asked your counterpart acknowledged that if none of the isps adhered to Net Neutrality Concepts that he would expect regulation to make it so

Since you chose to avoid my question just now I will ask it again

There are multiple providers and all of them exercise their right to manage content will you demand regulation to prevent it

Try not to dodge this time

Competition is the solution to companies who try to screw over their customers. Give consumers somewhere else to go and it will force all companies within that market to either play nice or lose money.

I think your fears about ISPs throttling competitors is overstated. They had this opportunity prior to 2015 and they didn't do it. It's been stated by everyone that NN was informally agreed to by ISPs even without official government regulation. They did that because they would face financial ramifications if they didn't.

What happens if Comcast screws over customers in a small market where they are a monopoly? They will be boycotted by users in larger markets with other options and will lose money. The negative PR would be terrible and as long as at least some competition exists, it keeps them in check. Even more competition would ensure that such things are practically impossible in the future.

This boils down to who do you trust more to keep the internet open? An unaccountable government bureaucrat or a business wanting to please customers?

quote:

---

They had this opportunity prior to 2015 and they didn't do it.

---

False.
1. the technology to do it didn't exist prior to 2011
2. the regulatory environment that would permit it didn't start until 2013. Prior to then, it was regulated by ICAN, and NN was a fundamental principle.
3. Comcast and AT&T was caught throttling Netflix in 2014.
4. NN was instituted by the FCC in 2015.
5. The repeal announced in 2017 has not gone into effect yet.

So yeah, in the limited window ISP's had to throttle, they did exactly that.

quote:

---

What happens if Comcast screws over customers in a small market where they are a monopoly? They will be boycotted by users in larger markets with other options and will lose money.

---

Yeah, but in that larger market, imagine there is only 1 other provider, and they move in lock step with Comcast. Because there are so few firms total, even where they are technically in competition, they collude to provide the same services with the same drawbacks, eliminating any chance of consumer backlash.

Why would they do this? Because the ISP's have more combined power if they work together to throttle competition rather than compete. It's the same reason they largely avoid competing for territory.

quote:

---

If this is your position then why not just support legislation to eliminate government caused monopolies and then step back

---

It's a three step process:

Step 1: regulate the large firms at the national level to keep them from throttling in markets where they have monopolies.

Step 2: de-regulate at the state and local level to reduce barriers to entry, creating more competition and destroying those geographic monopolies.

Step 3: de-regulate at the federal level once competition has been restored.

Cpt and Shorty argue to troll. You shouldn’t engage in debate with them.

quote:

---

False.
1. the technology to do it didn't exist prior to 2011
2. the regulatory environment that would permit it didn't start until 2013. Prior to then, it was regulated by ICAN, and NN was a fundamental principle.
3. Comcast and AT&T was caught throttling Netflix in 2014.
4. NN was instituted by the FCC in 2015.
5. The repeal announced in 2017 has not gone into effect yet.

So yeah, in the limited window ISP's had to throttle, they did exactly that.

---

The ability to censor information on the internet has been around a while now. China started doing it as soon as they could in the early and mid 2000's. ISPs had the ability to abuse customers for a long time before NN was a regulation under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Did ICANN have any legal jurisdiction over how ISPs controlled access to the internet for their customers? The point of FCC regulating the internet was to put teeth behind it.

The throttling of Netflix was resource-/bandwidth-based and resolved without the government forcing them to do anything. Again not a long-term issue, especially with additional competition.

We didn't see any crony capitalism getting involved to screw over the consumers, which is what the proponents of NN keep talking about as the inevitable result of not letting the government regulate the internet.

quote:

---

Yeah, but in that larger market, imagine there is only 1 other provider, and they move in lock step with Comcast. Because there are so few firms total, even where they are technically in competition, they collude to provide the same services with the same drawbacks, eliminating any chance of consumer backlash.

---

1. That sort of collusion to screw over consumers and boost profits is illegal and part of existing regulation and
2. Because it's illegal to collude like that, it would be in the best interest of the competitor to not move in lockstep with Comcast so that they can benefit from subscribers switching over due to feeling screwed over.

quote:

---

Why would they do this? Because the ISP's have more combined power if they work together to throttle competition rather than compete. It's the same reason they largely avoid competing for territory.

---

Again, this would violate current anti-trust laws by competitors working together for mutual benefit at the expense of the consumers.

quote:

---

TROLLOLOLO

---

So you're going to go with copping out. Got it

But no matter what you think I never post a single thing on here I don't personally believe.

quote:

---

What harm does net neutrality do?

---

Ill give you an example. Direct to consumer broadcast satellite tv was technically available in the late 1970s. The FCC did he bidding of the cable companies and terrestrial briadcasters and kept the technology off the market until 1994. The same strategy is at play here.

I’m sure it’ll be different next time.