91–100 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.
> If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded. That's just a silly argument. If we are going there, let's first have the ISPs vacate all public rights of way and return all government subsidies.
Internet money is made by the "over-the-top" (Google, Facebook & co.) leaving ISP to pay for the infrastructure. Net neutrality will allow ISP to bill users not only on bandwidth, but also based on what you do on the net. Ie: do you want a fast Youtube? Someone will have to pay (google or the users). They will be allowed to slow down some websites and speed up others, and that's really bad.
That is the opposite of Net Neutrality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the ISPs control your Internet access. They don't compete with each other. Without net neutrality, they can prioritize, slow down, or block any site or content they want to. Many people cannot simply switch away. They have only one ISP to choose from. You can switch away from Facebook whenever you wish.
Next logical question: net neutrality has existed for a very short amount of time. The Internet & Web did extremely well before net neutrality, with few instances of abusive carrier restriction over the prior decades. What is the very strong supporting evidence to demonstrate your scenario is the likely outcome? If you want to regulate something so important on the premise you're suggesting, you need to present equal…
So it's not a case of "It only came into law 3 years ago!" but rather "We put it back into law after being considered law for 30 years because of a court case that demanded clarification".
This is all very confusing for me. Obviously I understand the NN arguments and I accept the Ajit Pai arguments though I think it's very naive to think that investments in infrastructure would be made without other significant incentives, all which seem unlikely to occur. My question is about 2015. Did we have NN before 2015? What changed then and how would it differ from before? I was always under the assumption we h…
We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).
The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN.
Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will not impact business or investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded. That's just a silly argument. If we are going there, let's first have the ISPs vacate all public rights of way and return all government subsidies.
They don't have to vacate anything, public should buy them outright. Yes after deducting the subsidy amount.
Best argument for NN: Let's freeze things now (and saddle every startup/mom'n'pop ISP with Ma Bell-style regulation) so the oligarchs don't become ever more powerful Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.
Your arguments don't make much sense. Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching. Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.
I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN makes this worse.
Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I "information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This is met with furious uproar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why on earth would you think this would not happen? How about the fact that in the prior 20+ years it did not happen. Comcast was just as powerful five years ago, as they are today. The access market was just as limited in terms of competition, 5 or 10 years ago. Your premise is that due to limited competition, it must occur. If that were how things actually worked, it would have occured before net neutrality in a…
You're missing a key piece. As opposed to 20 years ago their core businesses (home telephone, cable television) have been in decline. As people cut the cord(s) these companies will need to further monetize the ISP aspects of their businesses to compensate. It's not fair to look to the past to make predictions about the future here because the world was very different from a business perspective.
TV is monopolized to hell and back and full of advertising people can't stand. The internet provides everything you could want, without the cancer that has infected television. People wouldn't cut TV out of their lives if TV actually provided what they want at a fair price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, and Facebook believe that their services are more important than others. As such, they consider themselves deserving of cheaper, free, or the "fast lane" internet, especially in less developed areas without sufficient infrastructure to serve all websites. The rationale is that providing a limited set of websites for free is better than if those areas have n…
Isn't Google's project loon open internet, compared to Facebooks free basics?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Free_Zone
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20130704133456/http://www.google....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> common sense? Common sense says that, as a corporation, if I have a regional monopoly on internet access I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability.
>I should exploit that to the point that maximizes profitability. And not take overly egregious actions that would force a government intervention which would probably lead to actions that damage my monopoly and harm profitability.
Why care how egregious your actions are when the government listens to you and your bags of money, and not the people you're fucking over?