Without net neutrality, the internet will become just another source of TV where you only get to see what the advertising industry and the regulators want you to see. At that point the phone in your pocket will become just a tiny TV set, and cord-cutting will become internet-cutting.
Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
241–250 of 388 posts
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent. Elections have consequences. The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being com…
> The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. I disagree with you. In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy. The US system is how much can you…
>I disagree with you.
Okay. Well, you're going to have to provide practical examples on why decades of testimony and support for various policies (or the reps that push them) is somehow not a product of the electorate's own volition.
You have hypotheticals and a general model for what might alleviate the support (or implicit support for these policies). But you fail to address what I actually stated: the electorate IS voting for this. They have voted for this. They will continue to vote for this. You provided no evidence to negate this historical record. You provided an example of "two options vs many options" which completely and utterly misses the point I'm making.
>Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution.
Your words, not mine. I called them unqualified. However you've brought to mind a favorite quote that I'm going to modify:
"There are idiots in the market" -> "There are idiots in the electorate"
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent. Elections have consequences. The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being com…
> The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop pretending it's not. Relatively it listens more to donors and lobbyists than the average people. That is part of the system because the system has laws that allow it. When nearly every candidate for high positions is subject to these pressures, they're very difficult to vote away. I'm not saying the electorate isn't unqualified, divided by wedge issues,…
>Relatively it listens more to donors and lobbyists than the average people.
People vote in representatives that listen to donors and lobbyists. It's not some magical event that happens. They are being voted in.
>but it's not the whole story.
Alright?
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way.
Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, thank you - I've never heard that argument before. I'm not sure I know of an intelligent right-leaning person who thinks monopolies of any kind is a good idea, but I can see the argument being used in a "stepping-stone" sense towards a Republican ideal less regulated environment that would "naturally eradicate" monopolies. I can see it used like that, but I've never heard of it. Of course, that might be because…
> ISPs are closer to the state in most places Depends on the structure, but a lot of them are inheritors of telcos, which were often nationalised and/or subject to state control, surveillance and censorship. I was thinking particularly of BT and its heir Openreach, which owns all the wires. While they may be privatized the oversight is a lot closer than that of SV startups. Owning a lot of physical infrastructure and…
Indeed, I've read on and off about ISPs lobbying local US government bodies for probably a decade or more.
I'm not sure what we are discussing, or if there is any point of contention between us that I can't see.
Perhaps you're not as much replying to me as simply being informative for posterity. In which case I'll thank you again, and stop writing now as to not drown out the information with drivel :-)
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#246Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous. Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?
"Fix something else" is right on, but "instead" is highly problematic. We can try to fix multiple things.
The root of this problem and many others is that Congress and the executive are corrupt and have no particular interest in doing their job properly. Much of that stems from a bad electoral system. Fixing that is hugely important and would be highly useful. However, that fix is likely to take a long time. Certainly there's no hope of fixing it by December 14th.
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are arguments against net neutrality. Check out the NoNetNeutrality subreddit if you're curious [0]. The most convincing argument IMO is that it hurts people's internet access by sniffling innovation. It happened in India when Facebook tried to provide free "basic internet" access to poor rural Indians [1]. It was blocked on the ground of net neutrality since although it would provide access to very useful site…
The counter to free basics is why didn't Facebook just provide free full internet with heavy branding and advertising to encourage Facebook use? Did they have some Indian competitor they were scared of? I have a hard time seeing how it would be that much more expensive.
Facebook branding on their internet would be against net neutrality: facebook would then be changing other websites.
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#249Apparently, it's quite difficult to maintain net neutrality, yet its advantages to the average citizen seem enormous. Therefore, shouldn't we fix something else instead? Like the way these laws are established?
There's a core misunderstanding around net neutrality. People see it as business-stifling regulation and its removal as deregulation. This is simply false. All last mile ISPs and wireless carriers are state-enforced oligopolies or monopolies. You can't build these things without some mix of federal, state, and local permission, and in many cases taxpayer funds helps subsidize the construction of these networks or tax…
Calling something a state-enforced oligopoly because you need permits is a huge stretch. In almost all jurisdictions a new company can apply for an ISP franchise.
I have more choices for an ISP than I have choices for a cell phone OS. Should the government enforce app-store neutrality. I have less choices for search engines. How about search engine/adsense neutrality.
The truth is net neutrality is both underbroad and overbroad in its attempts to increase competition. Sure, a cable ISP shouldn't be allowed to block netflix. But net neutrality goes further than that and doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive. On the other hand, net neutrality doesn't stop your ISP from putting data caps or just increasing prices on users.
Reducing barriers to entry is far better for increasing competition.
Re: Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However, it is "merely" a symptom of the US political system not being sensitive to the citizens' wants and needs. No. Stop saying this. It completely muddies the water on what's actually going on here. People DID vote for this. They voted for their reps. And they voted for reps of a very particular political bent. Elections have consequences. The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. The electorate being com…
> The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly. I disagree with you. In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy. The US system is how much can you…
Let's not also forget that due to gerrymandering (for the house) and disproportionate rural control (for the Senate and Electoral College), the people in fact voted against this but we still end up ruled by a spiteful backward minority.