Net Nuetrality

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Pirate Life » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:55 pm

It's actually surprising how bad choice is in some areas of the country. My brother lives in a spot less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from the technology corridor near Dulles Airport where ICANN has offices (and there are more than a few server farms) and he can't get high speed access. He's limited to dial up or satellite due to no cable companies wanting to service his area (even though his town is surrounded by some of the richest people in the country) and the cell service out his way being unreliable. He's perfectly fine with it, knows it's his choice to be out there. If he needs high speed access, he drives to one of our offices and gets online there, but he has zero choice of high speed access in his town, same goes for everyone else around there. (The Plains VA for the curious)
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:04 pm

Image
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Rocker » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:34 pm

That meme crossed my Reddit feed today.


It hits home.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 188 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:27 am

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/361998 ... neutrality
LOL! **** this former Verizon lawyer.
How about don't be a corrupt ***hole trying to **** over the American public? One day his kids will find out what he's done. It's not about them it's about YOU, ***hole.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:16 am

how the **** could anybody who's not a) Ajit Pai or B) some $50,000 dollar suit wearing motherfucker not support NN and not see the INCREDIBLE damaging affect dismantling it will have on democracy/transparency/freedom

I don't want to hear some bullshit lawyering justification based on debating who owns the infrastructure and who's "right" it is to control content. Anybody can justify anything. I'm asking how can anybody be so ****ing blind to not see the negative long term consequences to humanity with this ****

For instance, USC, you're a smart guy. I'm sure you've said as much in this thread, and if you have link it to me, but otherwise: how the **** does your train of thought just abruptly *end* before you consider, whatsoever, the long-term, abstract and real impingement on the ability of people to freely communicate with eachother AND express "unsanctioned" ideas with eachother? I mean this is a deadly ****ing path - civilization ruining. How does one not see this?
Last edited by beardmcdoug on Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:41 am

beardmcdoug wrote:how the **** could anybody who's not a) Ajit Pai or B) some $50,000 dollar suit wearing motherfucker support NN and not see the INCREDIBLE damaging affect it will have on democracy/transparency/freedom

It's called partisan politics. People can justify anything once they've identified with a team.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:01 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:how the **** could anybody who's not a) Ajit Pai or B) some $50,000 dollar suit wearing motherfucker support NN and not see the INCREDIBLE damaging affect it will have on democracy/transparency/freedom

I don't want to hear some bullshit lawyering justification based on debating who owns the infrastructure and who's "right" it is to control content. Anybody can justify anything. I'm asking how can anybody be so ****ing blind to not see the negative long term consequences to humanity with this ****

For instance, USC, you're a smart guy. I'm sure you've said as much in this thread, and if you have link it to me, but otherwise: how the **** does your train of thought just abruptly *end* before you consider, whatsoever, the long-term, abstract and real impingement on the ability of people to freely communicate with eachother AND express "unsanctioned" ideas with eachother? I mean this is a deadly ****ing path - civilization ruining. How does one not see this?




No matter how much people want it to be...access to the internet is not a public utility. It is provided by private companies. Just as access to news, including public information, through TV Media and Newspapers are provided by private companies. Just like when Trump whines about CNN and ABC and such, people are now whining that companies like Verizon might restrict their access or give them only partial information. Interestingly enough...the two groups don't see that they are whining about the same thing.

Public/Private hybrids simply don't work. I would much sooner support a fully public infrastructure approach to internet access like they have in some countries (many in Europe) before I would support this **** stain of a hybrid approach. In fact, some cities in the US are considering this option. I have no problem if Dallas says, we want to pass a bond to build a public infrastructure so everyone can get access to the internet. Let the local folks vote. If enough of them want it, let Dallas spend hundreds of millions of dollars either building new infrastructure or entering into customized contracts with net neutrality stipulations with current infrastructure people like Verizon.


This issue absolutely should fall along party lines...as it is about government interference in the marketplace. Sadly, many of my conservative/libertarian friends are selling their souls out to government overreach because they feel it is a product they don't want to pay more money for. Shame on them.

Sometimes issues do fall along party line...such as this. Other times, like the stupidity of Trump's tweets or whether an accusation of sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from Congress, those issues shouldn't fall along party lines.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 250 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:53 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:how the **** could anybody who's not a) Ajit Pai or B) some $50,000 dollar suit wearing motherfucker support NN and not see the INCREDIBLE damaging affect it will have on democracy/transparency/freedom

I don't want to hear some bullshit lawyering justification based on debating who owns the infrastructure and who's "right" it is to control content. Anybody can justify anything. I'm asking how can anybody be so ****ing blind to not see the negative long term consequences to humanity with this ****

For instance, USC, you're a smart guy. I'm sure you've said as much in this thread, and if you have link it to me, but otherwise: how the **** does your train of thought just abruptly *end* before you consider, whatsoever, the long-term, abstract and real impingement on the ability of people to freely communicate with eachother AND express "unsanctioned" ideas with eachother? I mean this is a deadly ****ing path - civilization ruining. How does one not see this?




No matter how much people want it to be...access to the internet is not a public utility.

I consider it a utility just like all my other utilities. Why is it not a utility to you?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:05 am

The only utilities in my house are water, sewer and electric. Cable, satellite and/or internet are all private sector services. As I see it.

The more I've read of the arguments here, the more I find myself falling on zarni's side of the argument. **** government. Everything (yes...a bit of hyperbole here) they touch seems to turn into one big clusterfuck. Since I've made the decision to move fully over to the Libertarian side of politics (mostly because of the shitbags in Congress today), I cannot, in good conscience, support this bit of government overreach. And overreach is exactly what it boils down to. If I have to choose between poison by government or poison by business, I'll drink the business poison.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:08 am

Zarni's side?

I see how it is....
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:13 am

uscbucsfan wrote:Zarni's side?

I see how it is....

:lol: It was easier than posting a dissertation which would have only repeated much of what he's already posted anyway.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:15 am

Buc2 wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Zarni's side?

I see how it is....

:lol: It was easier than posting a dissertation which would have only repeated much of what he's already posted anyway.

I was joking that you gave him credit for that side.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:32 am

Buc2 wrote:The only utilities in my house are water, sewer and electric. Cable, satellite and/or internet are all private sector services. As I see it.

The more I've read of the arguments here, the more I find myself falling on zarni's side of the argument. **** government. Everything (yes...a bit of hyperbole here) they touch seems to turn into one big clusterfuck. Since I've made the decision to move fully over to the Libertarian side of politics (mostly because of the shitbags in Congress today), I cannot, in good conscience, support this bit of government overreach. And overreach is exactly what it boils down to. If I have to choose between poison by government or poison by business, I'll drink the business poison.

Yeah...but our tax money has already been used to build the infrastructure that's out there. How is a new company supposed to come in compete with them?

Also, what makes electric a utility, but internet not a utility?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:37 am

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The only utilities in my house are water, sewer and electric. Cable, satellite and/or internet are all private sector services. As I see it.

The more I've read of the arguments here, the more I find myself falling on zarni's side of the argument. **** government. Everything (yes...a bit of hyperbole here) they touch seems to turn into one big clusterfuck. Since I've made the decision to move fully over to the Libertarian side of politics (mostly because of the shitbags in Congress today), I cannot, in good conscience, support this bit of government overreach. And overreach is exactly what it boils down to. If I have to choose between poison by government or poison by business, I'll drink the business poison.

Yeah...but our tax money has already been used to build the infrastructure that's out there. How is a new company supposed to come in compete with them?

Also, what makes electric a utility, but internet not a utility?


So cable is a utility, too? What about Walmart? GM or Ford? Cell phones? I mean the government paid into those? We could go on with like examples...this more speaks to how the government makes mistakes stepping in, helping big business.

If you don't see the difference in electricity/water vs internet/cable...I don't know if we should go any deeper.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:48 am

G D IT - I said I don't want to hear the utility argument!!
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:50 am

Well I'm sick of the entitlement argument.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:00 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
deltbucs wrote:Yeah...but our tax money has already been used to build the infrastructure that's out there. How is a new company supposed to come in compete with them?

Also, what makes electric a utility, but internet not a utility?


So cable is a utility, too? What about Walmart? GM or Ford? Cell phones? I mean the government paid into those? We could go on with like examples...this more speaks to how the government makes mistakes stepping in, helping big business.

If you don't see the difference in electricity/water vs internet/cable...I don't know if we should go any deeper.

It seems like there is quite a debate as to whether internet is a utility. If you don't want to discuss it though, that's fine with me.

Curious to hear your response to my first question, though. For those of us with 1 or 2 broadband options, how are new companies supposed to come in and compete? And furthermore what happens when the few options that are available inevitably merge into one company? How does a new company come in and compete with no infrastructure?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:08 am

Me too USC - it's the counter to the utility argument.

What about the civilization/societies/freedom to share "unsanctioned" information argument?

I don't give a **** about Sally having to pay an extra $20 a month to watch her ****ing novellas. I'm talking about the deleterious effects that would come from taking this wild west atmosphere and cramming it into boxes. People are forgetting that the internet was and isn't around solely to access entertainment or products - it's about sharing information and ideas freely across the world - the whole GD thing first started to share academic findings. Instead of a peer-to-peer internet, this takes us decidedly down producer-to-consumer path, where everybody only interacts with the corporations, not other people. If you can't imagine the negative effects, you need to be more imaginative. Are you not concerned in that aspect?

I get that you have a compelling case, but drop your ties to the feeling of being "right" in regards to the legal aspect of this whole thing, and imagine what the damage will be to societies and western civilization due to this - how does this not concern you?

Let me be clear: I absolutely do not give two shits whether somebody feels like they "deserve" cheap/fast internet. That is a weak, emotional argument based flatly on their own personal greed and warped sense of entitlement. I do not. give an iota. of a **** about that. I'm talking about the people of the US/the west losing IMMENSE power in the long-game struggle
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:22 am

deltbucs wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
So cable is a utility, too? What about Walmart? GM or Ford? Cell phones? I mean the government paid into those? We could go on with like examples...this more speaks to how the government makes mistakes stepping in, helping big business.

If you don't see the difference in electricity/water vs internet/cable...I don't know if we should go any deeper.

It seems like there is quite a debate as to whether internet is a utility. If you don't want to discuss that, that fine with me.

Curious to hear your response to my first question, though. For those of us with 1 or 2 broadband options, how are new companies supposed to come in and compete? And furthermore what happens when the few options that are available inevitably merge into one company? How does a new company come in and compete with no infrastructure?


Right. I don't want to get into a debate on quality of life standards and how entertainment and internet are just as important as power and water.

We've already established that you have more than 2 options, as pretty much everyone does including satellite, dial up, or even cellular. That is where competition can grow. New lines are being run every single day by fiber companies as well (mostly Verizon and Google). The companies are merging due to declining profits/revenue because their main source of income is being cut out from companies like Netflix. Ending NN is a great way to prevent that.

I left this thread because everything is cyclical. I've had this exact debate with lach or MB. At the end of the day you aren't entitled to internet and you are certainly aren't entitled to "fast" internet (clw). This is not something you need to live and it's not something that the government currently owns. The companies that do own it have a right to do with it as they wish. Beard can use as much profanity as he wishes, but if there is one thing that I've always taken a hard line stance on, it's government intervention in business. Government intervention period is terrible. We have a terrible, corrupt, ineffective government that has a proven track record of damaging and.or exacerbating issues when they step in. The potential interruption of streaming TV shows and
free porn coupled with the scare tactics of others has created a bunch of ignorant activist. It's frustrating to see the things that people are making up in order to try to sway others, but Net Neutrality and alike legislation are bad for consumers. It quells competition, innovation, and creates an unstable market that will need more and more government assistance as time goes on.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:27 am

beardmcdoug wrote:Me too USC - it's the counter to the utility argument.

What about the civilization/societies/freedom to share "unsanctioned" information argument?

I don't give a **** about Sally having to pay an extra $20 a month to watch her ****ing novellas. I'm talking about the deleterious effects that would come from taking this wild west atmosphere and cramming it into boxes. People are forgetting that the internet was and isn't around solely to access entertainment or products - it's about sharing information and ideas freely across the world - the whole GD thing first started to share academic findings. Instead of a peer-to-peer internet, this takes us decidedly down producer-to-consumer path, where everybody only interacts with the corporations, not other people. If you can't imagine the negative effects, you need to be more imaginative. Are you not concerned in that aspect?

I get that you have a compelling case, but drop your ties to the feeling of being "right" in regards to the legal aspect of this whole thing, and imagine what the damage will be to societies and western civilization due to this - how does this not concern you?

Let me be clear: I absolutely do not give two shits whether somebody feels like they "deserve" cheap/fast internet. That is a weak, emotional argument based flatly on their own personal greed and warped sense of entitlement. I do not. give an iota. of a **** about that. I'm talking about the people of the US/the west losing IMMENSE power in the long-game struggle

This is my concern as well. To me it's not about having to pay extra...$20, $50, whatever more a month isn't going to hurt me. It's about information flowing freely. You think these ***holes at Comcast, Verizon, etc that own the government are going to not hide information about things like government corruption? They want us to be stupid and uninformed.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:35 am

uscbucsfan wrote:. That is where competition can grow. New lines are being run every single day by fiber companies as well . T


Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5619
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:54 am

beardmcdoug wrote:Me too USC - it's the counter to the utility argument.

What about the civilization/societies/freedom to share "unsanctioned" information argument?

I don't give a **** about Sally having to pay an extra $20 a month to watch her ****ing novellas. I'm talking about the deleterious effects that would come from taking this wild west atmosphere and cramming it into boxes. People are forgetting that the internet was and isn't around solely to access entertainment or products - it's about sharing information and ideas freely across the world - the whole GD thing first started to share academic findings. Instead of a peer-to-peer internet, this takes us decidedly down producer-to-consumer path, where everybody only interacts with the corporations, not other people. If you can't imagine the negative effects, you need to be more imaginative. Are you not concerned in that aspect?

I get that you have a compelling case, but drop your ties to the feeling of being "right" in regards to the legal aspect of this whole thing, and imagine what the damage will be to societies and western civilization due to this - how does this not concern you?

Let me be clear: I absolutely do not give two shits whether somebody feels like they "deserve" cheap/fast internet. That is a weak, emotional argument based flatly on their own personal greed and warped sense of entitlement. I do not. give an iota. of a **** about that. I'm talking about the people of the US/the west losing IMMENSE power in the long-game struggle


This is an argument defined by your perception of the world. I cannot say anything to change that or alter it. You and Delt believe these ISPs or any big corporation to be evil. I can only counter to say that they are just business. If all business is evil that's a different discussion, but they have no benevolent agenda. They intend to make money. Them filtering what you can read or the information accessed would be obvious to the consumer doesn't help them make money. That would only alienate customers and eventually cause them to leave for another business. Something that drastic would also, positively, drive innovation thus creating more competition. I think there are too many mediums to access the internet this information for it to be completely corrupted.

Now if you want to go down the roads that MB is where companies or politicians will pay money to alter the ISPs, I also believe it to be an extreme and unlikely, but my answer is the same as above. I'll say it again... I don't trust the government, I don't trust corporations, but I do trust consumers in a free market.

and NYBF...I appreciate the input, but that's obviously a crime and documented. I'm not sure of the relevance.
Last edited by uscbucsfan on Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:56 am

What I think is funny is Ajit Pai complaining about Twitter being biased against conservatives (based, of course, on lies spread by conservative news sources about them censoring videos that they never censored). So his answer is to give the power to his ISP to block any competitor to Twitter meaning he'll just have to either put up with it, or have the Chairman of the FCC forced to rely on dial-up. That's a bold move, Cotton.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:57 am

Content providers and search engines already filter information and have plenty of allegations of bias against them - Google, Facebook, etc

They sell search engine optimization stuff that lets firms “buy” their way into the top of the search...so basically it’s ok for them to sell prioritization...it’s just not ok for ISPs to sell priortization?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5452
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 250 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:34 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:and NYBF...I appreciate the input, but that's obviously a crime and documented. I'm not sure of the relevance.


Not sure of the relevance?

The common theme in this thread for those against net neutrality is that if the service is bad, competition will pop up.

That story is a perfect example of competition that one of the big boys didn't like. Easy enough to just go out and cut their lines, forcing the guy out of business. But I'm sure when they're allowed to run rampant and do what they please, they won't repeat actions like that...
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5619
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:52 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:Me too USC - it's the counter to the utility argument.

What about the civilization/societies/freedom to share "unsanctioned" information argument?

I don't give a **** about Sally having to pay an extra $20 a month to watch her ****ing novellas. I'm talking about the deleterious effects that would come from taking this wild west atmosphere and cramming it into boxes. People are forgetting that the internet was and isn't around solely to access entertainment or products - it's about sharing information and ideas freely across the world - the whole GD thing first started to share academic findings. Instead of a peer-to-peer internet, this takes us decidedly down producer-to-consumer path, where everybody only interacts with the corporations, not other people. If you can't imagine the negative effects, you need to be more imaginative. Are you not concerned in that aspect?

I get that you have a compelling case, but drop your ties to the feeling of being "right" in regards to the legal aspect of this whole thing, and imagine what the damage will be to societies and western civilization due to this - how does this not concern you?

Let me be clear: I absolutely do not give two shits whether somebody feels like they "deserve" cheap/fast internet. That is a weak, emotional argument based flatly on their own personal greed and warped sense of entitlement. I do not. give an iota. of a **** about that. I'm talking about the people of the US/the west losing IMMENSE power in the long-game struggle

My response to the bolded part is that, yes...that's the way the internet was when it came into existence, true enough. But it evolved past that to what it is today and that was mainly due to BIG business involvement. Perhaps we should have 2 Internets. One solely for business/media/social media, etc. and one solely for the purpose of knowledge/academic pursuits. If only, eh?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:00 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The only utilities in my house are water, sewer and electric. Cable, satellite and/or internet are all private sector services. As I see it.

The more I've read of the arguments here, the more I find myself falling on zarni's side of the argument. **** government. Everything (yes...a bit of hyperbole here) they touch seems to turn into one big clusterfuck. Since I've made the decision to move fully over to the Libertarian side of politics (mostly because of the shitbags in Congress today), I cannot, in good conscience, support this bit of government overreach. And overreach is exactly what it boils down to. If I have to choose between poison by government or poison by business, I'll drink the business poison.

Yeah...but our tax money has already been used to build the infrastructure that's out there. How is a new company supposed to come in compete with them?

Also, what makes electric a utility, but internet not a utility?

I would argue that the difference is based on need. We need electric & water. And please don't give me some stupid argument that we can live off the grid. Sure...a few people can. But, as a society, we certainly cannot. On the other hand, we don't need the Internet. We can still shop at brick & mortar stores. We can still call our friends or go visit them fact to face. We can still use the USPS to mail in our bill payments.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Buc2 wrote: :lol: It was easier than posting a dissertation which would have only repeated much of what he's already posted anyway.

I was joking that you gave him credit for that side.

Sorry about that. Since I went there, you definitely deserve credit, along with zarni, as your arguments have also helped solidify my opinion on NN. Honestly, I was probably already leaning that way, but was letting the loud voices cloud my judgement. :D
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Pirate Life » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:29 am

uscbucsfan wrote:We've already established that you have more than 2 options, as pretty much everyone does including satellite, dial up, or even cellular. That is where competition can grow. New lines are being run every single day by fiber companies as well (mostly Verizon and Google).


This is not true in parts of the country. My brother's option in his house is dial up. He's less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from one of the 13 root servers for the internet (the main one for .com addresses run by Verisign). There's no cable or fiber service in his town. Satellite doesn't work, doesn't have a clear line to the southern sky where the satellite is (Hughesnet will send folks out to people in his neighborhood but soon as they get there, they tell them it won't work because they can't point the dish at the satellite). No 3g/4g coverage in his town - maps for carriers show it but it doesn't work and is one of the first thing real estate folks will tell people when looking to move into the town. Even regular cell service is spotty to the point everyone there has a home phone - how many towns can say that these days? And no, DSL isn't an option either as they're too far from the closest hub/node.

Yes, it's a rural area out in Virginia's old money horse country (my brother has fox hunts that go through his yard), but no ISP wants to go out that way due to the small number of customers and the difficulties in getting service out there (almost all private land to lease/acquire to run the cables) even though the surrounding area is home to some of the richest families in the country.

You may feel like dial up is adequate and that no one needs the internet or high speed, but it is more of a utility than it is a service these days in that it is becoming required to function in society. Insurance claim? Fill out a form online (takes twenty minutes to get to the page on dial up, let alone filling out the form - if the page loads the first time and doesn't time out). Need to renew a prescription? Go to our webpage. Feeling sick and need to see the doctor? Let's set up a video visit to diagnose you before coming in - it's free and will save time! Can't do it on dial up, so drive 20 miles and wait 45-90 minutes to see someone. Renew your license? It's cheaper online, but the registration times out on the DMV website with dial up because it's too slow, so go enjoy the special hell that is the DMV office. Need customer service for your water company? Chat online, but page won't load with dial up to get to chat because of flash plug ins. All of this is crap my brother's dealt with in just the past few months, he doesn't even try at home anymore just does it all at our office. So much of what we do with companies is now internet-first and the pages aren't designed for dialup any longer because for the most part high speed internet is ubiquitous. And forget about trying to run just about any type of business without decent, stable internet these days. Do we really need to divide the urban/rural communities even more than we do now?
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby StillCSG » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:34 pm

Pirate Life wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:We've already established that you have more than 2 options, as pretty much everyone does including satellite, dial up, or even cellular. That is where competition can grow. New lines are being run every single day by fiber companies as well (mostly Verizon and Google).


This is not true in parts of the country. My brother's option in his house is dial up. He's less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from one of the 13 root servers for the internet (the main one for .com addresses run by Verisign). There's no cable or fiber service in his town. Satellite doesn't work, doesn't have a clear line to the southern sky where the satellite is (Hughesnet will send folks out to people in his neighborhood but soon as they get there, they tell them it won't work because they can't point the dish at the satellite). No 3g/4g coverage in his town - maps for carriers show it but it doesn't work and is one of the first thing real estate folks will tell people when looking to move into the town. Even regular cell service is spotty to the point everyone there has a home phone - how many towns can say that these days? And no, DSL isn't an option either as they're too far from the closest hub/node.

Yes, it's a rural area out in Virginia's old money horse country (my brother has fox hunts that go through his yard), but no ISP wants to go out that way due to the small number of customers and the difficulties in getting service out there (almost all private land to lease/acquire to run the cables) even though the surrounding area is home to some of the richest families in the country.

You may feel like dial up is adequate and that no one needs the internet or high speed, but it is more of a utility than it is a service these days in that it is becoming required to function in society. Insurance claim? Fill out a form online (takes twenty minutes to get to the page on dial up, let alone filling out the form - if the page loads the first time and doesn't time out). Need to renew a prescription? Go to our webpage. Feeling sick and need to see the doctor? Let's set up a video visit to diagnose you before coming in - it's free and will save time! Can't do it on dial up, so drive 20 miles and wait 45-90 minutes to see someone. Renew your license? It's cheaper online, but the registration times out on the DMV website with dial up because it's too slow, so go enjoy the special hell that is the DMV office. Need customer service for your water company? Chat online, but page won't load with dial up to get to chat because of flash plug ins. All of this is crap my brother's dealt with in just the past few months, he doesn't even try at home anymore just does it all at our office. So much of what we do with companies is now internet-first and the pages aren't designed for dialup any longer because for the most part high speed internet is ubiquitous. And forget about trying to run just about any type of business without decent, stable internet these days. Do we really need to divide the urban/rural communities even more than we do now?



Your brother does have an option to access HSI
Move

Signed
USC
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 4048
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 83 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beardmcdoug, Jason Bourne, Rocker, Stuart, uscbucsfan and 15 guests