Net Neutrality, good bye internet.

[Koldo]

No. Regulation always has costs.
If the benefits don't exceed the costs, then it's a net loss.

Do you mean the benefits of net neutrality don't exceed the costs ?

If the provider has another income stream, this could lower consumer costs.
This is why broadcast TV is cheaper in Americastan than Not So Great
Britain....ours is paid for by advertisers.

It could, but this is a gamble. Why would one take it considering the clear benefits of net neutrality ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you mean the benefits of net neutrality don't exceed the costs ?

That's my judgement.

It could, but this is a gamble. Why would one take it considering the clear benefits of net neutrality ?

Every choice is a gamble.
It just appears we'd be better off without it.
And we can always change things if we don't like the outcome.

 

[Koldo]

That's my judgement.

Ok, based on what ?
How did you come to the conclusion that its costs exceed its benefits ?
What did you take into consideration to reach your conclusion ?
What benefits do you see ? What costs do you see ?

Every choice is a gamble.
It just appears we'd be better off without it.
And we can always change things if we don't like the outcome.

The problem is: You haven't presented anything to substantiate that we would be better off without it.
The one thing you mentioned is reduced costs to consumer, but that is not for granted, which means that in the end the consumers might see no benefit at all. This leaves me wondering what other benefit you have in mind when you make this kind of statement.

 

[Kapalika]

hold on guys you're arguing it wrong trying to write a post but this is moving too fast

 

[Koldo]

hold on guys you're arguing it wrong trying to write a post but this is moving too fast

So zetta slow!

You probably won't get the reference....

 

[Kapalika]

I just don't think the sky will fall.

I don't see market based price & speed as censorship.

If things do eventually turn out poorly, there's always the opportunity to change things.
Trump won't be in office forever.

The rule explicitly protects censorship.

With the ability to charge based upon resource, it can be allocated more efficiently.
Those willing & able to pay more will see better service, which will also spur improvement.

Just as some will drive....

....others on a budget will drive....

For a given level of service, some will hog bandwidth, eg, movies.
This slows down things for others.

That isn't at all how internet infrastructure works. I will speak of cable, DSL ect, as things such as Satellite and cell towers operate a little differently from physical lines.

Network congestion only happens at peak time and that's already managed with light to moderate throttling across the entire network for the hour or two that those happen (which is almost always after rush hour, right as everyone gets home). Creating artificial scarcity by having a constant throttle as the cable companies plan won't raise quality, only make lower tiers and make the highest one how the internet is now.

Both of your posts show a misunderstanding of how the internet functions or what net neutrality is actually protecting. There are no "resources" that are being dedicated to your connection, it isn't like water or electricity. There isn't anything to "allocate".

Bandwidth can't be "hogged" across a network like it can within a single home. Network congestion only occurs when way too many households or businesses send in requests all at once (such as peak time). Your speed is essentially the same except at those times, there isn't anything anyone can do to increase anyone's speed just by throttling other connections since the vast majority of them won't be sending out very much if any requests. The overall amount of data that moves too also has no impact what so ever on the performance of the network.

The only time someone can "hog" bandwidth would be to be almost constantly downloading at max speed, which at a modest 50 Mb/s down on a cable ISP would rake you half a terabyte in 24 hours. Most computers don't have over a terabyte and a 1080p 3d movie would be at most 5GB. I don't think anyone can watch 100 movies in 24 hours. In otherwords between all the downtime where there isn't movies being downloaded (either after it was fully loaded or between sections of buffering which you don't see), even if you constantly streamed in HD 24 hours a day you would only be using the internet roughly 12% of the actual time.

So basically trying to make "fast lanes" doesn't actually speed up the internet for anyone, it just throttles others to put them in lower package brackets. The ISPs have made clear they want to make us pay what we are now for much more limited access, and make the fullest access (such as it is now) be much more expensive. It's creating artificial scarcity when literally it creates no more strain on the network. They will likely still have to throttle anyways at peak times so that won't be affected either.

This is why it ties into datacaps on so many levels (both technical and their attempt at making monopolies) they are using the same old misconceptions by making analogies to water or electricity when data itself is basically without value and limitless. It doesn't have scarcity.

I also find a problem with the argument that it will spur improvement, not just because of the artificial scarcity but because they have been striking down laws that stop cable companies from owning both a news station and a newspaper, and been fighting against municipal internet and companies like Google from laying down fiber which is much better than cable and have been successful in doing it. They are basically trying to make it illegal to lay down any new lines and monopolize control over the existing lines.

Also, something I forgot to get into... but the censorship is a real concern.

Net Neutrality, in a nutshell forbids ISPs from slowing down, speeding up, or blocking specific content or type of traffic. That last one, blocking, is where getting rid of it becomes a free speech issue. ISPs can already slow down connections as needed to adjust for network congestion, or if someone is in some way abusing the network (say running a massive server using that hypothetical half a terabyte a day). That's fine as it's not discriminating against anything specific but someone's entire connection. ISPs can already speed up your entire connection if you buy the business package or a higher tier residential package.

What getting rid of net neutrality does for them, is allow them to discriminate in what sites are affected by throttles and speed ups, and be able to block sites entirely (such as competition or those they disagree with), and then charge more money to either unblock or unthrottle those sites.

I hope that wasn't too long, but basically the pro's you listed are already covered in what they are allowed, hell even already do. I've seen it in my own town even. Getting rid of net neutrality doesn't give them any more ability to do the things you mentioned other than by doing it through artificial scarcity which I hope I explained fully why data doesn't have scarcity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well it was fun while it lasted. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to figure out a way to strangle the utility, freedom and egalitarianism of the internet. But come on! We can't have people just running around doing what they want and engaging one another on equal terms! That's undemocratic!

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, based on what ?
How did you come to the conclusion that its costs exceed its benefits ?
What did you take into consideration to reach your conclusion ?
What benefits do you see ? What costs do you see ?

Just as your predictions are subjective, so are mine.
The immediate benefit I expect is less bandwidth clogging at certain times of the day.
The cost of internet neutrality: clogging, less investment in upgrades

The problem is: You haven't presented anything to substantiate that we would be better off without it.
The one thing you mentioned is reduced costs to consumer, but that is not for granted, which means that in the end the consumers might see no benefit at all. This leaves me wondering what other benefit you have in mind when you make this kind of statement.

I have presented my reasons for judging deregulation to be better.
It's just that you disagree....as I disagree with your analysis.

 

[Revoltingest]

The rule explicitly protects censorship.





That isn't at all how internet infrastructure works. I will speak of cable, DSL ect, as things such as Satellite and cell towers operate a little differently from physical lines.

Network congestion only happens at peak time and that's already managed with light to moderate throttling across the entire network for the hour or two that those happen (which is almost always after rush hour, right as everyone gets home). Creating artificial scarcity by having a constant throttle as the cable companies plan won't raise quality, only make lower tiers and make the highest one how the internet is now.

Both of your posts show a misunderstanding of how the internet functions or what net neutrality is actually protecting. There are no "resources" that are being dedicated to your connection, it isn't like water or electricity. There isn't anything to "allocate".

Bandwidth can't be "hogged" across a network like it can within a single home. Network congestion only occurs when way too many households or businesses send in requests all at once (such as peak time). Your speed is essentially the same except at those times, there isn't anything anyone can do to increase anyone's speed just by throttling other connections since the vast majority of them won't be sending out very much if any requests. The overall amount of data that moves too also has no impact what so ever on the performance of the network.

The only time someone can "hog" bandwidth would be to be almost constantly downloading at max speed, which at a modest 50 Mb/s down on a cable ISP would rake you half a terabyte in 24 hours. Most computers don't have over a terabyte and a 1080p 3d movie would be at most 5GB. I don't think anyone can watch 100 movies in 24 hours. In otherwords between all the downtime where there isn't movies being downloaded (either after it was fully loaded or between sections of buffering which you don't see), even if you constantly streamed in HD 24 hours a day you would only be using the internet roughly 12% of the actual time.

So basically trying to make "fast lanes" doesn't actually speed up the internet for anyone, it just throttles others to put them in lower package brackets. The ISPs have made clear they want to make us pay what we are now for much more limited access, and make the fullest access (such as it is now) be much more expensive. It's creating artificial scarcity when literally it creates no more strain on the network. They will likely still have to throttle anyways at peak times so that won't be affected either.

This is why it ties into datacaps on so many levels (both technical and their attempt at making monopolies) they are using the same old misconceptions by making analogies to water or electricity when data itself is basically without value and limitless. It doesn't have scarcity.

I also find a problem with the argument that it will spur improvement, not just because of the artificial scarcity but because they have been striking down laws that stop cable companies from owning both a news station and a newspaper, and been fighting against municipal internet and companies like Google from laying down fiber which is much better than cable and have been successful in doing it. They are basically trying to make it illegal to lay down any new lines and monopolize control over the existing lines.

Also, something I forgot to get into... but the censorship is a real concern.

Net Neutrality, in a nutshell forbids ISPs from slowing down, speeding up, or blocking specific content or type of traffic. That last one, blocking, is where getting rid of it becomes a free speech issue. ISPs can already slow down connections as needed to adjust for network congestion, or if someone is in some way abusing the network (say running a massive server using that hypothetical half a terabyte a day). That's fine as it's not discriminating against anything specific but someone's entire connection. ISPs can already speed up your entire connection if you buy the business package or a higher tier residential package.

What getting rid of net neutrality does for them, is allow them to discriminate in what sites are affected by throttles and speed ups, and be able to block sites entirely (such as competition or those they disagree with), and then charge more money to either unblock or unthrottle those sites.

I hope that wasn't too long, but basically the pro's you listed are already covered in what they are allowed, hell even already do. I've seen it in my own town even. Getting rid of net neutrality doesn't give them any more ability to do the things you mentioned other than by doing it through artificial scarcity which I hope I explained fully why data doesn't have scarcity.

You & I have a very different understanding of net neutrality vs a freer market.
And your censorship argument makes no sense to me.

 

[Koldo]

Just as your predictions are subjective, so are mine.
The immediate benefit I expect is less bandwidth clogging at certain times of the day.
The cost of internet neutrality: clogging, less investment in upgrades

How does net neutrality cause clogging and less investment in upgrades?

 

[Revoltingest]

How does net neutrality cause clogging and less investment in upgrades?

I've covered clogging already.
"Net neutrality" is actually a collection of regulations, some in effect, & some on hold.
This introduces unpredictability...something investors hate. While investment did
occur during regulation, this doesn't mean it didn't have a damping effect. Treating
ISPs as a regulated utility does pose perceived risks.

Has internet service suffered from such catastrophic predictions
in other countries lacking such regulation, eg, Belgium, Canada,
France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, S Korea?

Now, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I don't particularly
care about net neutrality. With or without it, I'll do just fine.

 

[Koldo]

I've covered clogging already.
"Net neutrality" is actually a collection of regulations, some in effect, & some on hold.
This introduces unpredictability...something investors hate. While investment did
occur during regulation, this doesn't mean it didn't have a damping effect. Treating
ISPs as a regulated utility does pose perceived risks.

Has internet service suffered from such catastrophic predictions
in other countries lacking such regulation, eg, Belgium, Canada,
France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, S Korea?

Now, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I don't particularly
care about net neutrality. With or without it, I'll do just fine.

Your clogging example had nothing to do with net neutrality. Repealing net neutrality won't reduce the clogging. People will still make massive use of their connections at peak times.

And what about the 'less investments' part you mentioned ? Why do you see this way ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your clogging example had nothing to do with net neutrality. Repealing net neutrality won't reduce the clogging. People will still make massive use of their connections at peak times.

And what about the 'less investments' part you mentioned ? Why do you see this way ?

I'm bored now!
And I've nothing to add.

 

[Koldo]

I'm bored now!
And I've nothing to add.

You didn't add much to the discussion in the first place.

 

[Stanyon]

Here is an interesting article from RT news:
Imagine! An ‘alternative internet’ not ‘completely in the hands of Facebook & Google’ — RT World News
I won't pretend to know enough about it

 

[Revoltingest]

You didn't add much to the discussion in the first place.

Well, you didn't provide much of a cogent argument either.
We each just offered our opinions & preferences.

 

[Koldo]

Well, you didn't provide much of a cogent argument either.
We each just offered our opinions & preferences.

I was trying to understand your point of view since it is hard to find those that would oppose net neutrality, but I couldn't get you to elaborate on your criticism. It was all extremely superficial. To be honest, it simply felt like you oppose it as a matter of principle, and not that you thought it through.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was trying to understand your point of view since it is hard to find those that would oppose net neutrality, but I couldn't get you to elaborate on your criticism. It was all extremely superficial. To be honest, it simply felt like you oppose it as a matter of principle, and not that you thought it through.

Did it ever occur to you that I see your position as being how you described mine?
But I didn't go there.

As a matter of principle, if a regulation cannot be justified based upon cost v benefit,
then it ought'a be ditched. So far, the arguments for net neutrality have been of the
parade of horribles type. Better than the current policy, we need only have regulation
to prevent dysfunctional monopolies.

 

[Kapalika]

You & I have a very different understanding of net neutrality vs a freer market.
And your censorship argument makes no sense to me.

You don't know how it would lead to censorship???

If FCC gets its way, we’ll lose a lot more than net neutrality

"Either way, what's almost certain is that the FCC will eliminate the Title II classification of Internet service providers. And that would have important effects on consumer protection that go beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Without Title II's common carrier regulation, the FCC would have less authority to oversee the practices of Internet providers like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon. Customers and websites harmed by ISPs would also have fewer recourses, both in front of the FCC and in courts of law."

I've followed the issue for over 2 years. I didn't just jump on whatever platform. There's a reason support for net neutrality is bi-partisan with 81% of Americans supporting it with both parties having equal % of support.

Look again, read Title II yourself if you have to. It literally. and explicitly. outlaws. censorship.

And repealing it won't help make a free-er market. They are trying to rig it to destroy competition by simply denying service not based on overhead or quality but in such a way to deny access or usability to sites so they can sell it back.

Literally it will be like buying different "packages" to access different sites. We could actually see sites like this be on a "package" we have to pay extra to access or get usable speeds on.

American taxpayer money not only created the internet through government programs and the military, but it laid down a lot of the infrastructure. It belongs to the public. Private companies shouldn't be allowed to roll up and just take it over when we paid for it, not them. the internet should be classified as a public utility.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't know how it would lead to censorship???

If FCC gets its way, we’ll lose a lot more than net neutrality

"Either way, what's almost certain is that the FCC will eliminate the Title II classification of Internet service providers. And that would have important effects on consumer protection that go beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Without Title II's common carrier regulation, the FCC would have less authority to oversee the practices of Internet providers like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon. Customers and websites harmed by ISPs would also have fewer recourses, both in front of the FCC and in courts of law."

I've followed the issue for over 2 years. I didn't just jump on whatever platform. There's a reason support for net neutrality is bi-partisan with 81% of Americans supporting it with both parties having equal % of support.

Look again, read Title II yourself if you have to. It literally. and explicitly. outlaws. censorship.

And repealing it won't help make a free-er market. They are trying to rig it to destroy competition by simply denying service not based on overhead or quality but in such a way to deny access or usability to sites so they can sell it back.

Literally it will be like buying different "packages" to access different sites. We could actually see sites like this be on a "package" we have to pay extra to access or get usable speeds on.

American taxpayer money not only created the internet through government programs and the military, but it laid down a lot of the infrastructure. It belongs to the public. Private companies shouldn't be allowed to roll up and just take it over when we paid for it, not them. the internet should be classified as a public utility.

Was censorship on the internet a problem which net neutrality solved?