Verizon Throttled Firefighters’ Data As Mendocino Wildfire Burned

[Revoltingest]

The fact they are knowingly throttling an emergency service?

Verizon claims this was in error.
Many here claim it was intentional, but without evidence.
I only say that Verizon claims to be rectifying the problem.
(Ref: The Snopes article I linked.)
Many here deny that, but without evidence.
I don't speak to Verizon's intent....only to what happened, &
that their response, if implemented, would be a favorable result.

 

[Flame]

Verizon claims this was in error.

Then they need to prove it was an error.

 

[Audie]

Reading comprehension issues again, eh.
What I post, & what you infer are seldom the same.

Just dont get no big idea you get some exclusive on his inferations.

 

[tytlyf]

Seems this could have been avoided if net neutrality wasn't repealed. These were the known consequences of the repeal. Told you so.

I support 99% policies, not 1% policies like libertarians. (Koch libertarian)

Just blame everything on the government.

 

[Deidre]

I didn't know this, thanks for posting about it. How awful

 

[Falvlun]

Throttling was known to happen if the repeal went through. I didn't change anything.

Repeal net neutrality = throttling

Which you do support.

If I recall, Rev’s argument was that he didn’t believe throttling would happen, essentially that it was all a bunch of fear mongering.

However, In my experiences when such people are shown evidence of throttling, either past or present, it gets dismissed as a small isolated problem, or the result of some misunderstanding, or that it is justifiable. I think we’ve seen some of these excuses in this thread already.

 

[Sunstone]

If I recall, Rev’s argument was that he didn’t believe throttling would happen, essentially that it was all a bunch of fear mongering.

However, In my experiences when such people are shown evidence of throttling, either past or present, it gets dismissed as a small isolated problem, or the result of some misunderstanding, or that it is justifiable. I think we’ve seen some of these excuses in this thread already.

Yup.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I recall, Rev’s argument was that he didn’t believe throttling would happen....

Yup.

You could search for my posts rather than guessing....& guessing badly.
You could ask, rather than presuming what's convenient.
You could converse with one, rather than about one.
(And without even the courtesy of an alert.)
Instead, you rely upon Tytlyf for info?
And parrot that?

 

[Falvlun]

You could search for my posts rather than guessing....& guessing badly.
You could ask, rather than presuming what's convenient.
You could converse with one, rather than about one.
Instead, you rely upon Tytlyf for info?
And parrot that?

I was correcting Tytlf.

And you could simply correct any misunderstandings rather than waste our time preaching.

But I think in this case my memory serves me pretty well:

It's regulation without a need.
That simply distorts markets to our detriment.

I'm sure internet providers don't want to lose customers to competition.
So they won't kill the goose.

So far, I'm not claiming that Comcast has the right to avoid such regulation.
Only that we're better off without it. I'd prefer that government not protect
me from prices & services resulting from a free market.
I know you disagree, & I'm not trying to change your mind about this.
There's no evidence available regarding predictions of the future.

A year ago they predicted....'
Hillary was a shoe in.
Trump would be Hitler.
The press would no longer be free.

And now....
The end of the internet.

I'll wager that a year from now, the internet will be just fine.

Like I said. You didn’t believe throttling would happen, that it was just a bunch of fear mongering.

But in tytlf’s defense, there were a fair bit of posts where you seemed fine with the idea too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was correcting Tytlf.

And you could simply correct any misunderstandings rather than waste our time preaching.

But I think in this case my memory serves me pretty well:






Like I said. You didn’t believe throttling would happen, that it was just a bunch of fear mongering.

But in tytlf’s defense, there were a fair bit of posts where you seemed fine with the idea too.

You were miscorrecting the poster.
It's important that I not provide correction to presumptuous claims.
By having the claimant do the research (which which should've
been done first), one learns the importance of doing it right the
first time.
Alas, the lesson is not fully learned. In the posts you've quoted,
where do you see the alleged prediction of "no throttling"?
On top of this, I still haven't received the common courtesy of being
asked about my prognostications.

I did predict that "the internet would be just fine".
I stand by that....the usual drama over censorship notwithstanding.

 

[tytlyf]

Instead, you rely upon Tytlyf for info?
And parrot that?

I just point out what I see. You're all over the place and rarely give a straight answer as to not offend followers.
I try to be as honest and accurate as possible. And I was right about your history concerning the topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just point out what I see. You're all over the place and rarely give a straight answer as to not offend followers.
I try to be as honest and accurate as possible. And I was right about your history concerning the topic.

Your little triumvirate makes mischievous claims about my prior
prognostications, but cannot support them with any actual quotes.
Still, you soldier on unencumbered by lack of evidence, & even
undeterred by my notification of your error.

Instead of arguing against the strawman of an invented claim, why not
just ask where I stand? That would be the polite & careful thing to do.

 

[Falvlun]

You were miscorrecting the poster.
It's important that I not provide correction to presumptuous claims.
By having the claimant do the research (which which should've
been done first), one learns the importance of doing it right the
first time.
Alas, the lesson is not fully learned. In the posts you've quoted,
where do you see the alleged prediction of "no throttling"?
On top of this, I still haven't received the common courtesy of being
asked about my prognostications.

I did predict that "the internet would be just fine".
I stand by that....the usual drama over censorship notwithstanding.

. Throttling was included in the things those threads discussed as to possible problems with repealing net neutrality. You consistently insisted that the internet would be just fine and that fears were overblown. So we have some options here:
1) Your claim didn’t include throttling. So were you just ignoring that possibility when you said it would all be just fine?

2) Your claim did include throttling, which gives us two options.
A) my assessment was correct: you didnt believe the predictions about throttling; and you thought it was all overblown.

B) tytlf’s assessment was correct: you do support the ability to throttlle and believe the internet will be just fine with it.

So which is it? Feel free to correct any misconceptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Your claim didn’t include throttling. So were you just ignoring that possibility when you said it would all be just fine?

Regarding this odd term, "throttling", I expected that it would apply to those who paid less.
It's a matter of allocating resources based upon price.
I expect the market to provide those who pay more to get more speed.
And those who pay less will get less.
I favor this.

2) Your claim did include throttling, which gives us two options.
A) my assessment was correct: you didnt believe the predictions about throttling; and you thought it was all overblown.

This inference indicates misreading my posts.

Feel free to correct any misconceptions.

I just did.

 

[Falvlun]

Regarding this odd term, "throttling", I expected that it would apply to those who paid less.
It's a matter of allocating resources based upon price.
I expect the market to provide those who pay more to get more speed.
And those who pay less will get less.
I favor this.

This inference indicates misreading my posts.

I just did.

So @tytlyf was correct. You support throttling. Sorry, man!

 

[Shad]

A casualty of the repeal of net neutrality -- firefighters.

Verizon Throttled Firefighters’ Data As Mendocino Wildfire Burned

You're going to see this sort of thing become common place now.

What is sad in all of this is when I went over my limit my ISP called me offering a new package within days, before the billing cycle for the month.

 

[Revoltingest]

So @tytlyf was correct. You support throttling. Sorry, man!

He's still misleading because it's not about "throttling" being the goal.
It's about allowing the market to allocate the resource, which might
or might involve different speeds for different plans.
It's analogous to saying I "support baby murder" instead of saying
I'm "pro-choice". The distinction matters to me, if not to anyone else.

 

[tytlyf]

Your little triumvirate makes mischievous claims about my prior
prognostications, but cannot support them with any actual quotes.
Still, you soldier on unencumbered by lack of evidence, & even
undeterred by my notification of your error.

Instead of arguing against the strawman of an invented claim, why not
just ask where I stand? That would be the polite & careful thing to do.

Ah, ok, I'll play. Want me to show you your posts concerning the topic in the past?

 

[Revoltingest]

Want me to show you your posts concerning the topic in the past?

Do your own searching.

 

[tytlyf]

Do your own searching.

You're against Net Neutrality, that is known. You claimed it's the corporate right to throttle people and charge people more.