Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

lomiller said:
I didn't miss it, I'm saying it's a strawman to debate Net Neutrality vs other measures effectiveness in addressing last mile competition when no one has argued Net Neutrality addressees this at all.
Click to expand...
Yes you have quite definitely missed the entire discussion. This is most obvious from your throwing around the "strawman" canard.

You think I am criticising NN for not addressing ISP competition because somebody has said it does. I am criticising it because it is plain bad policy to fail to address competition and to then seek to deal with rent seeking borne of monopolism via stitching up sub-optimal rules as part of a game of regulatory whack-a-mole.

The rest of your posts spring from you being in the wrong ball park

I am not minded to re-hash the whole thing all over again for you (particularly given your denial of two sided markets). It has reached a reasonable point of agreement with a number of NN enthusiasts who actually understood the debate already.
 
Last edited:
LorenzoValla said:
Now you are outright misrepresenting what I have been saying all along. I support competition and you claim that is supporting a monopoly. You are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should go back and reread the post that you said you DIDN'T read. "tl;dr, but I will respond anyway" is unreasonable.
 
Francesca R said:
Some advocates of NN say it is necessary because opening up lines to competition is a no-go area because of seizure of private assets (wrong), and other advocates of NN suggest that it could actually be implemented under threat of seizing private assets (also wrong).

Total red herring.
Click to expand...

You keep using that word. I don;t think it means what you think it means. I also don;t think you understand the argument that I have been making.

I am not claiming it is asset seizures, "COMMUNISM!!" or "SOCIALISM OMGWTFBBQSAUCE!!"

I am telling you the arguments that CONSERVATIVES would be throwing around like so much candy:

"ASSET SEIZURES, COMUNISM, SOCIALISM!! OMGWTFBBQSAUCE!!!"

Rather than sit here and keep saying over and over that "some people" do not understand how LLU could be implemented, I would have to say that "some people" do not understand the current political environment of the United States.

I am telling you, and for about the 8th time now, we have this large television network called "Fox News." Ever hear of it? Ever see what garbage they spew out? Ever see their ratings, and the politicians that run on the same garbage as Fox News and actually somehow manage to get themselves elected? Problem is, Obama is a lame duck. He CAN'T do anything more drastic than NN! Sure, the Democrats have an excellent chance of taking over both houses of Congress, and the White House in '16. But we cannot afford to put all of our eggs in that basket!

I don't expect you to know the political environment of the US, as you are from the UK. But you should at least listen to what someone says for once in your life.

Yes. It would most assuredly be considered taking assets from a company and redistributing it. It would be considered "socialism" and "communism," (by people who seem to think that both words are interchangeable.)
 
lomiller said:
This makes no sense. How does net Neutrality prevent ISP from billing certain subscriber? All it does is specify that you can’t bill someone for a certain connection speed and then turn around and selectively limit their packages from achieving those performance levels unless they go to some preferred service.
Click to expand...

Didn;t you know? We have to keep using big-sounding words, and confusing phrases such as "two-sided markets!"

NN is simple. I have explained it several times, and you have just now explained it. Why everyone needs to make it into a highly complex issue, is beyond me.

blutoski said:
I think you may have missed Francesca R 's thesis that she introduced in previous posts: she's submitting the hypothesis that NN would not be at risk in the first place if there was more competition between ISPs, which would make them more consumer-responsive.

She's not conflating the two so much as saying solving competition would make NN regulation unnecessary because sufficiently competitive ISPs would act that way voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I went down that avenue with Francesca. She seems to think that we can just up and simply say: "We are going to do LLU now. So Comcast must split their infrastructure properties and form a new company that cannot discriminate between ISPs for access to those lines."

Whenever I point out that implementing LLU is neither going to be easy, cheap, nor fast, she immediately says:

"That's a red herring! You don't understand LLU!"

All the while missing the point, of course, that the political willpower for such a large move just doesn't exist currently in this nation. (Congress approval rating is at an alltime low. It is controlled by Teabag ultra-Jesus-loving corporate master conservatives who have been bashing on Obama for pretty much everything under the sun, including stuff that happened before he was even born!)

NN is simple: Keep ISPs from double-charging for services already bought and paid for by various consumers! Why should a business pay another ISP, when they are already paying their own ISP to host their website? Why should a business have to pay for a service that a customer already pays for, so that customer can access their website at the agreed-upon speed on the customer's contract for said service?

If I pay for 1.05 MB/s second, I expect 1.05 MB/s! I don;t expect a business to pay Comcast, or else Comcast will purposely restrict my speed to something lower than I already paid for! And the website I desire to visit, already pays THEIR OWN ISP to host their website!

That's it. That;s all NN is. Considering that all conservatives keep whining about are: "Small businesses get the shaft!" they should be all for NN. It is, in effect, a rather bipartisan issue.
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
Then perhaps you should go back and reread the post that you said you DIDN'T read. "tl;dr, but I will respond anyway" is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
When you begin a post with an entirely unreasonable proposition, I simply don't read the entire thing because it's a waste of timing trying to reason with an unreasonable person.

Don't be unreasonable if you want your posts to be read and responded to reasonably...
 
LorenzoValla said:
When you begin a post with an entirely unreasonable proposition, I simply don't read the entire thing because it's a waste of timing trying to reason with an unreasonable person.

Don't be unreasonable if you want your posts to be read and responded to reasonably...
Click to expand...

I am going to direct your attention back to post number 302. Re pond to it, or do not respond to it. The excuse that it is "unreasonable" in place of "tl;dr" doesn't make it so just because you did not like the first two sentences that was written, got lazy, quit reading, and made all sorts of assumptions of what the rest of the post said.

After you have completely read through that post, then looked at your very first response to post number 302; think about why I may have become quite annoyed with your response.
 
Nihilianth said:
I am going to direct your attention back to post number 302. Re pond to it, or do not respond to it. The excuse that it is "unreasonable" in place of "tl;dr" doesn't make it so just because you did not like the first two sentences that was written, got lazy, quit reading, and made all sorts of assumptions of what the rest of the post said.

After you have completely read through that post, then looked at your very first response to post number 302; think about why I may have become quite annoyed with your response.
Click to expand...
It was a matter of policy, not laziness.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not even. You've called these net neutrality laws government take-over, and they are far from that.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality laws are far from that, yes. But government is as government does. Lumping it in with phone (and water and natural gas?) well, eventually it will proceed down that road, ending up with de facto monopolies in most localities, with the profit dynamic shifting to lobbiests sucking on Congress, with Congress becoming the customer, rather than you.

I would love to be wrong, and that it be limited to just net neutrality, but I have no confidence based on history. Mandates for speed increases, accompanied by surcharges, and finally full regulation are what I expect, with Cisco and other backbone hardware creators seeing demand for new product dry up, as government attempts to regulate costs of same.

Please, please show me why I can be confident I am wrong. There has to be a way to achieve net neutrality (I often suggest tightening laws on truth in contracting, outlawing charging YouTube or Netflix without calling that out in your contract with the cable company, that your money does not, in fact, cover the costs of Netflix and YouTube watching at their promised speeds.) without opening this Pandora's box.
 
Last edited:
I heart The Economist. I haven't seen much opinion from it about net neutrality to date. Maybe it is the new editor's doing.

Wherever possible, however, [regulators] should leave the market to sort things out. The best way to do this is to encourage vigorous competition in all parts of the internet, particularly between broadband providers, so that none can become a bottleneck and exploit that position. That, alas, happens all too often, particularly in America, where 75% of households have no choice of provider for fast internet access. Get rid of those monopolies and there would be much less need to worry about the mind-numbing intricacies of network neutrality.
Click to expand...
 
I'm disappointed in the Economist article, it simply states the obvious and proposes no mechanism for actually breaking the broadband monopolies in the USA. I suspect that's because they know there is no method to break the monopolies that would pass the House and Senate. AFAIK nobody with any influence has even made a proposal for breaking the monopolies.
 
Encouraging competition should not eliminate two sided markets. It should mean that the platform owner of one can't price gouge / rent-seek from them. Which in turn should mean that they only prevail if they give both sides combined a better deal.

ETA--"Adblock Plus" is freeware right? So it is, I think, a one sided market anyway? I don't know / perhaps you can elaborate.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Encouraging competition should not eliminate two sided markets. It should mean that the platform owner of one can't price gouge / rent-seek from them. Which in turn should mean that they only prevail if they give both sides combined a better deal.

ETA--"Adblock Plus" is freeware right? So it is, I think, a one sided market anyway? I don't know / perhaps you can elaborate.
Click to expand...

It is, yes. It's one of many with similar 'paid whitelist' offers. It's just that this one was one of the last and one of the most popular in its market, and is likely moving into the standard business model. That's what makes it disappointing.

And it's an old approach: "first one's free". Almost twenty years ago, I had a client who was the software developer who created NetNanny. His two sided market roadmap was also pretty clear: free for awhile to build up the userbase. Then a paid subscription to bypass from select websites; 2nd tier paid subscription from users to bypass the select websites.
 
Huge Win for the Open Internet! FCC Officially Embraces Title II
in a few weeks the FCC will vote on new rules that start with one crucial step: reversing the FCC’s 2002 decision to treat broadband as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.”
Click to expand...
Posted by EFF in response to FCC Chairman Wheeler's Op-Ed in Wired.
The Mozilla Foundation's reaction, Victory for Net Neutrality — Let’s Take It Across The Finish Line.

Looks like after the nearly 13 year diversion we're headed back to the way it was when the internet first took off.
 
Some of us have doubts the FCC will be able to keep its hands off other regulatory authorizations embedded in Title II in the long run. That they will self-limit actually has a name, "forbearance".

Sadly, the observation they will cave eventually and regulate other, non-neutrality things like rates and what goes where also has a name: "all of human history".

There's a new bill that will explicitely grant the FCC net neutrality power but leave out all other Title II authorizations.
 
Beerina said:
Sadly, the observation they will cave eventually and regulate other, non-neutrality things like rates and what goes where also has a name: "all of human history".
Click to expand...

Well...

Wheeler staff said:
"Regarding rate regulation, mobile voice services have been classified under similar Title II rules for 21 years, including a requirement by Congress that the FCC apply sections 201 and 202 to that service," the spokesperson said. "And the FCC has never used that authority to question prices in that sector. The Chairman’s Open Internet proposal follows this model."
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/republicans-launch-attack-on-fccs-net-neutrality-plan/

Some interested parties want to make a monster out of net neutrality, but I just don't see it.
 
eerok said:
Well...



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/republicans-launch-attack-on-fccs-net-neutrality-plan/

Some interested parties want to make a monster out of net neutrality, but I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

Some people don't see how the guiding hand of the government ever makes any process more efficient, cheaper, and all around better for the consumer. The government is best, IMO, when it protects opportunity for all rather than deciding who should do what and when.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom