Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

TFian said:
Earth is a finite place.



That is certainly your right, unless you're contractually obligated.



As reliable as the market makes it.
Click to expand...
How reliable is this network, whan at any time any single person out of the hundreds of thousands owners of the properties your lines run through could decide they no longer want the cable on their land, and cut it out? Now tens of thousands of other people are no longer connected to the internet. Wash, rinse, repeat for roads (libertards are big on private roads), gas lines, electric lines, cable lines... Libertopia would be an economic basket place because infrastructure would be both shoddy and phenomenally expensive.
 
Pulling your leg?

Upchurch said:
I hope so.
Click to expand...

You sir are getting BOTH legs pulled. HARD.

What are the decent arguments against regulation for content tiering (with the understanding that the regulation would prevent content tiering)?
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of having to pay more for certain content such as Youtube verses Walmart.com. That is just my wallet's personal opinion.

Arguments for content tiering are from an ISP's point of view: Youtube's streaming video eats bandwidth like a cow eats your lawn. Walmart.com doesn't eat so much bandwidth, especially if your ISP blocks the flash or other bling on the bottom tier. Middle tiers may allow flash or bling on buying sites. That's capitalism for you. :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
How reliable is this network, whan at any time any single person out of the hundreds of thousands owners of the properties your lines run through could decide they no longer want the cable on their land, and cut it out? Now tens of thousands of other people are no longer connected to the internet. Wash, rinse, repeat for roads (libertards are big on private roads), gas lines, electric lines, cable lines... Libertopia would be an economic basket place because infrastructure would be both shoddy and phenomenally expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are good free market solutions to the problems you detailed.
 
Newtons Bit said:
We tried it in the 19th century. It resulted in something called "robber barons". Perhaps you should look it up.
Click to expand...

I have. I agree with Ayn Rand's assessment, they're some of the greatest humanitarians mankind has known.
 
dudalb said:
Yeah, exploting child labor was a real high water mark in Humanitarianism.
Click to expand...

So what? One of the greatest men who ever lived, Andrew Carnegie, employed child labor. Also, allowing children to work voluntarily let's them become savors much earlier in their life, leading to wise financial habits.
 
Last edited:
Nosi said:
Pulling your leg?



You sir are getting BOTH legs pulled. HARD.



I don't like the idea of having to pay more for certain content such as Youtube verses Walmart.com. That is just my wallet's personal opinion.

Arguments for content tiering are from an ISP's point of view: Youtube's streaming video eats bandwidth like a cow eats your lawn. Walmart.com doesn't eat so much bandwidth, especially if your ISP blocks the flash or other bling on the bottom tier. Middle tiers may allow flash or bling on buying sites. That's capitalism for you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The content tiering that you are referring to is legal under the current net neutrality rules. ISP's must treat all similar traffic the same: if an ISP restricts access to video, it must do so to all video traffic, not just the video traffic of its competitors.
 
TFian said:
So what? One of the greatest men who ever lived, Andrew Carnegie, employed child labor. Also, allowing children to work voluntarily let's them become savors much earlier in their life, leading to wise financial habits.
Click to expand...

If the Rich do it, it has to be good and nobel.
This is proof of a theory I have that, despite her protests to the contrary, Ayn Rand philisophy is basically the Nietzschian Super Man Beyond Good and Evil theory dressed up in Aristolain Costume.
You apparently have no idea of what the term Humanitarian means.
What next? The Rand argument that compassion is basically evil?
 
TFian said:
We're a republic, not a democracy.

Also, most of the idiots who took the "Network neutrality" pledge lost their elections, so apparently democracy isn't on your side.

Who is John Galt?
Click to expand...

So, in addition to Net Neutrality, political science is another thing you're having trouble understanding.

Pro tip - We're a liberal democracy, a representative democracy, a democratic republic and, in states where referenda are allowed, a direct democracy.
 
MaverickPLM said:
I wasn't aware everything on the internet was pre-screened by the government. I thought they just enforced infringements on an individual's rights. Must be fun to be the government screeners who have domain over 4chan.
Click to expand...


:dl:
 
WildCat said:
No, it's not. We can always build more bandwidth.


The different ISP has to use the same lines. Now maybe you're starting to understand the issue?
Click to expand...

WildCat is right. Bandwidth is not a limited resource, or at least not limited for long. My Internet speed is increasing every year. Laying down and creating fiber for hungry modems of business/personal PC's is a job creator for Americans. Fiber is turning up in the most interesting of places including disused tunnels of every stripe, it is laid out in the most interesting of methods including robots and rats.
 
Upchurch said:
Network neutrality says that an ISP can't treat video coming from hulu.com differently than Netflix.com. It must be source and type agnostic. What is so horrible about that?
Click to expand...
This contradicts what you claimed it was in post 103 (where you said it was regulation to compel cable owners to allow other ISPs to use the cables), and it is a softening of what you said it was in post 47 (where you thought NN regulated against content tiering):
Upchurch said:
Francesca R said:
But there are decent arguments against regulation for content tiering as well as for.
Click to expand...
What are the decent arguments against regulation for content tiering (with the understanding that the regulation would prevent content tiering)?
Click to expand...

So I think your words: "Those who oppose network neutrality really don't understand what it is about." should be applied to yourself as a proponent of network neutrality laws. Especially as you appear to have tacitly admitted that you only want these laws to supposedly "correct" for bad competition policy in your telco sector (post 74). Perhaps you can confirm this.

Now, what decent argument do you have for what you're proposing? And please clarify it is you're proposing because your exposition of it is by now rather muddled.

Broadband traffic is just as homogeneous as gas, say air for example.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Then you don't need an ISP at all do you? You can make a file of 1s and 0s and just rearrange it how you like.
 
Nosi said:
Bandwidth is not a limited resource, or at least not limited for long.
Click to expand...
So you confirm that its limited now.

My Internet speed is increasing every year.
Click to expand...
So you confirm it isn't infinite speed.

Laying down and creating fiber for hungry modems of business/personal PC's is a job creator for Americans.
Click to expand...
So you confirm that there is unsatiated demand for data carriage.

Looks like everything you wrote agrees that bandwidth certainly is a limited resource. (Hint: if it wasn't, it would be free, and no network neutrality debate would even exist).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom