Save Net Neutrality
Out of context: Reply #7
- Started
- Last post
- 17 Responses
- deathboy-6
There are a lot of hypotheticals for or against. Fact is no one knows really how markets will behave.
But from the perspective of what has happened so far is a small number of companies have consolidated so much power and data on people by offering free services. If there was more of a supply and demand control on the internet with growth and consumption this might not have happened and people probably be less likely to be the products of these few companies.
I think it would be culturally good to let markets work, and let ISPs charge facebook extra and let facebook pass those costs on to the users of their services. How many people might quit facebook if they had to pay? Would sock puppets bot shit drop? If netflix cost goes up so be it, maybe its not worth the money to binge all day on streaming. It might very well be good to let markets regulate the type, quality, quantity of info.
And it's good for consumers. When a consumer bears a cost they must decide based on a value of worth. When you get it all for free, and an overabundance, people begin to lose a sense of value and worth. They just consume like a hog with slop for the slaughter.
So far what have we done with a neutral net except indulge ourselves in the most trivial shit? So much we cant take a shit without indulging ourselves on phones. A costlier internet might be the best thing to protect people from themselves. From turning into consumer whores and protecting them from shitty "news". 12 years ago the world seemed more connected and grounded, now it feels like elementary school. That can't be progress.
I think simply for that i'm against it, however as the Ajit mentions I am mostly concerned with more competition of providers. There would need a plan so there was more than one highspeed access option. With title II I can't see any chance of more providers. And just seeing that title II is so old and looking at the problems of utility companies with the emergence of alternative energies and the troubles that's creating, i'd be speculative of the potential damage for innovation amd growth. Red tape could easily set things back. Rather open it and build a structure around it as it progresses.
- it's not really about consumers bearing the cost directly, thoughmonospaced
- Here is a fact...Corporations will make billions of dollars in additional profits without net neutrality. They already spent 750m lobbying against it.utopian
- maintain the status quomoldero
- Another fact...Corporations run America!utopian
- look i can do facts too. fact net neutrality helps corporations run america. the problem is we are not identifying which corporations and why.deathboy
- hell for all we know net neutrality helped get trump elected. 12 yrs ago would u think there was a chance in hell? would nyt push unverified piss film news.deathboy
- its hard to argue that our excesses of unlimited access has done much good, besides lobotize us with entertainment and helped relieve us of privacydeathboy
- and moldero is status quo bad or good on this? which is the status quo would u think?deathboy
- why not open it up and choose to regulate it on necessity instead of tie it up with almost a century old style of law? which is more reasonable?deathboy
- these regulations are to regulate us, not them.moldero
- huh?deathboy
- Net neutrality preserves competition. The idea that a new platform or service could be throttled because they can't pay like a monopoly corp is anti competitivemonospaced
- It makes the rich ones in control and puts any small guy, like a small business owner or startup, at a significant and obvious disadvantage.monospaced
- The ONLY people that benefit from net neutrality disappearing are those who sell bandwidth to services. Everyone else suffers. Including you.monospaced
- think deathboymoldero
- the GOP & the trump admin has always been about less regulations for the rich and more for the rest of us.moldero
- no net neutrality doesn't preserve competition at all. look at title II in energy sector. its protectionism. moldero u never answered the question.deathboy
- the sensible thing is start fresh and address problems, instead of tie it down with old rulesdeathboy
- I have no idea if id suffer without net neutrality. no one does. I might benefit in cheaper service. the people lobbying against it probably will see adeathboy
- reduction in profits. People might have to pay for services on top of internet. Maybe that is it. the fear that its unknown what will happen. freedom is scarydeathboy
- killing NN ensures the current status quo, them being in charge and eliminating future competition, ALSO there will be nothing to stop them from making theirmoldero
- own version of Netflix, then chocking the pipe on Netflix itself, and that's just netflixmoldero
- its a no brainer if ensuring the current status quo is good or bad, I run multiple ecom sites, killing NN fucks me and everyone else like memoldero
- but hey, corporations give us jobs right? like walmart! so much jobs! (with so little pay that they still need government assistance) wake up manmoldero
- It should also be pointed out that ATT/Verizon/etc., have all gobbled up content providers, so we'll soon be forced to use their services or pay extraformed
- It's like being forced to deal with stupid bloat wear on our phones, but a 10000x worse. DB - you are arguing the opposite of what is reality.formed
- You are arguing for LESS freedom and more control by a few corporations. But I guess that's what the GOP stand for overall - less personal freedom, more costformed
- of course it's anti-competitive ... it puts the little guy, the small business, the startup in an unfair situation when it comes to bandwidth ...monospaced
- ... and it literally gives an ISP permission to discriminate with their bandwidth too. The argument against this is nonexistent.monospaced
- to even defend it is to fight against what the internet stands for, which is an open service where everyone is on equal footingmonospaced
- Imagine you start a business that relies on good bandwidth, but you fail because you can't afford it, while a major corp can. Net neutrality protects against thmonospaced
- It means an ISP can make a business deal in private, and could make bandwidth part of that deal, and everyone else is out, including the customermonospaced
- but all those are unlikely possibilities. akin to every type of protectionism racquet ever in any field. historically they have all been proven wrongdeathboy
- u think the tech companies lobbying against do it for us or there shareholders and control? I use to think net neutrality was good too, had an itch that itdeathboy
- didnt quite sit right though and defied other beliefs. but seeing it in action the last 12 years or so Id say I see now why i was wrongdeathboy
- funny how societal errors are. they are so easy to see but people choose not to see themdeathboy
- id really look into title II, and gov ability to regulate vs emerging technology. u will see a history of failuredeathboy
- and moldero. I see keeping NN as the current status quo. Cant be more status quo than adopting regulation from 1930s (i know 90s tweaks) but that is status quodeathboy
- u see status quo as being competition and fair markets as wrong.. your status quo is anti competition and cronyismdeathboy
- and mono your hypo about bandwidth is completely incorrect with markets. if peopel needed X amount of bandwidth but couldnt afford provider A there is adeathboy
- huge market for provider B to to find a way to provide cost effective bandwidth. supply and demand is quite thing. poor hypos quite anotherdeathboy
- i think you guys might just not have given this that much thought. instead your strings being pulled by hollow threats and false realitiesdeathboy
- remember if you don't say grace u will go to hell and whatever crap ppl get sold. seriously we need more hemingway and bullshit detectorsdeathboy
- we will pray for youmoldero
- thx moldero but i see no pointdeathboy
- id prefer you to really examine what u think u know, and really test the hypos u bought in to regardless of how they may benefit you. protectionism is sillydeathboy
- may god have mercy on your soul!moldero
- http://68.media.tumb…deathboy
- plus nathan gray making me feel the whole side of satanismdeathboy
- not only are my proposed issues very likely, they're already in practice, and they were the impetus behind fighting for net neutrality, which is already here!monospaced
- the whole idea that this won't happen is ridiculous: the trump admin is trying to abolish the protections which prevent corps from pulling this shitmonospaced
- go back and read ... this isn't a consumer issue as much as it is a business, corporate and monopoly issue when it comes to providing bandwidthmonospaced
- I actually recommend that YOU go look into this and learn that it's already happening and has happened, and that net neutrality is good in every waymonospaced
- mono I have looked. Tell me which case u are thinking of and why that is a problem. im fully speculative of a choice of ISP, but that is old lawdeathboy
- gov helped build those monopolies. Like i said i was a supporter of net neutrality. I changed my mind based on evidence in the last decadedeathboy
- I get it. its an easy cause to champion and the fear makes sense at first glance. but it has yet to manifest itself fully. bc there is no market for that.deathboy
- tell me mono is it not simply protectionism for large corporations? might be a starting point if you don't agree that has to be addressed firstdeathboy