Author Topic: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On  (Read 14406 times)

Trim, catastrophe and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13452
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2014, 02:23:09 PM »
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.

If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.
:adios:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2014, 02:29:45 PM »
If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.

That's probably true.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2014, 02:30:22 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2014, 02:32:02 PM »
Next question: How is this any different from the argument liberals make in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" to regulate content of speech on the radio because "there are a limited number of frequencies and the radio infrastructure was built with tax dollars"?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline EMAWican

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • 'Murica
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2014, 02:33:20 PM »
I equate this to the phasing out of "free" unlimited data with cell phone companies.  The same amount of data costs 25-30% more now and the consumer sees no more benefit.  It starts with one company making bank and then all the competitors follow suit.  And when you consider the billions of tax payer money that has been spent on the telecommunications infrastructure, it isn't right.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13452
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2014, 02:35:23 PM »
If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.

That's probably true.
For what it's worth, I would likely agree with you in a market that wasn't so limited.  If there were 50 ISPs in every location, the market would probably iron out any abuses, but that isn't the case here.
:adios:

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2014, 02:36:52 PM »
Next question: How is this any different from the argument liberals make in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" to regulate content of speech on the radio because "there are a limited number of frequencies and the radio infrastructure was built with tax dollars"?

How are apples any different from oranges?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2014, 02:38:09 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2014, 02:40:18 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8395
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2014, 02:44:26 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.

Again, see my point re Fairness Doctrine. It is quite often the studiously immoral or amoral (liberals, fascists, liberal fascists) who want to stifle dissenting speech.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27695
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2014, 02:47:41 PM »
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.

Again, see my point re Fairness Doctrine. It is quite often the studiously immoral or amoral (liberals, fascists, liberal fascists) who want to stifle dissenting speech.

Websites don't need licenses from any federal agency. They really aren't like radio stations in any way. Fairness doctrine was introduced in 1949 and hasn't been a thing for about 30 years now.

Online libliblibliblibliblib

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 42870
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2014, 03:05:45 PM »
Very shocked that ksuw is on the side of corporations price gouging instead of consumer rights
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

I think.you.are deep down.a.trans cowboy gravy eater.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17889
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2014, 03:18:14 PM »
Rights?  Right.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 62014
  • SP? all of that--->
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2014, 03:34:50 PM »
Quote
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants

Offline slucat

  • GIRL ALERT, GIRL ALERT
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 706
  • This SLU, not the city
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2014, 03:59:00 PM »
Quote
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants

Sad (but true). Really.

Online Tobias

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27750
  • hypoclique lieutenant
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2014, 04:00:47 PM »
i hope we can get some bi-partisan agreement on this issue too, steve dave

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34403
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2014, 04:26:33 PM »
like, we all joke about how barry hussein obama can come in on any arbitrary side of an issue and we would instantly have the extreme right come out on the other side but this was something I thought that may not be the case for. yet here we are.

Ted Cruze just completely threw that back in your face!

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34403
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #67 on: November 10, 2014, 04:32:33 PM »
re: fairness doctrine.

The internet is expanding like crazy.  They are creating so many new .abc domains that there is no need to worry about how many right websites vs left websites there are.  frequency is confining in the fact that you can only split it so far before the signals overlap to the avg radio consumer.  Internet is basically the opposite.

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2014, 05:37:57 PM »
re: fairness doctrine.

The internet is expanding like crazy.  They are creating so many new .abc domains that there is no need to worry about how many right websites vs left websites there are.  frequency is confining in the fact that you can only split it so far before the signals overlap to the avg radio consumer.  Internet is basically the opposite.

It's also beside the point.  The fairness doctrine didn't start as a government effort to prevent corporate monopolies from rough ridin' over helpless consumers.  That's what this is.  I know you get it.  K-S-U-Shitbrain! on the other hand is too busy supporting the team to pull his head out of his ass. 
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #69 on: November 10, 2014, 05:39:11 PM »
Very shocked that ksuw is on the side of corporations price gouging instead of consumer rights

He's pro-monopoly. 
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2014, 05:47:50 PM »
Quote from: John Sherman(pub)
If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15657
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2014, 06:42:34 PM »
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online libliblibliblibliblib

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 42870
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

I think.you.are deep down.a.trans cowboy gravy eater.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8106
  • Not a huge gin guy...
    • View Profile
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #73 on: November 10, 2014, 07:06:18 PM »
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932

Yes, the omnipotent trial lawyers lobby :lol: :lol: :lol:


Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15657
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
« Reply #74 on: November 10, 2014, 07:57:31 PM »
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932

Yes, the omnipotent trial lawyers lobby :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's one of the most powerful lobbies in DC, numbnuts. It's been rebranded as the association for justice or some other misnomer.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd