Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by LasVegas View Post
    It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.
    I don't think they really understood the issue. If they did, that 80% would be more like 97% (with a few people voting for Grayson no matter what).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by BLPOG View Post
    I'd have to disagree. That is not to say that there are not simple reasons that could be sufficient to decide the issue despite other complex components, but based on the rest of your comment, I don't think you are aware of those complexities.

    I've spent some time thinking and I'm not really sure of a way to respond that doesn't come off poorly, as either overly combative or condescending. That's why I don't think threads like this one should normally exist on DBR; despite being a community that stands significantly to the right on the distributions for intelligence, politeness, and good faith discussions, there are some factors that are so difficult to overcome in political discourse that even the best attempts are going to fall short and cause problems, and those with will bleed into our other threads. It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.

    I've exhausted what I can say without breaking rules or causing problems in this thread. I just hope that people can try to understand that massive destruction of information is antithetical to human prosperity.
    I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us.
    I'd like to think that we could describe the issues, and maybe even describe both sides of some issues, without wandering straight into infraction land. Or at least some of us could (meaning probably not me because unless I learn something new, I'm pretty pissed...but reading about the issues might help me learn something new).

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by BLPOG View Post
    Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand? ...
    How to treat Carolina players' complaints about Swahili homework is a conundrum.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I guess I'm not understanding the political component. As stated in the opening post I'm not sure I understand every aspect, I'm new to the concept/argument. But I've been trying to educate myself, and as I wrote a few minutes ago, in this day and age the internet seems to function as a utility. Please feel free to PM me if you feel an open discussion would devolve into infractions for the both of us.
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    But they didn't explain both sides. They gave a summary of the claims of both sides but no way to judge how likely such an outcome was. Do you really think that such a person understands the issues? Furthermore, the argument in favor said nothing about letting Internet development remain free vs letting it be managed and strangled by government regulation.

    Furthermore, here was the final question:

    Q15: So, in conclusion, do you favor or oppose the proposal to give Internet Service Providers the freedom to:
    provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower download speed for other websites
    block access to certain websites
    charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites

    Are you in favor of extra expense, a faster download speed for the elite but slower for you, blocked access to certain sites, additional fees? I don't think that those supporting the FCC's action today would characterize the likely result of their action this way.
    In response to duDog, I will cite swood's response, which I personally feel goes way over the lines of PPB material (not sure if this is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 but it is clearly a violation). It is basically an argument of active government vs. limited government. Those who are against government regulation (i.e. those who feel that we are "strangled by government regulation") generally line up against net neutrality. Those who believe it is the government's place to regulate and be involved in certain areas that might be perceived as the common good (and a big part of the argument here is whether internet access is a common good) are in favor of net neutrality.

    Very generally speaking, and with a number of exceptions, the first group tends to be Republicans, the second group tends to be Democrats. Though interestingly, Mark Cuban, who is very publicly anti-Trump, has come out against net neutrality. And I agree that polls can be somewhat skewed by how the question is phrased. If the question assumes the worst case behavior by corporate America (i.e. "without net neutrality, here are the horrible things that corporate America will do") even though there is no guarantee that these corporate America will actually do these things, net neutrality sounds a lot better. If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.

    Hope this helps. I have a pretty strong opinion on this but tried to stay as down the middle as possible. I hope others can do the same so we can continue this discussion.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by BLPOG View Post
    It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.
    Yup. I miss PPB. A lot.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.
    They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.
    The counter argument is that in many places, high speed internet is not a free market. For example, where I live, just 15 minutes from downtown Raleigh, I have exactly one high speed provider. Spectrum. And they are only about 30-50 mb/s on good days. My second choice is 1.5mb/s line from ATT. Just saying that the free market doesnt' always provide especially when municipalities regulate what can be burried in the ground.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    If the question assumes the worst case behavior by corporate America (i.e. "without net neutrality, here are the horrible things that corporate America will do") even though there is no guarantee that these corporate America will actually do these things, net neutrality sounds a lot better. If one assumes more benevolent behavior by corporate America, net neutrality seems less appealing.
    So what's the rush? Why not wait and see whether all those bad things are actually going to happen, since the claimed drawbacks of net-neutrality (depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation) are a lot more difficult to identify and substantiate than the claimed drawbacks of the alternative. We can always impose these net neutrality regulations if they prove necessary, but why do so before that time?

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    So what's the rush? Why not wait and see whether all those bad things are actually going to happen, since the claimed drawbacks of net-neutrality (depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation) are a lot more difficult to identify and substantiate than the claimed drawbacks of the alternative. We can always impose these net neutrality regulations if they prove necessary, but why do so before that time?
    Like many things, once you give up control to corporations, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

    That is why I see "wait and see" as dangerous.

    And while I don't believe in mob rule, in these polarized and fractured times, if 80% of our country is opposed to something, maybe it should go back to the drawing board.
       

  11. #51
    alteran is offline All-American, Honorable Mention
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Expressed my opinion to the FCC (see end of John Oliver video). That's a first.
    Apparently a lot of us expressed our opinion to the FCC. Whether we knew it or not. Some of us from beyond the grave.

    My spin— if you like your cable TV bills and selection, you’re gonna LOVE the end of net neutrality.
       

  12. #52
    alteran is offline All-American, Honorable Mention
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Then there is Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong which raises an interesting question: if I want to pay more to get my package sent to me by a faster method, why should that be prevented?
    That’s already not prevented.

    The situation is more like you used to have the freedom to have any relationship you wanted between you and content providers on the internet.

    Now, Verizon/ATT/Comcast get veto power to weigh over those relationships. If you’re lucky, they’ll just charge more.
       

  13. #53
    alteran is offline All-American, Honorable Mention
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    They needn't be benevolent. Profit-seeking should be good enough. The idea is that if enough people want it and it isn't available, in a free market somebody will make it available.
    What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.
       

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    The counter argument is that in many places, high speed internet is not a free market. For example, where I live, just 15 minutes from downtown Raleigh, I have exactly one high speed provider. Spectrum. And they are only about 30-50 mb/s on good days. My second choice is 1.5mb/s line from ATT. Just saying that the free market doesnt' always provide especially when municipalities regulate what can be burried in the ground.
    Quote Originally Posted by alteran View Post
    What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.
    As I understand it, the idea undergirding ending "net neutrality" is to make the market much freer.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Like many things, once you give up control to corporations, how in the heck will you ever get it back?
    FIFY: Like just about everything, once you give up control to the government, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

    Like kids, lemonade stands and "public safety." Or governments and gardens. Or bloggers and business licenses. Or the size of your soda. Or something like that.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by alteran View Post
    What is this free market whereof you speak? My broadband choices are: 1) Spectrum, and 2) dropping internet access.
    Exactly. Cox can do whatever they want to me. I have no other options.
       

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    As I understand it, the idea undergirding ending "net neutrality" is to make the market much freer.

    Your mileage may vary.

    FIFY: Like just about everything, once you give up control to the government, how in the heck will you ever get it back?

    Like kids, lemonade stands and "public safety." Or governments and gardens. Or bloggers and business licenses. Or the size of your soda. Or something like that.
    Since it is so critical to you and the current administration to reduce the size of government and its level of involvement, how about we start with the defense budget? That seems to be growing quite a bit:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...212-story.html

    While there continues to be a tremendous amount of waste:

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...teful-spending

    If you want to remove government involvement and spending from our lives, that might be a good place to start...

    And as others have stated, I would be a lot more willing to deregulate internet access if there was actually choice involved. Until that day comes, someone needs to be minding the store.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    This is a fascinating topic but one that abuts too closely to the PPB line, as the last several posts have revealed. People are free to discuss with each other over PM, but the broader board discussion is closed.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •