This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Jaeger
Donator 09
Posts: 2039
  • Link to post
  • Quote

14 Jul 2017, 15:20

@lejend I dont want to copy your post, its to long, and lacking any knowledge. I would appreciate if you break the "paste and copy" thread in to your words. I get that Netflix and Google dont like the prosperity of "pay for play" that would come about if net where not neutral! But guess who would pay those costs in the end? Its you dude if you watch those cites - most of us do! who will be benefiting from it in the end? Take a guess!
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
No Flag lejend
Dragoon
Posts: 317
  • Link to post
  • Quote

14 Jul 2017, 23:43

iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend I dont want to copy your post, its to long, and lacking any knowledge. I would appreciate if you break the "paste and copy" thread in to your words. I get that Netflix and Google dont like the prosperity of "pay for play" that would come about if net where not neutral! But guess who would pay those costs in the end? Its you dude if you watch those cites - most of us do! who will be benefiting from it in the end? Take a guess!


Unfortunately corporations aren't stupid. They spent numerous millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns to win popular support for Net Neutrality. They made you think Internet providers plan to hurt personal consumers and that to fix this, the government must force Internet providers to treat everyone exactly the same. It sounds nice. But once you realize that some consumers, require a million times more resources to accommodate than the average consumer, it makes less sense. Guess who wins in Net Neutrality? Big government, and big business. The only losers are the people and small business.

Think of it this way:


You run a courier service. You charge customers a rate to run documents across town. As often as not, those documents need to be signed and returned — also a part of your service.

One day, one of your customers, a massive operation many times the size of your company, adds something to the outgoing deliveries. But it’s not a letter; it’s a package weighing close to 20 pounds. The next week, you deliver a few files; the massive operation sends out a filing cabinet’s worth, then a storeroom’s worth and then a warehouse’s worth. All this time, you’re using the same delivery vehicle. As the customer’s outgoing load increases in volume, your delivery times begin to lag. The customer immediately complains. Your slower delivery times are causing its customers headaches. You inform the customer that in order for you to prioritize its increasingly large deliveries — which are also increasingly larger compared to its incoming service — you’re going to have to buy a bigger truck. In order to do so, you’ll have to raise its rate. The only alternative is slower delivery times, a consequence of its (ab)usage.

Rather than either agree to contend with slower — but still extremely quick — deliveries, buying its own vehicles and handling its own courier needs, or paying a higher fee, your customer joins with some of your other heavyweight customers and a consortium of exceptionally well-funded and tax-exempt activist groups to lobby the government to declare your courier “common carriage,” set your fee schedule to benefit the customer and threaten you with fines — or worse — if you fail to comply. And their push is effective, because the top regulator for your industry used to be one of their lobbyists.

Six months later, you’re out of business; and the customer ends up signing with UPS, which had the resources to move in and grab up the local business after “courier neutrality” stomped it out of existence — for a much higher rate anyway.


I get that you like Netflix, but I care more about economic freedom and lowering government control over the Internet. So I don't at all care what happens to multi-billion dollar content providers. It does not justify any government interference. They should be able to compete in the free market on a level playing field, and if they have to lobby politicians into giving them special favors over other companies, that is not a free market but simply a corporate takeover of the government, as if America's a banana republic.
“The Party cannot be neutral towards religion... because it stands for science, whereas... all religion is the antithesis of science.” - Stalin

“Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.” - Mao Zedong
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 5753
Location: USA
  • Link to post
  • Quote

15 Jul 2017, 01:07

@lejend lol you're dumb. Everyone already knows that the less the government intervenes in the economy the stronger it will be. However, most of us also know what happened back in the 1800s when there was next to no government intervention. Children and adults worked 12 hours a day in awful conditions and were barely even able to feed themselves.
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
User avatar
Norway oxaloacetate
Skirmisher
Posts: 195
  • Link to post
  • Quote

15 Jul 2017, 04:23

gibson wrote:@lejend lol you're dumb. Everyone already knows that the less the government intervenes in the economy the stronger it will be. However, most of us also know what happened back in the 1800s when there was next to no government intervention. Children and adults worked 12 hours a day in awful conditions and were barely even able to feed themselves.


:hmm:
Chess, Go, toothpicks. In that exact order.
Holy See Dolan
Howdah
Posts: 1649
  • Link to post
  • Quote

15 Jul 2017, 23:10

lejend wrote:
“Net neutrality” isn’t what you think it is. It won’t “level the playing field.” It will introduce government regulation to a nearly flawless model of free-market growth.

How did that flawless model of free-market growth lead to a quasi-monopolistic position that Comcast enjoys? At least at a local level, where consumers often don't have any choice to make between competing ISPs. They are simply dictated certain terms. Take it or leave it.
Did Obama's/the FCC's rules on NN passed in 2010 make any dent in Comcast's monopoly position? None at all.
How did ISPs grow before Obama, when supposedly the free market was unimpeded by any such regulations? They became local monopolies, consumers have become their hostages and ISPs didn't have to bother with investing much in their infrastructure, since there was no competition.
Telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and content providers like Netflix push an almost geometrically higher amount of traffic onto broadband than they accept. As a result, the broadband providers have responded by raising rates and/or lowering speeds (aka “slow-laning”) some content. Essentially, monster telecoms and content providers — Netflix is the most famous example — are demanding first-class seating in a 747 while paying jump seat-in-a-Piper prices.

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand how the internet works. The internet is not like an economic resource, like oil or food. You shouldn't apply supply and demand logic to bandwidth usage. Consumers pay downstream ISPs a fee for access to their networks. Then it's their business which data they download or upload, ISPs shouldn't have any say in whether you use your connection only to watch Netflix or to watch Youtube. And they shouldn't ask extra fees for particular traffic. The end user could use a VPN to access Netflix and if ISPs enforced slow lanes for Netflix traffic, what would this mean for the consumer? Isn't the consumer being scammed? There was no such provision in their contract that a certain type of data/traffic should be a 2nd class citizen on the network.
Netflix also has their own ISP and pays fees for access to their network. Why should they be charged extra fees if their services are more popular than another company's online services? They won by fair competition, the consumers spoke with their wallets and chose to watch certain content to the detriment of another. Why would you apply an extra fee to some content just because consumers demand it more? The internet is not a "push" medium, it's a "pull" medium: some content takes more bandwidth because consumers demand that content more. And consumers and Netflix pay their fees, according to contracts. Why should they pay extra charges because they prefer some content?
When you think about the fact that Americans also have data caps, this thing becomes even more hillarious. Asking someone to pay more for particular content, when they already have a limited connection is adding insult to injury. If you only give them like 1Gb of data per month, you might as well not tell them how to use it.

On top of that, if you introduce extra charges on the content providers which use more bandwidth, what do you think it's going to happen? They will pass those costs to consumers. So who wins? Anyone, but consumers. It would basically be an extra tax on consumption. You're punishing them for consuming, you want them to consume less and so, make the pie smaller for everyone.
they’ve further pushed the idea that the FCC should force the broadband providers to adhere to a federally structured framework of service and fees. Gigantic content delivery networks (CDNs) will now be able to dictate the terms of their agreements to broadband providers upon pain of civil — or even criminal –prosecution

They should just abide by the contracts they signed. On the other hand, if upstream providers were slowing down particular content that would be malicious commercial practice, especially when those upstream providers are in a conflict of interest (their parent company owns other content providers, like Comcast which owns NBC).
Net neutrality as imagined by Obama and Wheeler will not result in faster Internet speeds, an expansion of Internet service provider choices available to home consumers, a lowering of fees or even a reduction of lag times for those of you playing “Call of Duty” online. It will add government oversight where it is neither needed nor wanted. In actuality, by reclassifying the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, net neutrality will add little more to your online experience beyond added fees (federal “common carrier” status always includes federal taxes). Down the road, those taxes fees will indubitably increase, as will government involvement with content. Ultimately, we’ll end up with the Ministry of Information issuing “blogging licenses.” But hey, at least you won’t have to deal with buffering the next time you watch “House of Cards” on Netflix.

Nothing will change until local ISP monopolies are broken up into pieces, so that real competition can take place. Whatever regulation you devise and apply won't change anything, as long as consumers are captive in these monopolistic networks.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 6398
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 00:24

lejend wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote:@lejend I dont want to copy your post, its to long, and lacking any knowledge. I would appreciate if you break the "paste and copy" thread in to your words. I get that Netflix and Google dont like the prosperity of "pay for play" that would come about if net where not neutral! But guess who would pay those costs in the end? Its you dude if you watch those cites - most of us do! who will be benefiting from it in the end? Take a guess!


Unfortunately corporations aren't stupid. They spent numerous millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns to win popular support for Net Neutrality. They made you think Internet providers plan to hurt personal consumers and that to fix this, the government must force Internet providers to treat everyone exactly the same. It sounds nice. But once you realize that some consumers, require a million times more resources to accommodate than the average consumer, it makes less sense. Guess who wins in Net Neutrality? Big government, and big business. The only losers are the people and small business.

Think of it this way:


You run a courier service. You charge customers a rate to run documents across town. As often as not, those documents need to be signed and returned — also a part of your service.

One day, one of your customers, a massive operation many times the size of your company, adds something to the outgoing deliveries. But it’s not a letter; it’s a package weighing close to 20 pounds. The next week, you deliver a few files; the massive operation sends out a filing cabinet’s worth, then a storeroom’s worth and then a warehouse’s worth. All this time, you’re using the same delivery vehicle. As the customer’s outgoing load increases in volume, your delivery times begin to lag. The customer immediately complains. Your slower delivery times are causing its customers headaches. You inform the customer that in order for you to prioritize its increasingly large deliveries — which are also increasingly larger compared to its incoming service — you’re going to have to buy a bigger truck. In order to do so, you’ll have to raise its rate. The only alternative is slower delivery times, a consequence of its (ab)usage.

Rather than either agree to contend with slower — but still extremely quick — deliveries, buying its own vehicles and handling its own courier needs, or paying a higher fee, your customer joins with some of your other heavyweight customers and a consortium of exceptionally well-funded and tax-exempt activist groups to lobby the government to declare your courier “common carriage,” set your fee schedule to benefit the customer and threaten you with fines — or worse — if you fail to comply. And their push is effective, because the top regulator for your industry used to be one of their lobbyists.

Six months later, you’re out of business; and the customer ends up signing with UPS, which had the resources to move in and grab up the local business after “courier neutrality” stomped it out of existence — for a much higher rate anyway.


I get that you like Netflix, but I care more about economic freedom and lowering government control over the Internet. So I don't at all care what happens to multi-billion dollar content providers. It does not justify any government interference. They should be able to compete in the free market on a level playing field, and if they have to lobby politicians into giving them special favors over other companies, that is not a free market but simply a corporate takeover of the government, as if America's a banana republic.


You don't even live in the usa...
I kissed a girl and I liked it
Popped her cherry with my chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my wife don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 5753
Location: USA
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 03:27

He clearly doesnt understand how isps work in the US........
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
User avatar
No Flag lejend
Dragoon
Posts: 317
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 07:10

Childish ad hominens aside, in America, just as in any other country, an ISP sells access to the Internet through their networks. Since this is their private property, they have the right to control what goes through it. If an ISP imposes certain restrictions on how you can use that property, that is certainly their right.

Look at it this way. You want to get to the city (Internet) but have no vehicle (Internet access). Uncle Buck (ISP) offers to make a deal with you. For $20 (subscription fee), you can rent his car (Internet access) but with some conditions: no alcohol (crime), no marijuana (porn), etc. And if you're driving in certain areas (Netflix), you gotta drive at a slower speed (throttling).

This is all within the uncle's rights. If you disagree with these conditions, you are perfectly welcome to find another way of getting to the city.

I think some people simply confuse what they want to happen with what should happen, and have no qualms about forcing other people to entertain their wishes. Moral ideas like respecting the will of your fellow man as equal to yours, are completely foreign concepts to them. They have a wishlist, and will force you to fulfill it. Because social contract, apparently. :roll:
“The Party cannot be neutral towards religion... because it stands for science, whereas... all religion is the antithesis of science.” - Stalin

“Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.” - Mao Zedong
Holy See Dolan
Howdah
Posts: 1649
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 10:17

Nah, when you're providing a service to millions of customers, your infrastructure is not your lawn. You can't tell customers "take it or get off my lawn". You're subject to regulations, especially when you have a quasi-monopoly position.

It's similar to if you have a business which sells food products. If you mess up and people get intoxicated, you're liable to any legal consequences. So you need to be regulated, you can't just put a disclaimer on your products: Take it or leave it, if you get poisoned by my product, it's your problem not mine. Just because you're a monopoly and people can't afford not to buy your products.

Clearly, the problem here is that there's no real competition, so that's what makes you so cocky. If there was real competition, you'd be dropped by clients the next second you'd claim you have a right to do whatever you want with "your property". The infrastructure which provides access to the internet to hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be your monopolistic property.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 6398
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 11:10

lejend wrote:Childish ad hominens aside, in America, just as in any other country, an ISP sells access to the Internet through their networks. Since this is their private property, they have the right to control what goes through it. If an ISP imposes certain restrictions on how you can use that property, that is certainly their right.

Look at it this way. You want to get to the city (Internet) but have no vehicle (Internet access). Uncle Buck (ISP) offers to make a deal with you. For $20 (subscription fee), you can rent his car (Internet access) but with some conditions: no alcohol (crime), no marijuana (porn), etc. And if you're driving in certain areas (Netflix), you gotta drive at a slower speed (throttling).

This is all within the uncle's rights. If you disagree with these conditions, you are perfectly welcome to find another way of getting to the city.

I think some people simply confuse what they want to happen with what should happen, and have no qualms about forcing other people to entertain their wishes. Moral ideas like respecting the will of your fellow man as equal to yours, are completely foreign concepts to them. They have a wishlist, and will force you to fulfill it. Because social contract, apparently. :roll:


What if uncle buck starts to say he doesnt want any people in his car from new york? Or people that look like donald trump? Can he do that, its his property after all.
I kissed a girl and I liked it
Popped her cherry with my chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my wife don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 5753
Location: USA
  • Link to post
  • Quote

17 Jul 2017, 14:57

Dolan wrote:Nah, when you're providing a service to millions of customers, your infrastructure is not your lawn. You can't tell customers "take it or get off my lawn". You're subject to regulations, especially when you have a quasi-monopoly position.

It's similar to if you have a business which sells food products. If you mess up and people get intoxicated, you're liable to any legal consequences. So you need to be regulated, you can't just put a disclaimer on your products: Take it or leave it, if you get poisoned by my product, it's your problem not mine. Just because you're a monopoly and people can't afford not to buy your products.

Clearly, the problem here is that there's no real competition, so that's what makes you so cocky. If there was real competition, you'd be dropped by clients the next second you'd claim you have a right to do whatever you want with "your property". The infrastructure which provides access to the internet to hundreds of millions of people shouldn't be your monopolistic property.
Not only are they providing a service to millions of customers, but they're providing a service that is a necessity. What if your water company or electric company did the same things ISPs here are trying to do? Thankfully the utility boards are all government run and thus don't pull shit like that, and it seems that internet will be moving that way soon as well. In fact, in my city internet is handled by the utility board and we have basically the fastest internet in the world as well as it being very reliable.
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

Forum Info

Return to “Real-life Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dicktator_ and 1 guest