FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away.say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
When did I say Title II needs to go away?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
You're right, I'm not.
That's why I waited forever to put anything into this thread, because I knew it would be interpreted as an argument. [insert the samples that others will list that support the case for Eddie making an argument] -
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
It's not about government control, it's specifically and uniquely about how a packet is treated on a network, or how all packets should be treated the same.
We may have to agree to disagree about government control. Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
I understand that it's about how a packet is treated as it travels over various networks. My point of view is that there is the potential for manipulation (to use Scott's word from an earlier comment) is going to be there, either from ISPs or from [insert regulator here]. Also, I'm not arguing that the Title II classification needs to go away. I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
say what? you think Title II needs to go away? why do you think that?
He's not arguing that. I had to read it twice as well.
odd phrasing. I guess he's just 'not arguing'
You're right, I'm not.
That's why I waited forever to put anything into this thread, because I knew it would be interpreted as an argument. [insert the samples that others will list that support the case for Eddie making an argument] -
God damn it. Clicked the wrong thing. /sigh
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
At twice the price
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Any regulation of any kind is some form of control--not a positive or negative thing, it simply "is."
Net Neutrality isn't a regulation. Title II is. Net Neutrality isn't about control at all. It's an idea that packets will be treated equally.
I agree with that. But isn't the issue of today the vote that the FCC is making about a regulation?
It's about the regulation of the providers of service. Who can now choose to do whatever they want with the service you are buying from them.
IE they can reduce your ability to get access to NetFlix (imagine having to wait for over 3 hours to load a movie). You'd just stop using netflix and maybe even start using a service that they offer that competes with Netflix.
The potential, obviously potential, threat this has on US innovation is astronomical.
-
@eddiejennings said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm just not convinced the world is about to end as most of my news sources are leading me to believe.
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
Before NN went into affect, comcast throttled users that were downloading torrents - why? because they were torrents, that's all.
As I said - in a true free market situation, where anyone could provide internet access to anyone, this wouldn't be a problem, there would be enough of a desire to have unthrottled internet access that a new company could come and fill the need. But we simply don't have this option. As much because of exclusive contracts as for gov't subsidies.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
And it will be slow. I think @DustinB3403 mentioned the boiled frog analogy. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts and there will be no relief from a consumer advocacy group (which is what the FCC was originally intended to be).
-
@dashrender Or government corruption.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
And it will be slow. I think @DustinB3403 mentioned the boiled frog analogy. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts and there will be no relief from a consumer advocacy group (which is what the FCC was originally intended to be).
Scott mentioned it, but it's exactly what will happen.
You won't think anything about having to pay an extra $50 per month to be able to watch Youtube or whatever service comes out in the future.
To think about this differently, imagine if hospitals had to pay for faster internet service so a specialist surgeon in France can perform a remote operation on a patient in Canada.
They do this today, but aren't charged extra for the bandwidth speeds required for this kind of service.
Now an ISP could force the hospital (and subsequently your health insurance) more for unfettered internet speeds across their network. So your 1Gbe internet connection is actually 1 Gbe end to end.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
And it will be slow. I think @DustinB3403 mentioned the boiled frog analogy. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts and there will be no relief from a consumer advocacy group (which is what the FCC was originally intended to be).
Scott mentioned it, but it's exactly what will happen.
You won't think anything about having to pay an extra $50 per month to be able to watch Youtube or whatever service comes out in the future.
To think about this differently, imagine if hospitals had to pay for faster internet service so a specialist surgeon in France can perform a remote operation on a patient in Canada.
They do this today, but aren't charged extra for the bandwidth speeds required for this kind of service.
Now an ISP could force the hospital (and subsequently your health insurance) more for unfettered internet speeds across their network. So your 1Gbe internet connection is actually 1 Gbe end to end.
Or could charge more depending on who you are!
-
Well
That was nice for awhile
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
And it will be slow. I think @DustinB3403 mentioned the boiled frog analogy. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts and there will be no relief from a consumer advocacy group (which is what the FCC was originally intended to be).
Scott mentioned it, but it's exactly what will happen.
You won't think anything about having to pay an extra $50 per month to be able to watch Youtube or whatever service comes out in the future.
To think about this differently, imagine if hospitals had to pay for faster internet service so a specialist surgeon in France can perform a remote operation on a patient in Canada.
They do this today, but aren't charged extra for the bandwidth speeds required for this kind of service.
Now an ISP could force the hospital (and subsequently your health insurance) more for unfettered internet speeds across their network. So your 1Gbe internet connection is actually 1 Gbe end to end.
Or could charge more depending on who you are!
Exactly service providers will get charged through the nose to be able to provide service at any decent internet speeds across a competitors network.
IE: No more apple pay on samsung phones etc. . . (as a bad example)
-
State attorney general's from across the nation are suing the FCC to reinstate NN
