FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
Very simple. The ISP wants and allows all content to take advantage. They don’t want to offer specific content.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
Very simple. The ISP wants and allows all content to take advantage. They don’t want to offer specific content.
Um... no. How do you prove that? You can prove that if all ISPs universally fought NN and made sure that none of their competition had any ability to ever do something like TMobile did.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
Um... so... maybe you didn't notice but the WHOLE COUNTRY is up in arms about this. Not sure how you missed that. I've even had people in countries that don't even border the US ask me today how this was going to affect their freedom of information. No one that isn't corrupt and making money through corruption is okay with this. Of course the vendors are all on board, they are the ones we are afraid of!
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Which is exactly the scenario I thought of when they started taking about title ii for the internet in 2014. I thought it was insane.
Want to be at keyboard for more constructive dialogue and put some quotes from the bill on her for consideration...
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
Um... so... maybe you didn't notice but the WHOLE COUNTRY is up in arms about this. Not sure how you missed that. I've even had people in countries that don't even border the US ask me today how this was going to affect their freedom of information. No one that isn't corrupt and making money through corruption is okay with this. Of course the vendors are all on board, they are the ones we are afraid of!
I’ve definitelt noticed the whole country is up in arms, but have no confidence in the whole countries assessment of laws they’ve never read, that I’ve dealt with on a very regular basis.
But will get more granular tomorrow as I haven’t read anything yet to change my mind
Have also been a Pai fan for years and feel there is just a huge political bias behind everyone’s rage
-
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Have also been a Pai fan for years and feel there is just a huge political bias behind everyone’s rage
Of course there is, because we want our democracy protected and not sold out. Pai is a puppet who sold out our country. Either he did it for money, or he just abjectly hates America.
Or, morel likely, both.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
What users benefited? I don't agree, at all.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
You are proving to me why Pai is bad, but praising him. I don't understand. Verizon was stopped from protecting us, we all lost. Pai wins, he hates us. It shows.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
What users benefited? I don't agree, at all.
Everyone who can now stream video from anywhere without paying out the ass for data...
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
Of course not, you've been marketed to.... one of the goals was to increase video usage over other types of data usage. The smoke and mirrors worked its magic. You were so focused on one video provider over another that you missed what Dash and I had mentioned - that it was prioritizing video over other media forms.
Now do you see how this works? It's never that simple. Unless you think Pai is a freaking idiot, he obviously knew this and was on board with moving the US distribution of video higher on the lists at the cost of other media types.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
What users benefited? I don't agree, at all.
Everyone who can now stream video from anywhere without paying out the ass for data...
They could have done that without this. You are being manipulated by the exact thing Dash and I were discussing. The Sony power problem. They want you to do X, you see X as cheap, you forget that they also contro the base price. They just changed the RATIO of what you get with your own money. You will always pay, now they determine more of what you get ... and what you don't.
