Net Neutrality Repeal

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Half the country doesn't. And much of the half that does, the other ISP is the phone company with DSL which is far inferior. Arguing that we should go back and re-do the infrastructure of cable/internet/power/water lines is a pointless as arguing for private roads.

The reality is that most Americans only have one good option for high speed internet, water and electricity granting that company a monopoly and rendering the free market inefficient. Hence the need for regulation. Some regulations are bad. But not all of them are. Net neutrality was not a bad regulation. I ask again, what benefit will be seen from this repeal? Name one thing. So far you do nothing but duck the question.
This is a distraction. Granting private companies a monopoly is the problem. That is your issue.
The choices are:
grant them a monopoly and then have government manage thru regs.
Don’t grant them a monopoly, let competition and the free market deliver internet service.

I much prefer the latter. Another poster stated that these monopolies are state and local, not federal. That calls for a state and local solution, not federal.

NN would be subject to the law of unintended consequences. Progs like you just always assume the reg will solve the problem with no other effects. Experience is very very different. It will lead to more regs and more control. It always does. You could not find a single industry where this isn’t the case.
And the first reg is always in response to an imaginary minor issue, as this is. There are no problems. People are happy. This was sold to them not demanded by them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,585
Reaction score
45
Points
48
This was sold to them not demanded by them.
If you're talking about the repeal of NN, then you are right.

But I know you're not. Since you've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that you do not understand NN.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
If you're talking about the repeal of NN, then you are right.

But I know you're not. Since you've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that you do not understand NN.
Nope. You don’t really think there is any problem. You just think there’s the potential for a problem. And that’s based on your understanding of how the world works.
You might run circles around me on the technical aspects involved. But your flawed understanding of the bigger picture will lead to a flawed opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,481
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
My overall solution: fewer federal rules, let the states have broader leeway. Socialist communist states can be formed. And conservative, libertarian states. Doesn’t sound so black and white to me. The progs seem to want it black and white, and their way for the whole country.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure. Moving to a "more socialist state" if you don't like your internet service is totally reasonable.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,481
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
This is a distraction. Granting private companies a monopoly is the problem. That is your issue.
The choices are:
grant them a monopoly and then have government manage thru regs.
Don’t grant them a monopoly, let competition and the free market deliver internet service.

I much prefer the latter. Another poster stated that these monopolies are state and local, not federal. That calls for a state and local solution, not federal.

NN would be subject to the law of unintended consequences. Progs like you just always assume the reg will solve the problem with no other effects. Experience is very very different. It will lead to more regs and more control. It always does. You could not find a single industry where this isn’t the case.
And the first reg is always in response to an imaginary minor issue, as this is. There are no problems. People are happy. This was sold to them not demanded by them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not a distraction. The infrastructure of the internet and power companies etc. are what they are. Debating what should have been done differently 50 years ago is pointless. That part of the equation isn't changing. What can change is if we have net neutrality or not. So for the 50th time, name one benefit to repealing these regulations. One freaking thing. I dare you.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,585
Reaction score
45
Points
48
You don’t really think there is any problem.
There was no problem. Repealing NN opens up more potential negative consequences for everyone (unless you're an ISP), but yet again, you are proving that you don't understand NN.


You might run circles around me on the technical aspects involved.
I'm blushing ;)

But your flawed understanding of the bigger picture will lead to a flawed opinion.
Sigh...so you assume that your (admitted) flawed understanding of NN is correct, yet my understanding is flawed, and thus incorrect. I am seriously running out of words at this point.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,456
Reaction score
173
Points
63
Section2’s inability to approach any issue from any other position besides “government bad” prevents him - or gives him an excuse not to - understand what the issue is actually about and, in this case, in particular, the history behind the issue.

Section2 believes there was no “net neutrality” (no regulation on ISP traffic) prior to 2015. Section2 believes that the internet exploded without rules that forced ISPs to treat every packet of data equally. But Section2 is wrong.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Sure. Moving to a "more socialist state" if you don't like your internet service is totally reasonable.
Yeah, that’s totally the make or break issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Section2’s inability to approach any issue from any other position besides “government bad” prevents him - or gives him an excuse not to - understand what the issue is actually about and, in this case, in particular, the history behind the issue.

Section2 believes there was no “net neutrality” (no regulation on ISP traffic) prior to 2015. Section2 believes that the internet exploded without rules that forced ISPs to treat every packet of data equally. But Section2 is wrong.
There was “net neutrality”, prior to 2015. Incorrect rip Jake. We’ve already been over this.

Government good: protect rights, courts to settle grievances. Government bad: force business to operate a certain way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
There was no problem. Repealing NN opens up more potential negative consequences for everyone (unless you're an ISP), but yet again, you are proving that you don't understand NN.




I'm blushing ;)



Sigh...so you assume that your (admitted) flawed understanding of NN is correct, yet my understanding is flawed, and thus incorrect. I am seriously running out of words at this point.
Shouldn’t be any potential problems. They should be major issues happening right now that this reg is the only way to fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It's not a distraction. The infrastructure of the internet and power companies etc. are what they are. Debating what should have been done differently 50 years ago is pointless. That part of the equation isn't changing. What can change is if we have net neutrality or not. So for the 50th time, name one benefit to repealing these regulations. One freaking thing. I dare you.
Well, I have had in the last year, an internet provider knock on my door and tell me they have just put in new high speed Internet in the area and would I like to switch. I’ve never had a power company do this.
I’ve named dozens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,456
Reaction score
173
Points
63
There was “net neutrality”, prior to 2015. Incorrect rip Jake.
Oh? So, when I said this:

Yeah. Messing with the rules of the internet. It's been such a disappointment with the rules they've had in place. Let's make sure we improve it. Then we will finally unleash its potential, which has been sorely underutilized, due to the stifling environment currently in place.
You didn't respond with this?

I could have said the same thing to you in 2015.
 

Gopherguy0723

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
4,082
Reaction score
52
Points
48
Well, I have had in the last year, an internet provider knock on my door and tell me they have just put in new high speed Internet in the area and would I like to switch. I’ve never had a power company do this.
I’ve named dozens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
US Internet?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,456
Reaction score
173
Points
63
So Obama did nothing in 2015 with respect to NN, and Ajit repealed nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe you should educate yourself about why they had to do something in 2015, instead of continually posting with your dunce cap on.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
US Internet?
Century link.

Point being, if ISPs really give lousy service and screw their customers, that is an opportunity for another ISP to offer service and take their business away. It’s why the ONLY monopolies in US history are government granted.
The market is constantly changing. If people are really upset and want competition or alternatives, the market will deliver.
Unless government gets in the way.

The internet is the least regulated industry in the country and also the most wealth generating and best industry. These aren’t coincidences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Maybe you should educate yourself about why they had to do something in 2015, instead of continually posting with your dunce cap on.
I’ve heard the arguments made here and at that time. I’m not convinced.
And I noticed your subject change as well.

If I really believed in NN, I would be glad trump made this move. It will be a sure disaster and redone in short order. It will be a chance to validate my entire “regulation awesome, government knows best ideology”.

If I didn’t really believe, I’d be upset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
My overall solution: fewer federal rules, let the states have broader leeway. Socialist communist states can be formed. And conservative, libertarian states. Doesn’t sound so black and white to me. The progs seem to want it black and white, and their way for the whole country.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The biggest problem with your overall solution is you try to apply it to EVERY situation, no matter how absurd. You display the ultimate binary mind. STOP. It's insane.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,456
Reaction score
173
Points
63
I’ve heard the arguments made here and at that time. I’m not convinced.
And I noticed your subject change as well.

If I really believed in NN, I would be glad trump made this move. It will be a sure disaster and redone in short order. It will be a chance to validate my entire “regulation awesome, government knows best ideology”.

If I didn’t really believe, I’d be upset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. I changed nothing in my "subject," whatever the hell that means. As far as the rest - yeah, I want to be proven right, that's what it's all about. Er no, I don't want people making or repealing rules that they don't understand in the least.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
Well, I have had in the last year, an internet provider knock on my door and tell me they have just put in new high speed Internet in the area and would I like to switch. I’ve never had a power company do this.
I’ve named dozens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So. You DO realize that the timing of this disrupts your entire ****ing hypothesis, right?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
The biggest problem with your overall solution is you try to apply it to EVERY situation, no matter how absurd. You display the ultimate binary mind. STOP. It's insane.
It’s the opposite of binary. Screaming black and white doesn’t make it so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
So. You DO realize that the timing of this disrupts your entire ****ing hypothesis, right?
It doesn’t at all. You do realize that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. I changed nothing in my "subject," whatever the hell that means. As far as the rest - yeah, I want to be proven right, that's what it's all about. Er no, I don't want people making or repealing rules that they don't understand in the least.
So we agree that the federal government shouldn’t be involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,481
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
There was “net neutrality”, prior to 2015. Incorrect rip Jake. We’ve already been over this.

Government good: protect rights, courts to settle grievances. Government bad: force business to operate a certain way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There was net neutrality prior to 2015. But companies were increasingly violating it. All the regs did was codify what had been the norm for most of the internet's existence.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,481
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
Well, I have had in the last year, an internet provider knock on my door and tell me they have just put in new high speed Internet in the area and would I like to switch. I’ve never had a power company do this.
I’ve named dozens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Century Link is not equivalent to cable internet. I hope you didn't switch. None of which changes the fact that many people have zero choice.

You haven't named one benefit to this repeal. Name one.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,481
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
So we agree that the federal government shouldn’t be involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you understand how the internet works? States can't regulate it when almost every website you visit passes through the same pipeline going through multiple states.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
It doesn’t at all. You do realize that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You argued that big bad gubby was hurting those liddle widdle megalith internet provider corporations just twying to get by. And dey culdn't do nudding after net newtrality was past, dey was stiphled!! But apparently some liddle widdle internet provider was nokking on your door telling you about all of the new ligns they were pudding in DURING NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS.

You defeated yourself, dummy.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
You argued that big bad gubby was hurting those liddle widdle megalith internet provider corporations just twying to get by. And dey culdn't do nudding after net newtrality was past, dey was stiphled!! But apparently some liddle widdle internet provider was nokking on your door telling you about all of the new ligns they were pudding in DURING NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS.

You defeated yourself, dummy.
More childish silliness. Didn’t you claim to be a scientist who had no time for nonsense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Do you understand how the internet works? States can't regulate it when almost every website you visit passes through the same pipeline going through multiple states.
Ok wait. States can’t regulate how ISPs operate in their state? Or ISPs can’t change how they operate state to state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Century Link is not equivalent to cable internet. I hope you didn't switch. None of which changes the fact that many people have zero choice.

You haven't named one benefit to this repeal. Name one.
We still haven’t figured out WHY some have a choice and some don’t.
Is the goal to give more choice? Or is the goal to control the single choice? It seems like the latter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom