Net Neutrality Repeal

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
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.
I’m going to have to do some research here. I find your synopsis very unlikely.


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. But companies were increasingly violating it. All the regs did was codify what had been the norm for most of the internet's existence.
I’m going to have to do some research here. I find your synopsis very unlikely.
Again, you are directly contradicting what you said earlier in this thread (this time, the other direction):

There was “net neutrality”, prior to 2015.
As I said earlier:

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

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
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
The states can require it within their borders, but Minnesota requiring your Netflix not to be throttled won't do any good if it passes through servers in Illinois which does allow it. It may not even be up to the ISP or Netflix directly due to the multiple entities involved. All the more reason why neutrality is needed.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
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
More choice would be great. What is being 'controlled' by net neutrality regs? You still haven't named one harm that net neutrality caused. Or one benefit we will see now that it's repealed.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
I’m going to have to do some research here. I find your synopsis very unlikely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Multiple people here have given you the exact same freaking info. I'm glad that after 23 pages of arguing ignorantly, you suddenly realize you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
Multiple people here have given you the exact same freaking info. I'm glad that after 23 pages of arguing ignorantly, you suddenly realize you have no idea what you're talking about.
Let’s just face it, the dude is a complete moron. Merry Christmas!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
More choice would be great. What is being 'controlled' by net neutrality regs? You still haven't named one harm that net neutrality caused. Or one benefit we will see now that it's repealed.
The regs aren’t “controlling” anything? What will they do?

I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
The regs aren’t “controlling” anything? What will they do?

I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They require all internet traffic to be treated the same as it has been for most of the internet's existence. Nothing else.

No you haven't. But feel free to repeat since apparently everyone missed your list. So please, name one benefit to repealing NN.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
They require all internet traffic to be treated the same as it has been for most of the internet's existence. Nothing else.

No you haven't. But feel free to repeat since apparently everyone missed your list. So please, name one benefit to repealing NN.
Again, I can't help but notice your insistence that the Obama 2015 regs did nothing new, and that repealing them is a huge deal. It really can't be both.

Ok Benefits:

1) Investment: According to a letter to FCC commissioners and key congressional leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of the Internet "means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it.

If you’re a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year on capex [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you’re going to get a return on that investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today.

2) Competition: A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation".[166] Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."[166] The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.[199]


When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC's moves with Title II net neutrality regulations

3) Taxes: FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. Period."[215] However, the opposing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that "the plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."[216] Pai explained that, "One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here's the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a 'Universal Service Fee', or something like it. These fees – what most Americans would call taxes – are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC. Consumers haven't had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes."
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,090
Reaction score
293
Points
83
Again, I can't help but notice your insistence that the Obama 2015 regs did nothing new, and that repealing them is a huge deal. It really can't be both.

Ok Benefits:

1) Investment: According to a letter to FCC commissioners and key congressional leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of the Internet "means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it.

If you’re a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year on capex [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you’re going to get a return on that investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today.

2) Competition: A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation".[166] Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."[166] The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.[199]


When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC's moves with Title II net neutrality regulations

3) Taxes: FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. Period."[215] However, the opposing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that "the plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."[216] Pai explained that, "One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here's the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a 'Universal Service Fee', or something like it. These fees – what most Americans would call taxes – are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC. Consumers haven't had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes."
Lol. You really don't get it at all.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
Again, I can't help but notice your insistence that the Obama 2015 regs did nothing new, and that repealing them is a huge deal. It really can't be both.

Ok Benefits:

1) Investment: According to a letter to FCC commissioners and key congressional leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of the Internet "means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it.

If you’re a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year on capex [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you’re going to get a return on that investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today.

2) Competition: A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation".[166] Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."[166] The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.[199]


When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC's moves with Title II net neutrality regulations

3) Taxes: FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. Period."[215] However, the opposing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that "the plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband ... These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay."[216] Pai explained that, "One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here's the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a 'Universal Service Fee', or something like it. These fees – what most Americans would call taxes – are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC. Consumers haven't had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes."
Of course it can. For most of the internet's existence, streaming such as Netflix and the throttling of traffic were a non-issue. The only reason to block websites would have been because you didn't like their content. There were few issues with companies violating net neutrality as you have pointed out. As streaming increased rapidly in recent years, so did the issues of throttling/degrading service and the need to codify the long-standing rules.

Let's say you have a (private) road in a remote area with little traffic. (Don't worry the road still totally pays for itself with tolls. Somehow. Just look at Uber.) The speed limit is 25 but there is no posted speed limit and there are few issues with speeding. As the area becomes more populated, speeding increases. Speed limit signs are posted and patrols are increased. Things go back to normal. Now you decide to repeal the speed limit and remove all enforcement. What do you think will happen? You claim nothing will change.

Ah. So the ISP who stand to make $$ from the repeal say it was necessary? Shocking. There was nothing about net neutrality that prevented them from investing in capital or that decreased competition. Besides you already claim that you have multiple companies beating your door down to provide you internet service. So how does this repeal increase competition?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Of course it can. For most of the internet's existence, streaming such as Netflix and the throttling of traffic were a non-issue. The only reason to block websites would have been because you didn't like their content. There were few issues with companies violating net neutrality as you have pointed out. As streaming increased rapidly in recent years, so did the issues of throttling/degrading service and the need to codify the long-standing rules.

Let's say you have a (private) road in a remote area with little traffic. (Don't worry the road still totally pays for itself with tolls. Somehow. Just look at Uber.) The speed limit is 25 but there is no posted speed limit and there are few issues with speeding. As the area becomes more populated, speeding increases. Speed limit signs are posted and patrols are increased. Things go back to normal. Now you decide to repeal the speed limit and remove all enforcement. What do you think will happen? You claim nothing will change.

Ah. So the ISP who stand to make $$ from the repeal say it was necessary? Shocking. There was nothing about net neutrality that prevented them from investing in capital or that decreased competition. Besides you already claim that you have multiple companies beating your door down to provide you internet service. So how does this repeal increase competition?
It’s not at all like a speed limit. Dumb example.
Not just ISPs. I gave many other companies.

Your subtle abuse of language is noted. I never said they were prevented from investing. You favor this law. You say it is needed for competition. I just showed you how companies had been investing billions in infrastructure. NN is a deterrent to investment. Not a prevention. We don’t need NN. We never needed it. And you don’t understand why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
It’s not at all like a speed limit. Dumb example.
Not just ISPs. I gave many other companies.

Your subtle abuse of language is noted. I never said they were prevented from investing. You favor this law. You say it is needed for competition. I just showed you how companies had been investing billions in infrastructure. NN is a deterrent to investment. Not a prevention. We don’t need NN. We never needed it. And you don’t understand why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Man o man you love beatings, you sadist.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
It’s not at all like a speed limit. Dumb example.
Not just ISPs. I gave many other companies.

Your subtle abuse of language is noted. I never said they were prevented from investing. You favor this law. You say it is needed for competition. I just showed you how companies had been investing billions in infrastructure. NN is a deterrent to investment. Not a prevention. We don’t need NN. We never needed it. And you don’t understand why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It took you 23 pages to admit that you don't even understand what the regs did. You only viscerally know that regulations are bad.

The only people who benefit from this repeal are the ISPs and the only benefit you can name is that they might invest more capital now. Meanwhile consumers and smaller internet based businesses are likely to harmed. Your ignorance on this topic doesn't change that reality.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It took you 23 pages to admit that you don't even understand what the regs did. You only viscerally know that regulations are bad.

The only people who benefit from this repeal are the ISPs and the only benefit you can name is that they might invest more capital now. Meanwhile consumers and smaller internet based businesses are likely to harmed. Your ignorance on this topic doesn't change that reality.
You keep claiming that the regs both did nothing new and that repealing them will be a disaster.
You kept whining for reasons why NN repeal benefits consumers and I told you. Like a good prog, you want to make this about evil corps against the poor consumer. Ignoring the huge corps that benefit from it. Smaller internet businesses have flourished prior to NN obama regs. Zero need for these regs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,456
Reaction score
173
Points
63
You keep claiming that the regs both did nothing new and that repealing them will be a disaster.
You kept whining for reasons why NN repeal benefits consumers and I told you. Like a good prog, you want to make this about evil corps against the poor consumer. Ignoring the huge corps that benefit from it. Smaller internet businesses have flourished prior to NN obama regs. Zero need for these regs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Says the dunce who has no clue what he is talking about and refuses to even attempt to educate himself.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
2, your wiki cut and paste was ingenious. It sucker in a wide range of OTB fails from OTB Kindergarten to the OTB Clown Car to Anger Management fails. Funny stuff!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
2, your wiki cut and paste was ingenious. It sucker in a wide range of OTB fails from OTB Kindergarten to the OTB Clown Car to Anger Management fails. Funny stuff!
And it was from a Nobel winner!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
You kept whining for reasons why NN repeal benefits consumers and I told you. Zero need for these regs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No you didn't. You said ISPs might invest in more infrastructure, which is speculative at best. Name one benefit to repeal for existing consumes. Name one harm that the regs inflicted.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
337
Points
83
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Ski U Mah Gopher

Member of the Tribe
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Burger King explains it all

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ltzy5vRmN8Q" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Burger King explains it all

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ltzy5vRmN8Q" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I dont' think that's accurate, but if it is, there is no problem.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,090
Reaction score
293
Points
83
2, your wiki cut and paste was ingenious. It sucker in a wide range of OTB fails from OTB Kindergarten to the OTB Clown Car to Anger Management fails. Funny stuff!
HAHAHA! Your 'intelligence' was exposed. Keep 'derping' around though. You're a walking, talking joke.
 
Top Bottom