You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Can anyone share an intelligent and reasoned article on the pros and cons of net neutrality? I want to have an informed opinion and all the top hits on google are hyperbole and nightmare scenarios that conveniently ignore that Canada lacks net neutrality and none of these doomsday prophecies have manifested. I’m looking for something a little more nuanced than 5 paragraphs of predictions or a meme. Kudos to anyone who’s researched the issue and can share some literature.
This is not really a nuanced article, and I don't know (seriously) if Popular Mechanics has a political agenda (should they?), but this paints a pretty dire picture.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … peal-2017/
The main thing is, if it's not broke, why try to fix it?
It's a fair article, but I'm of the opinion the FCC or any agency shouldn't be legislating. Congress should take up a law that prevents ISPs from slowing down content. I'm hesitant to support any law that allows a business to determine what sites I can and can't view, just as I'm opposed to a small but vocal section of the left trying to enforce hate speech laws or the right's attempt to ban burning the flag. The hyperbole just gets to me. The top hit on google for net neutrality is a site that claims LGBT activists and BLM organizers will be unable to continue if net neutrality is repealed. That's just nonsense and they have nothing to base that fear on. Why would Comcast or Time Warner want to alienate a huge portion of their customers? They wouldn't.
Heritage is certainly a partisan think thank (but hey, no one had problems citing them when the ACA was being debated 
), but I thought this was a reasonable article: http://www.heritage.org/government-regu … et-freedom
I'm inclined to think net neutrality is a good thing, but I also like the idea of being able to buy a service that enhances my experience. But Comcast already gives me 300mb down and I have no problem streaming 4k or playing video games, so I have nothing to bitch about, which was also the case before 2015 as well. It's just incredibly hard for me to find information that allows me to feel confident in any opinion, which is how I think both sides want it.
Re: US Politics Thread
bigbri wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Can anyone share an intelligent and reasoned article on the pros and cons of net neutrality? I want to have an informed opinion and all the top hits on google are hyperbole and nightmare scenarios that conveniently ignore that Canada lacks net neutrality and none of these doomsday prophecies have manifested. I’m looking for something a little more nuanced than 5 paragraphs of predictions or a meme. Kudos to anyone who’s researched the issue and can share some literature.
This is not really a nuanced article, and I don't know (seriously) if Popular Mechanics has a political agenda (should they?), but this paints a pretty dire picture.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … peal-2017/
The main thing is, if it's not broke, why try to fix it?
It's a fair article, but I'm of the opinion the FCC or any agency shouldn't be legislating. Congress should take up a law that prevents ISPs from slowing down content. I'm hesitant to support any law that allows a business to determine what sites I can and can't view, just as I'm opposed to a small but vocal section of the left trying to enforce hate speech laws or the right's attempt to ban burning the flag. The hyperbole just gets to me. The top hit on google for net neutrality is a site that claims LGBT activists and BLM organizers will be unable to continue if net neutrality is repealed. That's just nonsense and they have nothing to base that fear on. Why would Comcast or Time Warner want to alienate a huge portion of their customers? They wouldn't.
Heritage is certainly a partisan think thank (but hey, no one had problems citing them when the ACA was being debated
I'm inclined to think net neutrality is a good thing, but I also like the idea of being able to buy a service that enhances my experience. But Comcast already gives me 300mb down and I have no problem streaming 4k or playing video games, so I have nothing to bitch about, which was also the case before 2015 as well. It's just incredibly hard for me to find information that allows me to feel confident in any opinion, which is how I think both sides want it.
The only thing i know for certain is that they’ll find new ways to charge you no matter what you consume.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Why would Comcast or Time Warner want to alienate a huge portion of their customers? They wouldn't.
Fuck me, you really are gullible.
but I also like the idea of being able to buy a service that enhances my experience.
How exactly would they "enhance" your experience from what you have now?
I don't even know why this is even a discussion. It's stupid, period!
Re: US Politics Thread
I'm still trying to formulate an opinion, and all the doom and gloom pretending the FCC saved the internet under Obama isn't helping. There was no "net neutrality" (which I've found is really a buzzword and has no actual definition) prior to 2015 and the internet was just fine. Like I said, Canada lacks a net neutrality law, and they don't have any issues. Same with the Netherlands. Capitalism and competition is what forced Verizon and AT&T to start offering unlimited data plans at a fair rate in order to compete with Sprint and T-Mobile. Portugal is a bad example, because it's Portugal. I can't think of the last innovation or contribution to come from them since the Renaissance and age of conquistadors.
I don't think Comcast & Verizon are immediately going to disrupt the internet and viola! suddenly charge Netflix millions per year, or charge consumers $5/10GB or whatever, but it would allow them to do that down the line. Now, maybe you have a point in that those who use wayyyy more data than others probably should pay a different rate, and yeah maybe. I just don't like the thought of websites & innovation/startups having to pay an extra fee.
I actually read in one of these articles that the whole T-Mobile free streaming idea isn't exactly all that great. Because it chooses which streaming services consumers can use (Netflix, Pandora etc) as opposed to keeping it open. Interesting theory, as I wouldn't want to see alignment such as that (Comcast/Netflix/Pandora, Verizon/Amazon Prime/Spotify, AT&T/DirectTV/Apple Music etc)
I wouldn't have a big problem with opening up the ISPs. It'll probably come up within 10-20 years or so. It's just that the local provider still needs to handle the wiring issues & outages. Similar to electric, there won't be 5 different cable lines running around areas. Google Fiber is interesting, something to keep an eye on. I recall they were up in running in KC or St Louis or something.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Why would Comcast or Time Warner want to alienate a huge portion of their customers? They wouldn't.
Fuck me, you really are gullible.
Randall Flagg wrote:but I also like the idea of being able to buy a service that enhances my experience.
How exactly would they "enhance" your experience from what you have now?
I don't even know why this is even a discussion. It's stupid, period!
Welcome to bizzaro world. 
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: US Politics Thread
Well right now I (we) have access to anything and everything at great speeds (500mb per sec for me, if you are less blame your provider, not the internet). I'm not sure where the "enhancements" come from.
I'm in Ireland and maybe it is different in the States, but I am quite happy with the freedom I have now.
If it ain't broke don't fix it ffs.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Two of you have said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. What was broke before 2015 that needed fixed?
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: US Politics Thread
Two of you have said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. What was broke before 2015 that needed fixed?
Absolutely nothing in regards the internet, but maybe you are having a different argument than me?
Re: US Politics Thread
Given the opportunity, you had better believe they will charge money to put you in the "fast lane." They'll do it as soon as they can figure out the most efficient way of making money from us. (ie "enhancing" your experience.) As a business owner too, this has me slightly concerned. I have a company who manages my google ads, which often puts me above top national competitors in ad placement. But what happens if those sites are given priority over some local business owner like me? It won't matter where my ads are, if somebody goes to my site and it's 1999 AOL, but my national competitor is lighting fast, I've got problems. Just like Walmart steamrolling local stores. Same concept. Big money wins.
