- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
Please remove the net neutrality popup. It is annoying. I don't need to see it over and over again. It makes this forum difficult and irritating to navigate.
Net Neutrality Popup
- Thread starter GeneralVeers
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 14
If you think that the pop-up is annoying, think about how annoying it will be when net neutrality is taken away.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
I actually favour free markets and ending net neutrality. But that is not the purpose of this post.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 7,065
It's only going to be here for today. The fact that it is incredibly obnoxious is the point. It should infuriate you to know that that is how the internet could be if title II is repealed.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
Cloudflare is doing it, not SDN. It is meant to represent just how annoying the internet will be in a post-net neutrality world, however. There is literally no benefit whatsoever for consumers if net neutrality is done away with. I actually think the best way to demonstrate it next year would be for websites to band together and create three packages of websites, and force consumers to choose one while listing access to the others for a day. You can have the sports package, but kiss the productivity package and the gaming package goodbye. That's how it will be in a post-neutrality world.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
I don't think we will notice any difference.
D
deleted480308
You could also punch everyone in the face to raise awareness about assault victims, but it's debatable how effective a tactic it is to garner support
This is the clear pepsi of web campaigns
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
Annoying people is actually less likely to make them support your cause. Whenever protesters block the street, and get in my way, it doesn't do much to promote sympathy for them.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
It amazes me how anyone can be against Net Neutrality.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
Yes it is amazing. We will agree to disagree on this one.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2011
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 112
?????
This is exactly how hated companies like comcast end up in one area and becomes all that is available. Stop kidding yourself and turn off fox news or honestly wherever you're getting your source of information
D
deleted480308
It's actually caused by govt municipalities signing exclusive agreements and enabling monopolies, but net neutrality is more about allowing govt to interfere in private bandwidth and content decisions
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 24,440
- Reaction score
- 18,035
I got it once on my phone, and once on my Windows computer. Not onerous.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
What good could possibly come of ending net neutrality? Cable companies will do as they have always done- package and commodify the internet as they currently do with television. That's the only way they know how to operate, and it's why they've wanted to end net neutrality for so long. I'd say my internet is pretty okay, what with the whole 60 bucks a month for unlimited everything I could ever want at really solid speeds.
The internet is literally more important to me than any other political topic. A free and open internet is critical to the future of both mankind and politics. Allowing corporations to commodify and control the flow of information to their liking is shortsighted and foolish.
D
deleted480308
corporations are WAAAAY better at giving us what we want than govt......and there are more than 1 corporation so if one sucks, you pick a different one or start your own. Govts aren't as easy to work around
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
There is ONE internet service provider in my area. Cox. If Cox decides that they want 200, 300, 400 bucks a month out of me, I have to pay if I want the internet. Net neutrality reduces their ability to extort money by forcing me to pay extra for services that I'm already getting. If I decide I don't want Cox, I get nothing. Government regulation created the monopolies that exist today (only one provider is allowed in each district in my state, because they didn't want redundant networks built on the federal and state government's dime- people forget that almost all telecom infrastructure was government funded) so we can't let them have those monopolies that were built with our tax dollars if we're not getting some preferential treatment of data out of the bargain. They can't have their monopoly that was built with our cash and also use said monopoly to extort people upstream and downstream that have no choice but to pay up because regulation gave them said monopoly in the first place.
Now if they scrapped ALL telecom regulation along with net neutrality, AND forced telecoms to pay back all of the money that was given to them to build infrastructure, I'd be fine with that. Because then maybe a second provider could come to town. But as it stands now, such a proposition is literally impossible due to regulatory barriers, so removing net neutrality without removing the barrier to new providers basically leaves me open to exploitation.
D
deleted480308
The answer is less govt, not more
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 28,920
- Reaction score
- 62,790
Which I believe his last sentence covered.
But as that's not likely to happen, I fail to see why regulating the internet monopoly like we do with electricity is a bad thing.
D
deleted480308
It gives power based off monopoly fears that then get applied everywhere. For instance, mobile phones have a lot of competition....why do we need net neutrality there?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 2,482
Doing away with Net neutrality is an insanely stupid idea... the whole reason it was upheld was because smaller companies and businesses were suffering because larger entities could simply price them out.
An example would be Netflix a few years ago wouldn't pay extra to Comcast for the same service they were receiving. So Comcast dropped their bandwidth to their customers, leading to numerous complaints. The end result was that Netflix budged and re-negotiated with them. That's not free market. That's extortion under the guise of "less government not more"
An example would be Netflix a few years ago wouldn't pay extra to Comcast for the same service they were receiving. So Comcast dropped their bandwidth to their customers, leading to numerous complaints. The end result was that Netflix budged and re-negotiated with them. That's not free market. That's extortion under the guise of "less government not more"
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
What's sad is that ten to fifteen years ago, this was all pretty obvious to people. It's amazing how effective corporate propaganda can be. Deregulation only works when it is possible for a little guy to compete, and the cable industry is not such a market at the moment. If we come up with a new way to distribute the internet (say, ultra-fast wireless) that has a lower buy-in price, then I'm all for partial deregulation. But as things stand now, only 2% of the country has the option of more than one cable company, and there is no service that is anywhere close to the speed of cable save for fiber, which is available in all of a few dozen communities in the nation.
The sad thing is that when companies were refusing to expand into certain towns because the buy-in cost would be too much for them to turn a profit, some of these towns resorted to plans for municipal internet, which cable companies then fought to have banned because they would rather see people they're never going to serve have no internet than see a working public internet system. California has a law so evil it's astounding- if a city builds a public network, a private company is permitted to literally steal it from the town.
The 21 Laws States Use to Crush Broadband Competition
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,829
- Reaction score
- 9,087
I live in one of the biggest cities in the country and my neighborhood <2 miles out from the center of downtown is served by a single cable company and zero DSL companies. That is, there's a half-dozen providers in the city, but many places only have 1-2 options.
You could say that competition might increase sometime, but my answer is that *GOOGLE* can't economically compete with the big telecoms right now. The second most valuable company on the planet hung up all plans to expand its internet networks (Google Fiber) because the economic/regulatory barriers to expanding were too much. They weren't allowed by the local municipalities to use the telecoms existing poles at a reasonable rate, and building their own wasn't feasible. You cannot tell me that suddenly Comcast & co are going to have competition if we got rid of net neutrality.
Getting rid of net neutrality will just make everyone pay more to the already monopolistic services.
You could say that competition might increase sometime, but my answer is that *GOOGLE* can't economically compete with the big telecoms right now. The second most valuable company on the planet hung up all plans to expand its internet networks (Google Fiber) because the economic/regulatory barriers to expanding were too much. They weren't allowed by the local municipalities to use the telecoms existing poles at a reasonable rate, and building their own wasn't feasible. You cannot tell me that suddenly Comcast & co are going to have competition if we got rid of net neutrality.
Getting rid of net neutrality will just make everyone pay more to the already monopolistic services.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
Because mobile costs far less to start up, and doesn't have the same regulatory barriers in place to prevent competition. It costs literally hundreds of billions to lay new cable or fiber to start a cable company from scratch, and results in significant disruption of traffic and other key infrastructure as lines are laid down, so many jurisdictions just said, "screw this, you lay down the lines and we'll promise you a monopoly." That's what led to the monopolies in my state, anyway, and the only thing protecting consumers is net neutrality, because those promises were a long term contract on the part of the government that were made by regulators in exchange for millions of dollars of campaign funds, and thus likely aren't going away any time soon.
D
deleted480308
I get the history, but what you are saying is......the govt messing with it created this, I sure do trust the govt to make better by fiddling with it more
That is illogical to me
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
I'm saying you can't get rid of net neutrality without getting rid of literally every other regulation at the same time. Just getting rid of it alone creates a monopoly with free reign due to the structure of existing regulations. It lets telecoms have their cake and eat it too, essentially, benefiting from regulation with no counterregulation to keep them in check.
D
deleted480308
But there are already more options than landlines and removing govt from the position of creating monopolies would allow more to enter the market there
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
Yeah, I would obviously prefer all the regulations to be scrapped. But scrapping the only one that protects consumers while leaving all the ones in place that protect the monopoly is a bad move. As to "other options," there are no current technologies that provide landline speed wirelessly, not even close. For many, if not most, internet users they are not a viable alternative to cable and they'd still be trapped in the 'ol cable deal.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 2,482
how exactly are other companies going to enter the market place when the barrier to entry is so high? And how will they plan to enter an area that has been monopolized and approved by the government to be served by one or two companies? Its delusional to think that removing the one law that protects customers from price gouging and price fixing is suddenly going to increase competition and be better for the consumer.
and your previous argument that you shouldn't trust the government because they initially created this mess is akin to the sins of the father or those doctors who promoted smoking back in the 60's. We didnt inherit their failures, and neither should this government inherit the failures of its previous predecessors.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,629
- Reaction score
- 76,547
Who is in favor of abolishing net neutrality, aside from ISPs and investors? Oh right, ****ing no one. Because the only people that stand to be enriched are the cable monopolies and the people that hold their stock. The ACLU just happens to be on the side of "literally everyone that isn't a service provider or investor in a service provider."
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 289
Can we reinstate the pop-up if for no other reason than to see the libertarians get all butthurt for another day?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
It's just a mantra. Not a real argument.
Sometimes it's ok to be reasonable and not be nuts.
D
deleted480308
Wireless is enough for there to be competition. And "price gouging" is just a price you don't really want to pay, it means nothing
D
deleted109597
This is one of those things where he's right though. The reason we have ****ter cellular service than Africa is because of government meddling. The same is true here. Look at my state, where Tesla can't sell cars direct to consumer because the dealerships have made the laws disallow it. Deregulating the power companies was good or not for you? I mean, allowing other companies to use the lines works in cellular and power, why wouldn't it in cable/fiber? Oh right, because people want the government to keep it good for them.
This isn't child labor or safety regulations. People aren't dying from lack of high speed internet. A little growing pains for a better outcome is laudable.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 2,482
LMAO oh really? Just like people dont want to pay 600 bucks for 2 epipens when they initially sold for 100? Just like people dont want to pay 150K for a hep c cure when its sold for 900 in India and Egypt?
If the internet you use currently goes from 50/month to 200/month for the same speed, is that not considered price gouging?
D
deleted109597
Internet=/=epinephrine or Hep C treatments. I promise you can live without one of them. You pick.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 2,482
Live without the internet? If that is the best counter you can come up with....
Regardless, the point is in the principle, not the specifics of the examples provided. Jacking up the price on any goods without any change made just because you can do it while holding a monopoly IS price gouging.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 289
Your argument is garbage. You can "live" without the internet, but for the average person (non-physician) life could be a lot more difficult. So much these days depends on access to the internet. How well could one function as a student without internet or even with just limited access? How well could YOU find a job, apply, get credentialed, etc. without internet access? Sure, you could do it, but it would not be nearly as easy as it would be with access, and you would not have the same opportunities as someone with access; simply, not being able to access the internet is a huge disadvantage for a person. A company price gouging for internet access has potential for many negative downstream effects.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,704
- Reaction score
- 7,467
In other news......looks like the popup is gone. My original complaint (which resulted in starting this thread) has been resolved.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,829
- Reaction score
- 9,087
Most of the largest sites on the internet had a protest pro-net neutrality yesterday. They're all gone now.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
Africa is a vast and diverse continent, making it difficult to make such a sweeping statement.
However, even having said that, the statement is simply inaccurate--by any stretch of the imagination. Africa ranks way below North America and Europe in terms of internet access and quality, with the worst ranked country being Chad. The same is true for cellular service, with the third worst country in the world being in Africa, next only to Afghanistan and a Central American country.
The more appropriate comparison is with European (especially Western and Northern European) countries. You can look at the same sources above to see how they outrank the United States.
So, your logic/argument works exactly against you.
But, it's not true at all (see above).
In fact, Elon Musk's companies have benefitted from billions of dollars of subsidies from the U.S. government. So, the net benefit from the government is a positive one, in the case of Tesla. As for the law banning Tesla from selling cars directly, this is due to corporatism, which conservatives support and propagate. (But, eventually the government will get it right on this one, despite the effect of corporatism.)
Internet is now becoming considered a utility, not a luxury. Any reasonable person can understand this... at least anyone who has any empathy whatsoever for poor people.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
lol you did it! (You also managed to get all the other major websites of the internet to follow suit!)
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
Conservatives of SDN, are you also against the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's?
Go!
(You guys work hard to get it wrong on everything.)
Go!
(You guys work hard to get it wrong on everything.)
D
deleted109597
Literally not even close.
But yes, the free market should decide whether or not dinguses should be able to have businesses. Not the government. Except in the case of life necessities, but I don't see free housing or free water available everywhere either. Nobody dies from lack of a gay wedding cake. Even if he was the only cake store in town (which he wasn't). It's no different from poor customer service, bad food, or anything else that people can decided to avoid or shame on the internet.
BTW, this isn't conservative philosophy, it's more libertarian.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
Let me guess! You are...white! And a doctor, so wealthy. (Cue speech about how you're really not wealthy.)
90% of libertarians are white and wealthy. Why is that?
But seriously, you do realize that before the 1960's, there *was* segregation and their businesses didn't go under.
This is a tough one, and is not the same as whites only restaurants. It's tough because there is a clash of freedom of religion and religious expression vs. the ethic of equality--both liberal ideals. Sometimes ideals clash.
Yes yes, but there is considerable overlap in the United States, and huge hypocrisy with it, i.e "I'm a libertarian, and I support government invasion of our privacy." LOL
D
deleted109597
Got it. You're from the government and you're here to help. Is your electricity that much worse since deregulation? You conveniently skipped that part.
And yes, you got me on 3G/4G speeds in Africa. Pretty sure the biggest resistance to cellular in this country was the Big Telcos, so even with that lack of absolute speed, they're growing faster than we are. Just look how long it has taken to get reasonable prepaid cellular here vs locked in, monthly plans.
D
deleted109597
Define wealthy. If I stop working, my house will get taken away in a few months. Guess I can ask my other doctors in my family for assistance. Except there aren't any. In fact, I was the first generation to go to college. Sadly, my parents won the genetic lottery and only had their GEDs.
Did that have anything to do with the government? Was separate but equal a business decision, or a court one. Help me out here, I can't remember.
Show me any libertarian who says that. Privacy invasions were up way more over the previous presidency than any other one, or even the current one.
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 43
Attachments
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
1) You are wealthy by world standards.
2) By virtue of being born to a womb in America or the "First World", you did in fact win the lottery.
3) GED is a higher standard of education than people can hope to achieve in many parts of the world.
4) You have a high-paying job and can therefore afford your house. I don't understand the point about quitting your work. The whole point was that, as a physician in the United States, you are considered wealthy by world standards. This presupposes that you are working. Work is itself a blessing.
The inability of libertarians to realize how lucky and blessed they truly are is part of the reason why they can continue to indulge in their selfish ideology, which revolves around the false belief that they themselves, with their own two hands, achieved everything they did.
Huh?
I know so many it's not even funny.
They support mass invasion of privacy, endless and expensive wars and empire-building, etc.
Ron Paul--NOT Rand Paul--is a good example of a libertarian that I actually respect, because he is at least ideologically consistent... I respect him for that, despite the fact that I think his domestic policies are absurd.
Agreed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,905
- Reaction score
- 2,575
Clearly, anyone who knows anything about history, knows that the Democratic and Republican parties have undergone severe changes, and are no longer what they once were. The Republicanism of Lincoln is long gone:
Two points:
1) I never mentioned Republican or Democrat. I mentioned conservative vs liberal.
2) I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Green Party voter, although I do believe in the "lesser of two evils" strategy during presidential elections.
