Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Net neutrality is not giving anyone special protection.

Ending it gives the ISPs and only the ISPs the ability to control what sites/apps/services survive and which ones don’t.

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Why would Google and Facebook not be for net neutrality?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Net neutrality is not giving anyone special protection.

Ending it gives the ISPs and only the ISPs the ability to control what sites/apps/services survive and which ones don’t.

Did you not just say in your comment above that net neutrality PROTECTS sites/apps/services from those evil ISPs..... Isn't that special protection?

Posted by The Taint on 11/25/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Why would Google and Facebook not be for net neutrality?

Oh I agree.... it's in their best interest to have net neutrality.

That's why Google and FaceBook (BIG Businesses) are lobbying Washington. BL tried to make it sound like only Verizon and AT&T were the only big businesses lobbying Washington... He conveniently failed to mention both sides have big business lobbying.

Gotcha. Indeed, anyone with any money is lobbying. Hell, we have a local grocery lobby that got growler fill laws changed earlier this year.

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Net neutrality is not giving anyone special protection.

Ending it gives the ISPs and only the ISPs the ability to control what sites/apps/services survive and which ones don’t.

Did you not just say in your comment above that net neutrality PROTECTS sites/apps/services from those evil ISPs..... Isn't that special protection?

It protects everyone. Not just a handful of large companies.

Here are some examples of shady **** ISPs did before net neutrality:

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/25/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 1:19:00 AM (view original):
Yes, just one side.

You're hilarious... I noticed you glossed over your big business lobbying argument when I brought up Google and FaceBook are lobbying FOR net neutrality ha ha ha.... I have some more news for you BL.... special protection IS regulation. deregulating the internet removes special protections.

Why would Google and Facebook not be for net neutrality?

Oh I agree.... it's in their best interest to have net neutrality.

That's why Google and FaceBook (BIG Businesses) are lobbying Washington. BL tried to make it sound like only Verizon and AT&T were the only big businesses lobbying Washington... He conveniently failed to mention both sides have big business lobbying.

The act of lobbying isn’t necessarily the problem. The problem is lobbying for special protection at the expense of everyone else.

Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Oh the drama!!!! AIRLINE STYLE FEES!!?!? OH MY!!!

ISPs are providing a service. They can charge whatever and whoever they want. If you don't like it then find another ISP to use.

It's just like newspapers.... Which used to be a primary way to communicate via classifieds, advertising, and articles. Newspapers have the right to select which ads go in, charge for classifieds, and write whatever articles they want. They are the one providing the service. It's not free to everyone.

Posted by moy23 on 11/24/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/24/2017 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Moy - Explain why pulling back net neutrality and raising the military budget is a good thing please.

Opens the internet up to free market forces and I can afford a 'fast lane'. There will be more structural innovation (i.e, faster WiFi, Fiber, etc) with ISPs in control and with less regulation. The rest of the internet will be just fine without net neutrality.

And a big military is how we show strength as a nation... Unlike that kumbaya, we lead from behind, oblunder bullshit.

It's that strength that buys us our daily freedoms that other countries don't have and it gets us a better seat at the bargaining table when we need it.

I would assume that pulling back net neutrality CLOSES UP the free market, because big companies can structurally block smaller ones. Net neutrality is what is great about the internet! Pulling it back removes the essence of what makes the internet unique.

We DO have a big military, and we do have a lot of strength! I am not complaining that we more than double China's military spending. But isn't it a BIT much when we spend more than the next 10 countries combined? And most of that goes to failed or failing uber-expensive projects that are realistically never actually going to be used. I HATE how much we spend on murder.

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Oh the drama!!!! AIRLINE STYLE FEES!!?!? OH MY!!!

ISPs are providing a service. They can charge whatever and whoever they want. If you don't like it then find another ISP to use.

It's just like newspapers.... Which used to be a primary way to communicate via classifieds, advertising, and articles. Newspapers have the right to select which ads go in, charge for classifieds, and write whatever articles they want. They are the one providing the service. It's not free to everyone.

It’s like newspapers...if one newspaper could block other newspapers from having any subscribers.

Posted by tangplay on 11/25/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/24/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/24/2017 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Moy - Explain why pulling back net neutrality and raising the military budget is a good thing please.

Opens the internet up to free market forces and I can afford a 'fast lane'. There will be more structural innovation (i.e, faster WiFi, Fiber, etc) with ISPs in control and with less regulation. The rest of the internet will be just fine without net neutrality.

And a big military is how we show strength as a nation... Unlike that kumbaya, we lead from behind, oblunder bullshit.

It's that strength that buys us our daily freedoms that other countries don't have and it gets us a better seat at the bargaining table when we need it.

I would assume that pulling back net neutrality CLOSES UP the free market, because big companies can structurally block smaller ones. Net neutrality is what is great about the internet! Pulling it back removes the essence of what makes the internet unique.

We DO have a big military, and we do have a lot of strength! I am not complaining that we more than double China's military spending. But isn't it a BIT much when we spend more than the next 10 countries combined? And most of that goes to failed or failing uber-expensive projects that are realistically never actually going to be used. I HATE how much we spend on murder.

There are still laws (not net neutrality laws) that apply to ISPs that protect smaller companies. For instance there are laws regarding collusion, discrimination, etc. The internet was great well before net neutrality. The HUGE gains for removing net neutrality regulations are to the free market competitiveness that will take place for the infrastructure of the internet.... How and how fast it can be delivered, not what's delivered.

I'm all for spending defense money more wisely but if the government pays for anything this is the #1 most important thing to pay for. It's our military that allows us the freedoms we enjoy in this country and like I said earlier it also gets us the best seat at the bargaining table on world issues.

As far as paying more than the next 10 countries combined.... The same could be said about our healthcare spending yet I don't hear you clamoring about that. At least the defense spending is doing it's job, keeping us safe. The same can't be said about healthcare which has only gotten worse. We're ranked #1 in the world for military, #37 for healthcare.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Oh the drama!!!! AIRLINE STYLE FEES!!?!? OH MY!!!

ISPs are providing a service. They can charge whatever and whoever they want. If you don't like it then find another ISP to use.

It's just like newspapers.... Which used to be a primary way to communicate via classifieds, advertising, and articles. Newspapers have the right to select which ads go in, charge for classifieds, and write whatever articles they want. They are the one providing the service. It's not free to everyone.

It’s like newspapers...if one newspaper could block other newspapers from having any subscribers.

No it's not. ISPs (the newspaper in this analogy) can only block the content from THEIR internet offering. They can't block other ISPs (newspapers) from offering anything. How would Comcast block subscribers from signing up with AT&T for internet service?

Think of it this way.... You're building a mobile app... Apple is too pricey so you only place it in the Google Play store - you've been out priced in this scenario so you found an alternative. Or maybe Apple blocks you for whatever reason but Google says sure. You put your app on Google and it becomes a hit... Now people aren't buying apple phones because they don't have access to your hit app. Apple will eventually allow you to put your app on their phones now. This has happened, and still happens. Apple can control whatever content they want. They're very good at it... And it's their product/service. They should control it. ISPs are providing a product/service and they should control that too.

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Oh the drama!!!! AIRLINE STYLE FEES!!?!? OH MY!!!

ISPs are providing a service. They can charge whatever and whoever they want. If you don't like it then find another ISP to use.

It's just like newspapers.... Which used to be a primary way to communicate via classifieds, advertising, and articles. Newspapers have the right to select which ads go in, charge for classifieds, and write whatever articles they want. They are the one providing the service. It's not free to everyone.

It’s like newspapers...if one newspaper could block other newspapers from having any subscribers.

No it's not. ISPs (the newspaper in this analogy) can only block the content from THEIR internet offering. They can't block other ISPs (newspapers) from offering anything. How would Comcast block subscribers from signing up with AT&T for internet service?

Think of it this way.... You're building a mobile app... Apple is too pricey so you only place it in the Google Play store - you've been out priced in this scenario so you found an alternative. Or maybe Apple blocks you for whatever reason but Google says sure. You put your app on Google and it becomes a hit... Now people aren't buying apple phones because they don't have access to your hit app. Apple will eventually allow you to put your app on their phones now. This has happened, and still happens. Apple can control whatever content they want. They're very good at it... And it's their product/service. They should control it. ISPs are providing a product/service and they should control that too.

Yeah your newspaper analogy doesn’t really work.

ISPs provide access.

A better analogy would be if the government granted a company the power to control the roads so that only certain newspapers could be delivered.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/25/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Both sides of the Net Neutrality debate involve "freedom".

Pro Neutrality: Freedom for content to come from anyone, anywhere, anytime at max speed.

Anti Neutrality: Freedom for ISPs to charge airline-style fees, censor content, and selectively throttle speed by website.

Oh the drama!!!! AIRLINE STYLE FEES!!?!? OH MY!!!

ISPs are providing a service. They can charge whatever and whoever they want. If you don't like it then find another ISP to use.

It's just like newspapers.... Which used to be a primary way to communicate via classifieds, advertising, and articles. Newspapers have the right to select which ads go in, charge for classifieds, and write whatever articles they want. They are the one providing the service. It's not free to everyone.

It’s like newspapers...if one newspaper could block other newspapers from having any subscribers.

No it's not. ISPs (the newspaper in this analogy) can only block the content from THEIR internet offering. They can't block other ISPs (newspapers) from offering anything. How would Comcast block subscribers from signing up with AT&T for internet service?

Think of it this way.... You're building a mobile app... Apple is too pricey so you only place it in the Google Play store - you've been out priced in this scenario so you found an alternative. Or maybe Apple blocks you for whatever reason but Google says sure. You put your app on Google and it becomes a hit... Now people aren't buying apple phones because they don't have access to your hit app. Apple will eventually allow you to put your app on their phones now. This has happened, and still happens. Apple can control whatever content they want. They're very good at it... And it's their product/service. They should control it. ISPs are providing a product/service and they should control that too.

Yeah your newspaper analogy doesn’t really work.

ISPs provide access.

A better analogy would be if the government granted a company the power to control the roads so that only certain newspapers could be delivered.

That access costs money (infrastructure, employees, research, etc.) ISPs have the right to charge for that access to pay for those things and make a profit.

Again, your analogy is way off base. The ISPs in your analogy would be the government now and not the newspapers. The newspapers would become the content. There's more than one ISP so there'd have to be more than one government in your analogy, which seems unlikely.