Let this thread die!

All things asdf (and anything else)

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby atomtengeralattjaro » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:26 pm

if you're in the USA, here are some links for your perusal about that thing that you probably heard about and is probably uncomfortable to think about

http://verizonprotests.com/
https://resistbot.io/
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Ivokyuftaf6666 wrote:Awesome Site, Delievering Fun

Image
User avatar
atomtengeralattjaro
ASDF's Best Friend
ASDF's Best Friend
 
Posts: 33921
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 am
Location: green

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:12 pm

oh my god they're actually doing that? America is going to hell
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby assdef » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:15 am

So I realize this is a bit because I'm an old man and I think as you grow older you tend to lose liberal idealisms, but I'm not sure the end of "net neutrality" is the doomsday that everyone is predicting it will be. Consumers still hold power in the marketplace, even in an oligopoly. Take paid television (cable/satellite) as an example in the U.S. No government regulation there. We'd expect the same thing to happen with TV that we are predicting with the InterWeb: corporations would pay for priority bandwidth to control the content sent to the consumers. And yet, even in cases where negotiations between service providers and content providers arrive at a breaking point, at the end of the day, an agreement is reached because if content is restricted on one service provider, consumers choose a different service provider that provides the content they want. The service providers therefore are incented to keep their content diverse because consumers demand diverse content. Applying the same example to ISPs, if Verizon suddenly started throttling Web traffic toward certain Web sites, consumers would find another ISP to service them. And there are multiple options available to U.S. consumers; maybe only a couple (two or three), but it's same thing with television/cable/satellite.

The only situations that I can think of where government intervention is necessary are 1) in a startup phase, when costs to develop and deliver a service to all consumers is extremely expensive and there is little or no motivation by corporations to do so because a return on investment can't be realized (think of railroad expansion as an example), or 2) where there is a true monopoly, as with American Telegraph and Telephone in the early 20th Century, and barriers to entry into the market provide one company with an insurmountable competitive advantage (and even then there are persuasive arguments that say innovation would find a way to overcome, or at least balance the power of the monopoly). Ma Bell did get broken up into the Baby Bells at one point, but since then almost all government regulation has been ratcheted back, and there is plenty of competition in the U.S. telecommunications marketplace now.

Anyway, it is a fascinating issue, and I am interested to hear other's opinion on the matter.

Also, TL;DR: screw government, invisible hand FTW
Image
User avatar
assdef
JKL;'s Nightmare
JKL;'s Nightmare
 
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Shai'tan » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:09 pm

I think that ideally that would be the case, but from what I hear there are several areas were there are only really one choice for ISP, which is very troubling. Not to mention all the horror stories you can find about the big ISPs and their shady practices. I do not think anyone really stands to benefit from this, except the mega-corps.
If it does pass though, maybe there is some hope that new ISPs will form that can try to compete with the major players - it sounds really difficult though, but I'm not sure how bad it actually is. Does the ISPs own the infrastructure? Fiber connections, etc?
Quote of the Ages:

Image
User avatar
Shai'tan
ASDF's Best Friend
ASDF's Best Friend
 
Posts: 25621
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:14 am
Location: Seven

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby atomtengeralattjaro » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:25 pm

I was under the impression that you guys have a fairly small selection of ISPs in most areas.

My understanding is that lots of people would be out of options, because the things they want to use the internet for are not popular enough in their area to sufficiently incentivize any of the handful of ISPs to cater to them, especially in the face of wealthy corporations paying hard money for the fast lane.
The internet is not like television. (And here I must correct your colloquial use of "InterWeb", as it is about more than just the "web".).
There are just too many things you can do on the internet. It's not all simply "content", and it's not the ISPs' job to "provide" that "content". There are many protocols and forms of data that flow through an ISP's cables, some of it is websites and streaming video, some of it is encrypted data, some of it realtime gameplay, some of it money movements and trade, some of it video and audio chat (either encrypted or not), some of it something entirely different. The permutations and variaions of what is throttled and what isn't are potentially vast, and the number of ISPs is small. Therefore those few ISPs can't possibly cater to every consumer demand. And why would they, with the fat money coming from the corporations paying for the "fast lane"? They can collude, agree with each other on a set of non-paid resources not to throttle (or not throttle as much), to keep most of the customer outrage at bay. At this point, they've achieved a status quo that's really hard to change. And the internet as we know it is fundamentally changed for the worse.

Please upgrade to our Deluxe ™ Data Plan to read the rest of this comment. Once we have verified your payment, you'll be able to click the spoiler section below.
Spoiler:
No, it won't adversely affect every single user, it could even happen that a majority won't be adversely affected since they only ever use youtube and facebook and google and twitter. BUT the majority not affected still doesn't mean there wouldn't be a significant number of people who are.

Also it is important to note how we can normalize certain "hardships" we're subjected to, and companies can employ careful tactics to slowly and steadily condition us to accept something we otherwise wouldn't have. (Take for example the trend of microtransactions in paid games.) Similarly, the majority of the population could be accustomed to less bandwidth and more waiting to load stuff. It could become the norm to wait more for websites to load and files to download, except from "those good ones".

And this would create emergent behaviors as people try to adapt. An artist, when choosing to decide where to host their portfolio of artwork, would be faced with the same number of choices as now, but only one or two of those choices would be fast-lane, so the true choice would be limited. So they'd host their stuff on facebook, incentivizing facebook to create more features and page types and whatnot, becoming *even bigger* by poaching activities previously handled by other companies, simply by virtue of being more easily accessible, which it became by paying for the privilege.

And yes, a lot of times when people would face slow access to certain resources, their first choice wouldn't be finding yet another ISP (with all the hassle that involves, especially if they've already tried all), but to work around the problem by using fast-lane services instead, whenever possible. This would in turn put more small businesses at a disadvantage, furthering the divide.

But hey, even if that isn't how it all unfolds, the other option is that ISPs will offer you packages with the "choice to pay more" for a better access. Because they *neeeeeed* your cash! (Right!) And they'll sell it to you so you'll like it! You'll enjoy the "choice" and "freedom" they'll give you with all their different tiers and package deals while you're "shopping around for Internet access". All the while not realizing how the system is screwing you and the entire thing could be cheaper AND better. And no, it won't happen overnight because you need to be eased into the poo gently, lest you notice the splash.

About "letting the free market work", I think the wrong thing here is the idea that already advantaged companies get extra advantages. How is that healthy for the market?
Companies *using* the internet are on a level playing field now. If you let this happen, this playing field will be warped to favor the ones that need it the least.

The free market only works well if it is somewhat regulated. Regulations are for people, companies are for themselves. They don't want what's good for you, they want to make you think they're good for you. They want to placate you into submission so you'll keep giving them money. If that doesn't work, they'll collude to divide and conquer, become several de-facto monopolies so you don't have a choice (AFAIK they're already doing some of that), and hold you off until you calm down and accept your fate. Sorry, this line is too busy now, please try at another time.

............

Why would you stand for these asshats getting richer? What use is clinging to the principle of free market, even when it doesn't benefit humans? (Corporations are *made of* humans, they are not themselves humans. Treating them as such has been a big mistake.)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! There is net neutrality now. If you let it be abolished, it's a "fix" that benefits who?
You can envision a wonderful pink plastic world where the free market works perfectly and it somehow magically ends up being good for everyone, but if all you're doing is justifying corporations getting even richer than they already are, who are you really preaching for? Screw the government because it's the government? Stand up for Comcast and Verizon because ummm... you like them so much?

Again who gets fucked over? The little guy. Free market is great unless you want it to be good for everyone. By nature it won't be good for everyone in a free market, just like life isn't good for every wolf in the wilderness. But that's why we're humans, in human societies, and not animals. So that we can provide healthcare for those who can't afford it, and regulate markets so it's not just the biggest whales that get to control everything, and ensure that *some* things are available to *everyone*, not just those that are "strong enough".

Access to all of the internet without cherry picking is a *good thing*. Market incentives can be found anywhere, but if there is no *human* incentive, why pamper the top of the market?

Internet access has to be treated like what it is, a utility.

Do you want a choice of 7 different water companies all competing for you to let them pump water into your house, some being quality drinking water while others might contain certain bacteria you may or may not have the coverage to be immunized for? Or one water company (GASP, COMMUNISM!) that is ensured to be good and reliable?

Do you want a choice of 8 different power companies all competing for you to let them wire your house, some providing voltages that are only good for some of your electronics, so you'd have to buy the right kinds of electronics that work with your power company? ("But there is free market, whoever needs to use their cheap blender will just simply switch to... well, the more expensive power company! Makes sense!") No, it doesn't make sense.

ISPs' job isn't to "provide content", but to provide a service. And a fundamental *quality* of that service is how neutral it is. The *best possible* Internet is neutral, it can only get worse from here.

And hey, here's another thing. The American Internet is not a closed system. You guys aren't the center of the world, but you can seriously affect the internet. So please be responsible about it.
I can't choose an American ISP, so I don't have any power in influencing the American market. And yet I use services hosted in the U.S. Some of those services might not have access to hosting providers that can afford the fast lane. Just... don't do this.
Also, this would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world...

Woah, you read all of that?

@shai: if the current big ISPs get even bigger by being allowed to charge for fast-lanes and for extra tiers of services, that doesn't exactly help any new company... And AFAIK they sometimes rent out their infrastructure to each other or something like that. It's really really expensive to build new infrastructure, so it's already a really difficult field to get into...


EDIT: Oh, and if you're rich and want to make use of the free market to gain a fast lane, guess what, you can already do that! You just gotta lay your own cable, like high-frequency traders sometimes do. The ultimate fast lane, without messing it up for the rest of us.
Ivokyuftaf6666 wrote:Awesome Site, Delievering Fun

Image
User avatar
atomtengeralattjaro
ASDF's Best Friend
ASDF's Best Friend
 
Posts: 33921
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 am
Location: green

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:38 pm

Okay I didn't read all of this, and most of what I did read, I didn't understand

Anyway, spam
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby assdef » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:36 pm

First off, net neutrality rules did not exist in the United States until 2015. This wasn't a problem for the InterWeb for the years before that, not sure why it would be a problem now. So the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" argument is irrelevant. We regulated a problem that didn't exist.

Government regulation of a utility only helps as that utility establishes itself. Once it's established, the government needs to GTFO. That's already happened with sewer, trash, telephone, electricity, and gas in a lot of areas of the U.S. Consumers have a choice of what electric provider they want to use (or what electric-producing technology they want to use) and that's what keeps costs at a fair level. Not government regulation.

Regarding the choice of ISP, in some rural areas of the U.S. options for ISPs are limited - but that corresponds with the population in the area. More people (consumers) means more choices available. But the same could be said about any service. There's also only one place to shop for groceries and such in a lot of areas (Walmart) but people don't ask for regulation around that, which is essentially the same type of monopoly.

The largest portion of InterWeb traffic is P2P file sharing, most of which (I assume) is illegal anyways. Next to that I believe it's media streaming (video and audio). I know there are other uses of the InterWeb as Atomt points out, but it is a much smaller portion of what is consumed, and keep in mind the level of effort for an ISP to throttle every little use of the InterWeb would be very high, and their ability to monetize that in a cost-effective way is likely minimal. Plus, ISPs are going to take steps to try and grow revenue through new client growth as well - that's exactly what cellular providers in the U.S. have done with their approach to data consumption. There are a couple of providers that don't charge for data that is used via streaming media, an idea that came from consumers complaining about/looking for a cellular provider that met their needs. ISPs will also follow the demands of consumers and offer services people want at a price they can consume. They're not just going to jack up prices and consumers are going to sit there and pay more. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Net neutrality doesn't prevent large ISP corporations from making more money. There are already options given to consumers for "faster" internet plans (tiered pricing) - every ISP already offers that. Businesses will always focus on and find ways to 1) capture new consumers, and 2) generate more revenue from the consumers they already serve. Regulations can't stop that from happening.

The most compelling argument for net neutrality is how governing speeds to certain Web sites might negatively impact smaller Web sites from building a client base - e.g., Netflix and Hulu pay off ISPs for greater bandwidth so this new outfit ShaiStream gets the shaft. But this argument assumes that every consumer of the InterWeb is delivered the same exact experience (particularly in terms of speed). So not the case. There are sooooooo many variables that impact the speed at which someone is able to utilize the InterWeb, the ability for an ISP to throttle usage of just one (or a handful) of specific Web sites/content providers is marginalized by all of the other variables that impact a consumer's ability to access that Web site. And again, if you don't like the throttling practices of your ISP, find a new one, or a different way to receive the content. And if you live out in the middle of nowhere and get your InterWeb connection by holding an antenna in a certain position with one leg in the air and the other on a shaky ladder, then move to civilization, doofus. I'm not in the business of solving people's questionable life choices.

Finally, market forces always prevail for the consumer. Case in point: Uber, Lyft, etc. A heavily-regulated industry (livery) provides poor, expensive service, and someone invents a cheaper, more efficient, higher quality way to deliver that service. The market is like squeezing a water balloon: if you push to hard on one side, the other side will bubble out in its place.

Of things that are a big deal, I don't find net neutrality to be one of them. The market will take care of itself. Things that are a bigger deal that we need to put more focus on in the U.S.: protecting the environment, gun control, healthcare, civil rights, and education, just to name a few.

TL;DR: net-neutrality, schmet-neutrality--we've got bigger fish to fry
Image
User avatar
assdef
JKL;'s Nightmare
JKL;'s Nightmare
 
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:42 pm

Read the tldr only, I agree, AMERICA IS FULL OF HORRIBLE FLAWS, FIX THEM , AND FAST GONVERMENT!

It sucks because our friend Ivo is form Bulgaria, and apparently (apparently = from an article I read) countries like Bulgaria will probably follow the USAs example and do whatever they do.

That is fine with me! If you americans want to give up liberties to the big corps, Canada will still be fine and dandy, so if it doesnt affect me, what do I care?

*realises most things he uses on the internet would probably be affected*
shit, damn you FCC!
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Shai'tan » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:40 pm

atomtengeralattjaro wrote:I was under ...<snip>


This is incredibly well put and I completely agree with all of it.

assdef wrote:First off, net neutrality rules did not exist in the United States until 2015. This wasn't a problem for the InterWeb for the years before that, not sure why it would be a problem now. So the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" argument is irrelevant. We regulated a problem that didn't exist.


There has actually been several cases where ISPs have overstepped and it's one of the reasons the Net Neutrality was implemented in the first place. There is precedent here.

assdef wrote:Government regulation of a utility only helps as that utility establishes itself. Once it's established, the government needs to GTFO. That's already happened with sewer, trash, telephone, electricity, and gas in a lot of areas of the U.S. Consumers have a choice of what electric provider they want to use (or what electric-producing technology they want to use) and that's what keeps costs at a fair level. Not government regulation.


It helps keep things fair and better for the consumer. Imagine if there only was one electric provider where you lived. With

assdef wrote:Regarding the choice of ISP, in some rural areas of the U.S. options for ISPs are limited - but that corresponds with the population in the area. More people (consumers) means more choices available. But the same could be said about any service. There's also only one place to shop for groceries and such in a lot of areas (Walmart) but people don't ask for regulation around that, which is essentially the same type of monopoly.


That's a different issue entirely. You shouldn't be entirely screwed for living in a low-population area, though I can understand there are difficulties - especially with how large the US is - getting services out to rural areas. Monopolies are never a good thing.

assdef wrote:The largest portion of InterWeb traffic is P2P file sharing, most of which (I assume) is illegal anyways. Next to that I believe it's media streaming (video and audio). I know there are other uses of the InterWeb as Atomt points out, but it is a much smaller portion of what is consumed, and keep in mind the level of effort for an ISP to throttle every little use of the InterWeb would be very high, and their ability to monetize that in a cost-effective way is likely minimal. Plus, ISPs are going to take steps to try and grow revenue through new client growth as well - that's exactly what cellular providers in the U.S. have done with their approach to data consumption. There are a couple of providers that don't charge for data that is used via streaming media, an idea that came from consumers complaining about/looking for a cellular provider that met their needs. ISPs will also follow the demands of consumers and offer services people want at a price they can consume. They're not just going to jack up prices and consumers are going to sit there and pay more. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.


I do not believe there is any measurement done on how much of P2P is illegal, but there are plenty valid reasons to use and it is one the best ways to transfer large files over the internet. Even so the P2P traffic on the internet has been decreasing Wikipedia says it's down to 7.4% overall in 2013 and streaming services has increased a ton since then as well. Netflix as similar services are more popular now than ever.
I do not believe that it would be particularly hard for ISPs monetize it effectively. And as Atom said the fact that they would not charge data for using certain services would also make it harder for new services of that kind to compete with the already established services. There also wouldn't be anything stopping the ISPs from charging the services to be included in such plans.
Sure it's not going to happen straight away. They aren't going to suddenly say "You have to pay more now" - the question is how the internet will be in 5, 10, 20 years if this is implemented.

assdef wrote:Net neutrality doesn't prevent large ISP corporations from making more money. There are already options given to consumers for "faster" internet plans (tiered pricing) - every ISP already offers that. Businesses will always focus on and find ways to 1) capture new consumers, and 2) generate more revenue from the consumers they already serve. Regulations can't stop that from happening.


No, but they can keep it more consumer-friendly and fair.

assdef wrote:The most compelling argument for net neutrality is how governing speeds to certain Web sites might negatively impact smaller Web sites from building a client base - e.g., Netflix and Hulu pay off ISPs for greater bandwidth so this new outfit ShaiStream gets the shaft. But this argument assumes that every consumer of the InterWeb is delivered the same exact experience (particularly in terms of speed). So not the case. There are sooooooo many variables that impact the speed at which someone is able to utilize the InterWeb, the ability for an ISP to throttle usage of just one (or a handful) of specific Web sites/content providers is marginalized by all of the other variables that impact a consumer's ability to access that Web site. And again, if you don't like the throttling practices of your ISP, find a new one, or a different way to receive the content. And if you live out in the middle of nowhere and get your InterWeb connection by holding an antenna in a certain position with one leg in the air and the other on a shaky ladder, then move to civilization, doofus. I'm not in the business of solving people's questionable life choices.


I don't know how your internet is, but mine pretty stable and I would notice very quickly if things took an extra second or two to load. Sure there are many variables, but this is one that doesn't have to be there. I also entirely disagree with the notion that living outside "civilization" is a questionable life choice. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of areas not far from a city that has much worse choices for services.
The internet is also not just for consuming content - though admittedly most of the traffic goes to that.

assdef wrote:Finally, market forces always prevail for the consumer. Case in point: Uber, Lyft, etc. A heavily-regulated industry (livery) provides poor, expensive service, and someone invents a cheaper, more efficient, higher quality way to deliver that service. The market is like squeezing a water balloon: if you push to hard on one side, the other side will bubble out in its place.


It can be. The issue is when the giants deliberately hinders new companies from trying to take their space or buys the competitor, making themselves bigger and removing the competition. The theory of it is nice, but in practice it's shown to be wrong so many times.

assdef wrote:Of things that are a big deal, I don't find net neutrality to be one of them. The market will take care of itself. Things that are a bigger deal that we need to put more focus on in the U.S.: protecting the environment, gun control, healthcare, civil rights, and education, just to name a few.

TL;DR: net-neutrality, schmet-neutrality--we've got bigger fish to fry


I can respect that you do not find it to be a big issue, but it's a big issue for a lot of people - an incredibly important issue.
Quote of the Ages:

Image
User avatar
Shai'tan
ASDF's Best Friend
ASDF's Best Friend
 
Posts: 25621
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:14 am
Location: Seven

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby assdef » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:51 pm

Let me start by saying Shai's arguments are convincing and well-thought-out (even though I continue to be a net neutrality skeptic). But I appreciate the opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion on the topic, particularly nowadays, when it seems all political debate is so horrendously absurd and over-emotional, particularly in my country. Heaven forbid I ever try to engage a Trump supporter in any sort of conversation that expresses a viewpoint that opposes Trumpism, it almost immediately deteriorates into name-calling. This exchange with everyone has been incredibly refreshing for me, so thank you. *gets off soapbox*

Shai'tan wrote:There has actually been several cases where ISPs have overstepped and it's one of the reasons the Net Neutrality was implemented in the first place. There is precedent here.

Those articles are from 2007/2008. Net neutrality regulations weren't implemented until 2015. No dramatic shifts in U.S.-based InterWeb service during that time. Moreover, Canada didn't implement any net neutrality regulations until earlier this year. The "precedent" is weak and is not evidence-based. I've seen Portugal cited as an example, but this article does a great job of debunking that example. My favorite quote from the article, which, to my point, states that even under current U.S. net neutrality regulations ISPs could create additional pricing structures that proponents of net neutrality state will cause problems, is that, "The biggest roadblock to US carriers adopting [content-based pricing models] is probably more public opinion than the FCC." This is exactly what I'm saying - companies respond to consumer demand. That's how the economy works.

Shai'tan wrote:It helps keep things fair and better for the consumer. Imagine if there only was one electric provider where you lived.

"Fair" is a subjective judgement. Government is inefficient and often fails to make anything 'fair' for everyone. And there isn't just one electric provider because a business in the market recognized an opportunity to generate more competition by offering lower prices, which in turn reduced pricing from other electric providers, until a fair market-based price was achieved.

Shai'tan wrote:That's a different issue entirely. You shouldn't be entirely screwed for living in a low-population area, though I can understand there are difficulties - especially with how large the US is - getting services out to rural areas. Monopolies are never a good thing.

Monopolies are often necessary for large-scale expansion of a high-cost, utility-like service at first. If the cost of creating a service delivery network in a large area for a service that is deemed universally important to all consumers (think electricity, telecommunications, railroads, etc.) the government can regulate/subsidize an industry initially to get it started by creating a monopoly. But once established, given inefficiencies of government, de-regulation should start to allow competition to come in and regulate pricing and improve service.

Shai'tan wrote:I do not believe that it would be particularly hard for ISPs monetize it effectively. And as Atom said the fact that they would not charge data for using certain services would also make it harder for new services of that kind to compete with the already established services. There also wouldn't be anything stopping the ISPs from charging the services to be included in such plans.
Sure it's not going to happen straight away. They aren't going to suddenly say "You have to pay more now" - the question is how the internet will be in 5, 10, 20 years if this is implemented.

The problem with the current net neutrality debate, in my opinion, is that we are not able to truly understand/consider what the InterWeb will be in 5-10-20+ years. Given how much technology has changed, how use of the InterWeb has changed dramatically in recent years (to your point above), the argument that net neutrality regulations are important to preserve InterWeb accessibility in its current state short-sightedly assumes that InterWeb usage isn't going to change dramatically in the next several years. Given how inefficient government is at regulating, and how long it takes to change regulations/laws, government is better off staying out of the business of regulating technology, else it might accidentally stunt technological growth, hindering progress in the name of helping preserve a 'mythical' neutrality.

Shai'tan wrote:No, but they can keep it more consumer-friendly and fair.

Again, subjective judgement with heuristic bias. This is also why I struggle with opinion polls on the topic of net neutrality. The question "Is equal access to the Internet a right?" is such a "push-poll" question. Plus, in the poll, respondents indicated a high distrust of government's ability to protect access to the InterWeb! Further evidence, in my opinion, this is an emotionally-focused debate, not a fact-focused one. Most people (except the few in this forum) don't know what the heck they are talking about, and the idea of a "free InterWeb" just "feels" better.

Shai'tan wrote:I don't know how your internet is, but mine pretty stable and I would notice very quickly if things took an extra second or two to load. Sure there are many variables, but this is one that doesn't have to be there. I also entirely disagree with the notion that living outside "civilization" is a questionable life choice. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of areas not far from a city that has much worse choices for services.
The internet is also not just for consuming content - though admittedly most of the traffic goes to that.

Agreed, people are free to pursue happiness in whatever way they want. If that means living out in the middle of no where, fine. But with that choice comes opportunity cost - if you choose to live away from populated areas, you also won't enjoy the benefits of living in populated areas. And it is not the role of government or society to provide additional support to you if you choose to do that. It is your individual responsibility.

Shai'tan wrote:It can be. The issue is when the giants deliberately hinders new companies from trying to take their space or buys the competitor, making themselves bigger and removing the competition. The theory of it is nice, but in practice it's shown to be wrong so many times.

Disagree - capitalism has spread while socialism has retracted all across the globe for the last 30+ years.

Shai'tan wrote:I can respect that you do not find it to be a big issue, but it's a big issue for a lot of people - an incredibly important issue.

I'll agree to that. But this survey suggests 72% of respondents didn't know what net neutrality was. Most other surveys that I was able to find didn't even ask the question if respondents know what net neutrality is, leading me to again believe they are "push polls" and the results are biased. If governing is about prioritization, this issue needs to be low on the list.

TL;DR: Americans are stupid, may the market-force be with you!
Image
User avatar
assdef
JKL;'s Nightmare
JKL;'s Nightmare
 
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:35 am

pls stop with the 18 hour posts. Unless you dont want to , then ill continue to stand out by typing a few sentences after a block of text ...
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Uly » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:23 pm

ok so what's up I've been gone a while
User avatar
Uly
ASDF Prophet
ASDF Prophet
 
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:40 pm
Location: At your service

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:33 pm

same stuff dude. Where ya been?
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby assdef » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:54 am

Froggychum wrote:pls stop with the 18 hour posts.

Image
NO
Image
User avatar
assdef
JKL;'s Nightmare
JKL;'s Nightmare
 
Posts: 6664
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:17 pm

*completely ignores that*

Nicol Bolas is older than God.

To be clear, that is the God that Christians believe in, who is so old that he was first heard of in BC (old testament LOL)

Actually, Nicol Bolas is older than Christianity, Islam, AND Judaism (combined!!)

He is older than any religion, they are only 300 000 years old at max (that is when humans evolved!)

Yup. If you wanna be spiritual (if you are, good luck not being killed when I take over as Earth Ruler!) then go for Bolas.

Praise the God-Pharaoh!
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Uly » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:50 am

Someone asked me to write poetry for the school magazine so I've been working on that. Also on my music, but that's unrelated.
User avatar
Uly
ASDF Prophet
ASDF Prophet
 
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:40 pm
Location: At your service

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Shai'tan » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:07 am

assdef wrote:Let me start by saying Shai's arguments are convincing and well-thought-out (even though I continue to be a net neutrality skeptic). But I appreciate the opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion on the topic, particularly nowadays, when it seems all political debate is so horrendously absurd and over-emotional, particularly in my country. Heaven forbid I ever try to engage a Trump supporter in any sort of conversation that expresses a viewpoint that opposes Trumpism, it almost immediately deteriorates into name-calling. This exchange with everyone has been incredibly refreshing for me, so thank you. *gets off soapbox*


Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm grateful as well, it's always nice to see a case from another viewpoint, especially from someone who is likely to be way more affected by such changes than myself. I really want to take some time and answer a lot of this, but I've been putting it off as I don't have much time at the moment (exams tomorrow! :shock: ).

I think it might be best to move this to the discussion thread - it's why we have it. :)
Quote of the Ages:

Image
User avatar
Shai'tan
ASDF's Best Friend
ASDF's Best Friend
 
Posts: 25621
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:14 am
Location: Seven

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Froggychum » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:04 pm

yay!
May the spam rise again!

Also Assdef change yer sheep to a Yes sheep! Because now my wish came chroo!
<3 Froggychum
I have an Evai quote in my signature. If Froggychum put a quote from me in his signature, it would all come full circle.
User avatar
Froggychum
ASDF High Priest
ASDF High Priest
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:30 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Anonymously Famous » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:07 pm

Froggychum wrote:Nicol Bolas...

Praise the God-Pharaoh!

Been playing some of the new MTG stuff?
ThingerDudes wrote:The only reasonable amount of Nutella is infinity. Everything else is too little.

Proud poster of the 300kth post in General
User avatar
Anonymously Famous
JKL; Assassin
JKL; Assassin
 
Posts: 11037
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:52 pm

Re: Let this thread die!

Postby Uly » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:37 pm

I had to quit playing MTG.
User avatar
Uly
ASDF Prophet
ASDF Prophet
 
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:40 pm
Location: At your service

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Shai'tan and 12 guests