Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

a reply to: buster2010

Actually, I was just flabbergasted that you thought that the ACA was debated to the members satisfaction and passed in some sort of democratic way, it was not.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: buster2010

So...you supported and agree with the Patriotic Act, including they way it was passed?

Or are you demonstrating a double standard?

Where did I ever say I supported the Patriot act? I didn't support it just like I didn't support the ACA.

There is no double standard you simply do not know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: buster2010

Actually, I was just flabbergasted that you thought that the ACA was debated and passed in some sort of democratic way, it was not.

So people didn't vote for it? Obama just passed it with a stroke of his pen and by passed congress?

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I am confused as to why supporters of net neutrality legislation are always pointing to the Netflix/Comcast issue. It has nothing to do with net neutrality or internet freedom. It's just everyday economics.

Incorrect. It's precisely the kind of activity that Net Neutrality would prevent.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: buster2010

Actually, I was just flabbergasted that you thought that the ACA was debated and passed in some sort of democratic way, it was not.

So people didn't vote for it? Obama just passed it with a stroke of his pen and by passed congress?

Never have I seen so partisan a procedure as the compulsory enema that is the ACA. Wrong as it certainly was/is, the patriot act enjoyed popular support from Republicans and Democrats.

a reply to: buster2010

You support the proposed Net Neutrality (attempt to pass it without revealing details), yet you opposed the Patriot Act (passed without revealing details).

You support Progressive-sponsored legislation blindly, but cite the Patriot Act as being passed through deception and secrecy. That's the double standard.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I am confused as to why supporters of net neutrality legislation are always pointing to the Netflix/Comcast issue. It has nothing to do with net neutrality or internet freedom. It's just everyday economics.

Businesses enter into contracts. Contracts are often re-negotiated. Comcast decided it needed to charge more to Netflix for the use of their infrastructure and service, and that Netflix could afford it. Netflix was then faced with the choice to either cough up more money (by raising prices and/or cutting into profits), or find another way to bring its product to the consumer. It would likely be cheaper for Netflix to pay a little more to Comcast than it would be to invest in infrastructure of their own. But maybe that infra investment would pay off long-term? That's for the people who run Netflix to decide. That's business.

The argument made by net neutrality legislation supporters is that Comcast should be forbidden from ever raising its prices due to increased traffic. That's like saying UPS should not be allowed to charge Amazon extra if they choose to. Why should that be forbidden by law? History shows us that meddling with the free market on that level can only cause harm.

I suggest you look more into the Comcast issue because it has everything to do with Net Neutrality. It also never involved Comcast renegotiating their old agreement, they simply created a new contract in addition to what Netflix already had.

I just can't wait till this passes just so I can hear all the back peddling by those who support this.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Oh, I see.

In that case the pros/cons list for this proposed 'net neutrality' is tipping heavily towards the con side.

Can you explain why we need to micromanage the economy in order to preserve internet freedom? And how the federal government promises to mitigate all of the negative unforeseen consequences of doing so?

Personally, I'd rather hear all of that before we let them redistribute the interwebs.

a reply to: greencmp

Many laws have been passed that have helped me. Pell Grants are the reason I've been able to obtain an education. Traffic laws are the reason I haven't been killed on a road. The FDA is the reason the coffee I'm drinking right now wasn't cut with antifreeze as a cheap filler ingredient. The clean air act is the reason I probably won't die of lung cancer.

Not all laws and regulation are pointless.

a reply to: ketsuko

I've asked this to other people against Net Neutrality too.

Should corporations have the right to dictate how you use their product or service? To give some examples:

Should an electric company be allowed to dictate what gadgets you're allowed to plug in?
Should a TV manufacturer get to dictate that you only get to use a specific brand of DVR?
Should a game console manufacturer dictate what games you are allowed to play for your system?
Does an ISP get to dictate how much bandwidth you may use on each website?

a reply to: Aazadan

The most important laws - theft, murder, rape, driving accountability - have been on the books for a century or more.

There aren't many laws passed within the last fifty years that benefitted me.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

I've asked this to other people against Net Neutrality too.

Should corporations have the right to dictate how you use their product or service? To give some examples:

Should an electric company be allowed to dictate what gadgets you're allowed to plug in?
Should a TV manufacturer get to dictate that you only get to use a specific brand of DVR?
Should a game console manufacturer dictate what games you are allowed to play for your system?
Does an ISP get to dictate how much bandwidth you may use on each website?

Only one of those scenarios would possibly play out, and it's no coincidence that it's also the only business you mentioned that is not entirely privatized.

The electric company could do that, because the federal government has insured that there is no competition in that market.

If an electronics manufacturer, ISP, WalMart, or any other private company pulled crap like that, the responsible consumers would take their money elsewhere. Even if that meant going without internet for a while. Believe it or not, humans can survive for over 4 hours without TwitFace and porn.

Even a corporate giant like Comcast or ATT can be brought to its knees by consumer blowback.

All I know is...

I look at who stands to gain the most over this issue, and I base my decision on that. As much as I hate over regulation, I'd rather have the government overseeing things than a soulless corporate entity, motivated by greed for a very few. Aren't we tired of the "corporatocracy" in this country anyway?

I support Net Neutrality.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I bet the FDA has benefited you.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

"Take their money elsewhere..."

Where I live (and a lot of people are in this situation too) there is only one ISP for any kind of "broadband" internet. So, if I was upset with my ISP I would have to forego the internet all together. I seriously doubt a few lost customers would spur new fiber optic lines being dropped and roads being torn up to expand infrastructure.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Even if that meant going without internet for a while. Believe it or not, humans can survive for over 4 hours without TwitFace and porn.

It's not that simple. The Internet being out for four hours would have serious economic impact. Simple things such as bank withdrawals, buying gas, paying with credit/debit would stop.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: greencmp

Many laws have been passed that have helped me. Pell Grants are the reason I've been able to obtain an education. Traffic laws are the reason I haven't been killed on a road. The FDA is the reason the coffee I'm drinking right now wasn't cut with antifreeze as a cheap filler ingredient. The clean air act is the reason I probably won't die of lung cancer.

Not all laws and regulation are pointless.

I think we have different considerations when it comes to what constitutes good laws.

Pell grants certainly do provide educational institutions with some guaranteed income at the expense of taxpayers. You certainly can say that you were helped by that though, the rest was up to you and you may very well have been better off not matriculating in that educational organization.

The loans which the federal government underwrote for the rest of the tuition cannot be evaded even through bankruptcy. Not even health care institutions have that kind of state support. Just noting that going to college is not necessarily a good thing.

The FDA is not responsible for your coffee in any way other than that they have decided to allow it's import which allows you to drink it for the time being. If someone cuts your coffee with antifreeze, an attempt has been made on your life and you should prosecute. Also a local action which has nothing to do with the FDA or the federal government.

The Clean Air Act wasn't so bad but, as usual, the improvements had already been made in the industry because, once possible, reducing pollution was in the best interests of companies and their shareholders. And once again, the industry leaders themselves lobbied for the legislation knowing that the restrictions which they had already implemented would be preclusively expensive for any competing interests.

Traffic laws are local, not federal. Maybe that is where this conversation is breaking actually.

If each state engaged in their own net neutrality experiments, we could make an informed decision about which system works or doesn't work.

I would be moving to the states which do not engage in excessive regulation.

Nearly all laws and regulations are pointless or, as I am suggesting, extremely destructive.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Trade the devil I know for the one I don't!

Am I right?

Of course we could all get to know both devils, but that would require reading about boring stuff instead Of ATS.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

I've asked this to other people against Net Neutrality too.

Should corporations have the right to dictate how you use their product or service?

If it's their product or service, ummm, it's theirs.

If someone comes over to use your stuff, do you have the right to dictate to them how they use it?

Should an electric company be allowed to dictate what gadgets you're allowed to plug in?

Can you plug in an electric device bought in England without special adaptors?

Should a TV manufacturer get to dictate that you only get to use a specific brand of DVR?

May I introduce you to the concept of the VHS v. Betamax war? How about the BluRay v. HD-DVD? Or need I remind you of the Zune v. iPod and similar media players? Companies do it all the time with exclusivity.

Should a game console manufacturer dictate what games you are allowed to play for your system?

Ummm need I revisit the above? X-Bone and PS4 are all about fighting over market share right now. Each has its own stable of exclusive titles on top of titles that cross platform. They do the exclusivity to lure in customers. Surely you are aware of this.

Does an ISP get to dictate how much bandwidth you may use on each website?

You pay for your agreement with your ISP. If they tried it, they would have to fight with other ISPs who may or may not follow suit, and it depends widely on whether or not consumers would stand for it and pay for it. You also have to account for the deals ISPs have with website owners. What you have access to isn't solely based on what you pay for but it's also dependent on what the site owners cough up too.

In the case of Netflix/Comcast, Netflix is just like you and doesn't want to pay more to Comcast. They think they should get special deals because they bring in a lot of customers to Comcast. Other ISPs have cut Netflix deals already. Comcast won't. The marketing divisions have convinced you that this is all about a fight over bandwidth when it's really a business battle between two of the big boys, and they're getting you to buy into Net Stupidity as a side product because, like you, they think it will make them have to pay less.

The truth is that we will be slowed down to European bandwidth speeds across the board in all likelihood and the government will have access to all kinds of tax measures and licensure. They'll win because they need money ... and power. The rest of us will lose.