Net Neutrality Paradigm Shift

[Lemur]

Yeah, and Rush Limbaugh should be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine [...]

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So what's your position on net neutrality Lemur?

CR

[Xiahou]

Net neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine. Not to confuse the issue with logic or anything.

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

I suppose I should have just called your post an attempt at guilt by association and left it that that.

Well, Glenn Beck says net neutrality is a Marxist plot, so you know it's probably a good idea.

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad.

[drone]

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

[Vladimir]

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, you've got it wrong. Hitler supported nyet neutrality, at least until France was occupied and Great Britian isolated.

I thought that was the Russians.

Ooooh, I get it. :facepalm: (Lemur, a little help please)

Too late, quoted.

CR

[Lemur]

You know who supported net neutrality? Hitler- so you know it must be bad.

Waitaminnit, you mean to tell me that the Enigma Machine was opensauce? TORVALDS! DARN YOU ALL TO HECK!

That does it. I've changed my mind. If I pay for my connection to the net, and YouTube pays for its bandwidth, it only makes sense that any company that controls the pipes between me and YouTube should have the right to slow down or block the signal. That's only fair.

-edit-

You see, the point was that saying Beck was going against his own interests made about as much sense as saying Limbaugh would be going against his by not supporting the fairness doctrine.

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try a hypothetical and see if it makes more sense:

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

[Xiahou]

Reading comprehension fail. Let's try a hypothetical and see if it makes more sense:

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

Your argument is that since the industry has done just fine on it's own 'de facto', we clearly need to enforce neutrality via ham-fisted regulation that's full of unintended consequences.Brilliant.

Your scenario has zero chance of every happening.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your argument is that since the industry has done just fine on it's own 'de facto', we clearly need to enforce neutrality via ham-fisted regulation that's full of unintended consequences.Brilliant.

Your scenario has zero chance of every happening.

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

And what's changed? Were all ISPs mom and pop stores until this year?

Also, what you knock as opinion and speculation is simply what has happened in other industries. It's not bias or anything; it's what will happen if regulations begins.

And markets had everything to do with the internet as we know it. People came up with all sorts of wonderful innovations because doing so made them money. Every great site is in it for the money, even if there are some who provide a few utilities for free. This rule prevents companies from running their businesses as they see fit, which hampers their ability to make money, which means they aren't inclined to create as much as they would have otherwise.

An ignored market is a market that has not been tapped by companies yet for marketing, advertisement and direct selling of their products.

I'm sorry, you surely cannot be saying the internet has been an ignored market according to your definition. Are you saying companies haven't used the net for marketing over a decade?

And the internet is not a utility like water and heat; you don't need it to live. It's a luxury. It there's one thing I'm sick of, it's some new innovation taking off, and then people claiming that said innovation is now a luxury and demanding control of how a company provides it.

And I take it you don't understand how firms work, if you're saying companies that merely provide a service like ISPs can't innovate. Have you heard of 3G networks? Streaming video to cellphones?

You talk about how evil corporations are going to destroy the internet. Here's the thing; corporations like profit. Profit comes from consumers, and consumers only consume if they're happy with the product. Why is the belief that corporations are so mindlessly stupid and will destroy their business for a few short term profits so entrenched in some people? Why would they 'seek to control' it by making people not want to buy access from them? There's no reason for companies to be doing any of these nightmare tactics net neutrality people shout about.

You want to solve make sure this continues not to be an issue? Get the (@&$(@$ government out of regulating who is able to supply broadband to people so that there's more competition. Then if any company starts shortchanging people they can just switch providers.

Oh, and one last thing; do me a HUGE favor and reply to quotes outside of the quote box. It's really a PITA to read the way you posted it. Thanks.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what's changed? Were all ISPs mom and pop stores until this year?

No, companies have only realized recently the power that the internet provides consumers and they are afraid of it and are now attempting to stop it.

Also, what you knock as opinion and speculation is simply what has happened in other industries. It's not bias or anything; it's what will happen if regulations begins.

Examples please.

And markets had everything to do with the internet as we know it. People came up with all sorts of wonderful innovations because doing so made them money. Every great site is in it for the money, even if there are some who provide a few utilities for free. This rule prevents companies from running their businesses as they see fit, which hampers their ability to make money, which means they aren't inclined to create as much as they would have otherwise.

I disagree completely. I don't know what else to say to this since this is just my opinion against your opinion because neither of us have any proof.

I'm sorry, you surely cannot be saying the internet has been an ignored market according to your definition. Are you saying companies haven't used the net for marketing over a decade?

Well let us see:
Hulu only came about in April of 2008, after years of T.V. companies attempting to remove all traces of their programming from the internet instead of capitalizing on the ability of good shows to be passed around fast.
How many years has the music companies been suing teenagers instead of adapting? Oh yeah, at least 5 years and continuing.
How long ago was it that iTunes finally made their music internet friendly AKA with no DRM? Oh yeah, 2007.
How long has the internet been around? Mid 1990s!?!

And the internet is not a utility like water and heat; you don't need it to live. It's a luxury. It there's one thing I'm sick of, it's some new innovation taking off, and then people claiming that said innovation is now a luxury and demanding control of how a company provides it.

You don't need electricity. Read up on survival manuals and live like every did until the beginning of the 1900s. I guess electricity is a luxury as well and we should be happy with whatever we have.

And I take it you don't understand how firms work, if you're saying companies that merely provide a service like ISPs can't innovate. Have you heard of 3G networks? Streaming video to cellphones?

Ummm? Expanding and upgrading the strength and speed of their network is an innovation? I guess the bar is set low when it comes to innovation.

You talk about how evil corporations are going to destroy the internet. Here's the thing; corporations like profit. Profit comes from consumers, and consumers only consume if they're happy with the product. Why is the belief that corporations are so mindlessly stupid and will destroy their business for a few short term profits so entrenched in some people? Why would they 'seek to control' it by making people not want to buy access from them? There's no reason for companies to be doing any of these nightmare tactics net neutrality people shout about.

The underlined part is completely wrong. The belief isn't that corporations are stupid, otherwise why are we acting as if they are dangerous? I believe (and history has shown) that corporations will do what ever makes them money, both short term and long term and they will force the consumer to like it by not giving them any other option or other manipulations of the market (such as through corrupt and rigged government bills).

Ok in regards to the second to last sentence in that paragraph, pay attention here so i can go over this:
People have to buy the internet from one ISP because of monopolies in their region.
The corporations wants to control the internet by forcing ISP's to do their bidding such as cutting off the internet of people suspected of piracy for instance.
People won't like this, but continue anyway because there is a monopoly. Otherwise, this whole thing wouldn't be possible.

You want to solve make sure this continues not to be an issue? Get the (@&$(@$ government out of regulating who is able to supply broadband to people so that there's more competition. Then if any company starts shortchanging people they can just switch providers.

And here I agree with you! I would love at least 4 different companies to choose from all across the country and there certainly are government laws rigged in favor of such regional monopolies for us to remove. However history teaches us that the free market naturally comes back to a monopoly or a collusion filled oligarchy of companies and that the correct path is a two pronged attack of breaking up companies too big as well as creating safeguards for the protection of American citizens when the government fails or delays in breaking up the next generation of Big Business.

Oh, and one last thing; do me a HUGE favor and reply to quotes outside of the quote box. It's really a PITA to read the way you posted it. Thanks.

Will do.

[Xiahou]

It has done fine on it's own, up until now. Now it is threatened by corporations who seek to control what they have been ignoring for over a decade.

Examples please. Tell us all when businesses that control the Internet backbone have banned specific content from a provider because they refused to pay their e-protection money?

People have been crying about net neutrality for years now- pointing to unrealized threats that need to be regulated. Here we are in 2009, have any of their fears been realized? Nope. Yet people still scream for regulation.

Net neutrality, still completely unnecessary.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Examples please. Tell us all when businesses that control the Internet backbone have banned specific content from a provider because they refused to pay their e-protection money?

People have been crying about net neutrality for years now- pointing to unrealized threats that need to be regulated. Here we are in 2009, have any of their fears been realized? Nope. Yet people still scream for regulation.

Net neutrality, still completely unnecessary.

Umm, see the link I posted in one of my earlier posts. The US Chamber of Commerce (not at all a part of the US government) forced an ISP to shut down the internet for supporters of the "Yes Men" an anti globalization group that humorously held a fake Chamber of Commerce news conference declaring that their policies against climate change have been dead wrong and will now help in stopping climate change.

[ICantSpellDawg]

1. Johnny gets his high-speed internet tubes from Time Warner Cable
2. Time Warner Cable has a cross-marketing deal with NBC
3. Johnny wants to watch Glenn Beck
4. TWC has every right to slow or block Fox News while promoting its partners
5. Therefore, by arguing against net neutrality, a popular host like GB may be working against his own interests

De facto net neutrality made the internets what they are today. If you want to go back to the walled garden model of AOL and CompuServe, be my guest, but don't tell me that the rest of us have to go there with you.

I was under the impression that the interwebs were like a truck? I agree. This isn't a partisan issue, this is an issue of commerce. I wish drudge would stop treating it like the Democrats are running the regulation racket. Republicans need to jump on board this proposal to make it the best it can be.