5 ms·

The Daily Wire (i.e. Ben Shapiro) has the other side of the Net Neutrality debate. It's interesting that the verge article does not touch on any of these point

The Daily Wire (i.e. Ben Shapiro) has the other side of the Net Neutrality debate. It's interesting that the verge article does not touch on any of these points. I've seen other comments mentioning debates getting lost in the weeds. Perhaps there are some presuppositions or matters of importance that are not being understood? http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality...

rjbwork 9y ago
>"Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites," Shapiro added. What competition? I've got the "choice" between AT&T or Comcast. Both suck hugely, but in different ways. I'm sure both will not hesitate to force companies to cut them checks to push their bits to my computer. > It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors. How? My company can't afford to pay every ISP for priority access to fast lanes, but our larger, entrenched competitors can. Maybe it's just my bias, but I only see these kinds of arguments from heavily right leaning sources, and to my mind they miss the mark every time. I don't understand how allowing ISPs to block or throttle companies that don't cut them whatever checks they ask for isn't anti-competitive, and how it could possibly promote competition in an industry full of natural monopolies.
betterunix2 9y ago
"the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition" In fact, deregulation is what created local ISP monopolies in the first place: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc-removes-dsl-network-sharing-rules.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc... So yes, there are matters of importance that are not being understood...
jccalhoun 9y ago
Unless I totally misunderstand net neutrality, that article has very little to do with net neutrality. A number of the points are about the FCC's rules not net neutrality itself and there are some that don't seem to make any sense at all to me (like #6).
tzs 9y ago
Maybe they don't touch on those points because most of the points in that article are riddled with errors? It appears to have been written by someone who has did not put in the effort to read all 8 pages of the actual 2015 Open Internet Order. They seem to have simply heard that it uses Title II authority, and assume that means that any rules and regulations that have ever been used on any past Title II entity are now applicable to ISPs. The things covered in the article's points #2 and #3 all fall under that. They are things that are not applicable to ISPs. Same with point #5. Point #4 and #6 are based on not understanding that ISPs are like transportation companies and websites (such as Facebook and YouPorn) are like places you use transportation services to go to. The article is essentially complaining that the regulations that apply to the taxi company that drives you to Walmart are different from the regulations that apply to Walmart.

rjbwork 9y ago

>"Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites," Shapiro added. What competition? I've got the "choice" between AT&T or Comcast. Both suck hugely, but in different ways. I'm sure both will not hesitate to force companies to cut them checks to push their bits to my computer. > It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors. How? My company can't afford to pay every ISP for priority access to fast lanes, but our larger, entrenched competitors can. Maybe it's just my bias, but I only see these kinds of arguments from heavily right leaning sources, and to my mind they miss the mark every time. I don't understand how allowing ISPs to block or throttle companies that don't cut them whatever checks they ask for isn't anti-competitive, and how it could possibly promote competition in an industry full of natural monopolies.

betterunix2 9y ago

"the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition" In fact, deregulation is what created local ISP monopolies in the first place: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc-removes-dsl-network-sharing-rules.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc... So yes, there are matters of importance that are not being understood...

jccalhoun 9y ago

Unless I totally misunderstand net neutrality, that article has very little to do with net neutrality. A number of the points are about the FCC's rules not net neutrality itself and there are some that don't seem to make any sense at all to me (like #6).

tzs 9y ago

Maybe they don't touch on those points because most of the points in that article are riddled with errors? It appears to have been written by someone who has did not put in the effort to read all 8 pages of the actual 2015 Open Internet Order. They seem to have simply heard that it uses Title II authority, and assume that means that any rules and regulations that have ever been used on any past Title II entity are now applicable to ISPs. The things covered in the article's points #2 and #3 all fall under that. They are things that are not applicable to ISPs. Same with point #5. Point #4 and #6 are based on not understanding that ISPs are like transportation companies and websites (such as Facebook and YouPorn) are like places you use transportation services to go to. The article is essentially complaining that the regulations that apply to the taxi company that drives you to Walmart are different from the regulations that apply to Walmart.