3 ms·

> What the fuck are you talking about? The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. > Fair, but I'd say this is an incentive for ISPs to ste

> What the fuck are you talking about? The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. > Fair, but I'd say this is an incentive for ISPs to step up their game. What do you mean? > This is a very old argument. Yours or his? > First of all, soap, wine and haircuts are not a medium of sharing information. How is this relevant? > And all qualities are not sold at the same price. I think that’s the point.

monocasa 8y ago
> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. Despite the right wing talking points, we've had net neutrality for the whole existence of the public, consumer level internet. First due to the fact the physical infrastructure of the 90s were owned by the telephone companies who were common carriers. Then by the FCC's attempt at light touch on broadband until Verizon sued them to get a court order that the FCC could only enforce it by declaring them to be full common carriers.
decebalus1 8y ago
> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. That's a common misconception. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Early_history_1980_%E2%80%93_early_2000s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... > What do you mean? I mean that if demand grows for broadband, they should match their service offerings to reach it. But because the US ISP industry is basically an oligopoly, it's hard to do so and way WAY profitable to keep their state on the market (by lobbying against municipal internet for example) and just start treating and charging traffic differently. It's funny that there is a large percentage of people glorifying the free market at the same time are against 'overreaching regulations' which don't do anything other than protecting an oligopoly. > Yours or his? His. And see above. > How is this relevant? It is. Because imagine that Comcast would be able to legally censor websites. Or AT&T would be able to cut access to Wikileaks or some websites promoting dissent [OOPS]. Ok, let's say they wouldn't go that far. But just basically cut access to competing services. But oh, they wouldn't do that because the Net Neutrality regulations are overreaching and against competition [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. But history has shown who is actually against competition. [OOPS]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/att-censors-pearl-jam-then-says-oops/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science... [1]https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-com... [3]http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/ http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone... [4]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-search-redirection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea... [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.44077d1c090e https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fine... [6]https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-i... [7]http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go... You're using a new account so I need to admit that I'm biased to think that you have a different agenda so I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will never change your belief but I'm open to hearing arguments from other side.

monocasa 8y ago

> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. Despite the right wing talking points, we've had net neutrality for the whole existence of the public, consumer level internet. First due to the fact the physical infrastructure of the 90s were owned by the telephone companies who were common carriers. Then by the FCC's attempt at light touch on broadband until Verizon sued them to get a court order that the FCC could only enforce it by declaring them to be full common carriers.

decebalus1 8y ago

> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. That's a common misconception. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Early_history_1980_%E2%80%93_early_2000s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... > What do you mean? I mean that if demand grows for broadband, they should match their service offerings to reach it. But because the US ISP industry is basically an oligopoly, it's hard to do so and way WAY profitable to keep their state on the market (by lobbying against municipal internet for example) and just start treating and charging traffic differently. It's funny that there is a large percentage of people glorifying the free market at the same time are against 'overreaching regulations' which don't do anything other than protecting an oligopoly. > Yours or his? His. And see above. > How is this relevant? It is. Because imagine that Comcast would be able to legally censor websites. Or AT&T would be able to cut access to Wikileaks or some websites promoting dissent [OOPS]. Ok, let's say they wouldn't go that far. But just basically cut access to competing services. But oh, they wouldn't do that because the Net Neutrality regulations are overreaching and against competition [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. But history has shown who is actually against competition. [OOPS]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/att-censors-pearl-jam-then-says-oops/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science... [1]https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-com... [3]http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/ http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone... [4]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-search-redirection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea... [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.44077d1c090e https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fine... [6]https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-i... [7]http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go... You're using a new account so I need to admit that I'm biased to think that you have a different agenda so I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will never change your belief but I'm open to hearing arguments from other side.