4 ms·

He will ignore any comments that go against his politics of maximal corporate profit and minimal service to the public citizenry.

briandear 8y ago
I am not a corporate person and I am in the “public citizenry” and I oppose so-called net neutrality. If the public citizenry is unhappy, they are invited to vote. As Obama famously said, elections have consequences. We should be demanding policies that encourage ISP competition instead of demanding policies that would ultimately suppress it.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  You totally sound like a corporate shill.
- lists 8y ago
  Except it's prohibitively expense to compete in that space hence the regulation.
- root_axis 8y ago
  One does not preclude the other. We'll set policies that increase competition among ISPs aside because literally everyone says that they agree with that idea. Moving passed that, what is your specific reasoning for opposing NN, and if you don't mind, could you offer up your definition of NN in practice, just to be sure we're addressing the actual policies and not semantics.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  I agree with you and its annoying when people say you sound like a corporate shill. I don't think it should be federal level government doing net neutrality. I worry about these studies too, because I know my "unique comment" was surrounded by at least a hundred on either side opining the same pro-net neutrality text.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    The reason we think you are corporate shills is because you position makes no sense. ISPs have regional monopolies in a huge % of cases, and the consumer has no chance for free markets to work their magic and get red of bad internet practices that way. Do you not understand that? Or not care? We don't get it. explain.
    - benlorenzetti 8y ago
      My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085
      - wtallis 8y ago
        Your comment shows you seem to have bullshit beliefs about QoS that are a complete red herring to any net neutrality discussion.
        benlorenzetti 8y ago
        Care to elaborate? My understanding is ISPs can internally implement or not implement any QoS that makes economic sense. Also that was my lesser point. Can you address my larger point about jurisdiction for regulating ISPs?
        wtallis 8y ago
        The burden is on you to show how QoS concerns are relevant to net neutrality regulation, such as by pointing out how the net neutrality regulations could possibly have impaired an ISP's ability to handle QoS. Otherwise, pointing out that there exist different kinds of traffic on the internet with different bandwidth and latency requirements has no relevance to the regulations that were under consideration. You shouldn't imply that there's any technical motivation for being anti-net neutrality unless you're prepared to back that up with a real explanation. I'm not going to respond to the part where you don't believe that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce in non-physical goods, because that's so far into crackpot territory that nobody on either side of the net neutrality issue cares about your stance on that issue. It's hard to take you seriously when you're so against net neutrality that you also advocate for getting rid of federal wire fraud statutes.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  net neutrality doesn't suppress competition. the only thing it suppresses is the amount of information the consumer has about what the internet is actually costing them.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Net neutrality would not suppress ISP competition in any way, shape, or form. Unless you count upset ISPs trying to take their ball and go home, like spoiled children. And yes, robust ISP competition would be awesome. But there are parts of the country that realistically could not support more than one ISP. Do those people not deserve neutrality in their internet service? What do you say to them if their ISP suddenly decided to fuck with their traffic? There would never be anyone else to turn to.

briandear 8y ago

I am not a corporate person and I am in the “public citizenry” and I oppose so-called net neutrality. If the public citizenry is unhappy, they are invited to vote. As Obama famously said, elections have consequences. We should be demanding policies that encourage ISP competition instead of demanding policies that would ultimately suppress it.

Daishiman 8y ago
You totally sound like a corporate shill.
lists 8y ago
Except it's prohibitively expense to compete in that space hence the regulation.
root_axis 8y ago
One does not preclude the other. We'll set policies that increase competition among ISPs aside because literally everyone says that they agree with that idea. Moving passed that, what is your specific reasoning for opposing NN, and if you don't mind, could you offer up your definition of NN in practice, just to be sure we're addressing the actual policies and not semantics.
benlorenzetti 8y ago
I agree with you and its annoying when people say you sound like a corporate shill. I don't think it should be federal level government doing net neutrality. I worry about these studies too, because I know my "unique comment" was surrounded by at least a hundred on either side opining the same pro-net neutrality text.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  The reason we think you are corporate shills is because you position makes no sense. ISPs have regional monopolies in a huge % of cases, and the consumer has no chance for free markets to work their magic and get red of bad internet practices that way. Do you not understand that? Or not care? We don't get it. explain.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085
    - wtallis 8y ago
      Your comment shows you seem to have bullshit beliefs about QoS that are a complete red herring to any net neutrality discussion.
      - benlorenzetti 8y ago
        Care to elaborate? My understanding is ISPs can internally implement or not implement any QoS that makes economic sense. Also that was my lesser point. Can you address my larger point about jurisdiction for regulating ISPs?
        wtallis 8y ago
        The burden is on you to show how QoS concerns are relevant to net neutrality regulation, such as by pointing out how the net neutrality regulations could possibly have impaired an ISP's ability to handle QoS. Otherwise, pointing out that there exist different kinds of traffic on the internet with different bandwidth and latency requirements has no relevance to the regulations that were under consideration. You shouldn't imply that there's any technical motivation for being anti-net neutrality unless you're prepared to back that up with a real explanation. I'm not going to respond to the part where you don't believe that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce in non-physical goods, because that's so far into crackpot territory that nobody on either side of the net neutrality issue cares about your stance on that issue. It's hard to take you seriously when you're so against net neutrality that you also advocate for getting rid of federal wire fraud statutes.
gameswithgo 8y ago
net neutrality doesn't suppress competition. the only thing it suppresses is the amount of information the consumer has about what the internet is actually costing them.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Net neutrality would not suppress ISP competition in any way, shape, or form. Unless you count upset ISPs trying to take their ball and go home, like spoiled children. And yes, robust ISP competition would be awesome. But there are parts of the country that realistically could not support more than one ISP. Do those people not deserve neutrality in their internet service? What do you say to them if their ISP suddenly decided to fuck with their traffic? There would never be anyone else to turn to.