3 ms·

> They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform. I can also opt ou

> They pass that on to the consumer. It's Comacst trying to indirectly charge their customr twice for not using Comcast's streaming platform. I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & stimulate more competition, with solutions such as small ISPs, municipal ISPs, & distributed networks. The costs of NN are in the regulation, the extra laws that will include pork & more funding for government agencies. Also the ISP market used by everybody shrinks while the large content companies get a subsidy for flooding the commons, incentivizing these large content companies to grow even larger. With the development of distributing computing, distributed networks, & open source/free software, there are new solutions on the table today that were not available a few years ago. I'd rather go with a bottom up effort to make the state of the art & my life better than top down legislation that only creates more government, more expenses, & does not benefit me.

monocasa 5y ago
> I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & more competition. It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions. And what specific laws and regulations were a burden? Net neutrality existed already as rules on the books before being removed by Pai's FCC. I always here vague "think of the burden", but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".
- briantakita 5y ago
  > It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions. Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. This is yet another example of an unintended consequence of regulation. Proving compliance has costs that the smaller ISPs are less able to afford than the large ISPs. > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation". I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. Which regulation, when? > > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation". > I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. Did you just reply with "no u" essentially? > I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws. You're the one asserting that specific regulations are burdensome. I can't be expected to prove a negative; you should name the regulation that is burdensome.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

monocasa 5y ago

> I can also opt out of Netflix but I have to use an ISP. I'd rather go for a larger ISP market & more competition. It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions. And what specific laws and regulations were a burden? Net neutrality existed already as rules on the books before being removed by Pai's FCC. I always here vague "think of the burden", but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation".

briantakita 5y ago
> It's not mutually exclusive. And I'll throw out there that the days of the most competition in the ISP space, the days of dial up, had these same provisions on the books. Since it was based on phone lines, the last mile providers were all full Title II Common Carriers, with these same provisions. Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. This is yet another example of an unintended consequence of regulation. Proving compliance has costs that the smaller ISPs are less able to afford than the large ISPs. > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation". I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws.
- monocasa 5y ago
  > Yet since regulation was introduced, the ISP market became consolidated. Which regulation, when? > > but no one can point to the actual burden except in vague, propagandistic terms deeper than name dropping "regulation". > I encourage you to re-read my previous posts & pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of replying with formulaic propaganda. Did you just reply with "no u" essentially? > I point out many of the burdens, effects on the market, opportunity costs, effects on distributed computing, regulatory capture, regulatory pork, compliance costs, etc. I can go to the EFF website to read your arguments. The contexts have changed. The burden of proof is on you since you want more laws. You're the one asserting that specific regulations are burdensome. I can't be expected to prove a negative; you should name the regulation that is burdensome.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]