2 ms·

I think you may have a warped view of the problems that lack of Net Neutrality would bring. Content creation, and ... errr.. "participation in a two-way flow of

I think you may have a warped view of the problems that lack of Net Neutrality would bring. Content creation, and ... errr.. "participation in a two-way flow of information" is not particularly served by Net Neutrality. Writing and consuming blogs, IMs, twitter comments, emails, forum posts and reddit comments would be virtually unchanged since those are all bandwidth-cap friendly activities and don't particularly need a large pipe anyway ( A basic 5MB connection is more than enough ). Communication apps such as Skype and Hangouts may be affected (though they don't consume that much bandwidth and also don't require a particularly fat pipe). However most are controlled by big conglomerates who would be willing to pay the telecom toll and so may actually work better in a non-neutral internet. HD Video streaming services and software downloads (e.g. via Steam or Xbox) are probably the things most affect by Net Neutrality, especially since telecoms have competing services and those types of services benefit immensely from unlimited caps and lots of bandwidth. So I'm still confused as to what argument you're trying to make. You're hand-waving quite a bit trying to position it as a grave ethical issue and I just don't see it. Again, I think Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. It benefits everyone (except telecoms) and it's been a huge success so far. Let's keep it.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
That's a fairly narrow and presumptious definition of the possible consequences resulting from a lack of Net Neutrality. There is no real limitation on how the ISPs can wield their power AFAIK. For instance, why wouldn't they offer HuffingtonPost (essentially a blog) the opportunity to buy faster access for their readers? But, even if we were to take your assumptions at face value, I'm not sure how you gloss over other details (such as their ability to price competitors like Netflix out of the market or essentially hold their users for ransom to the highest bidder). Given that they are quasi-monopolies in most cases, these are certainly issues that deal with consumer choice on one end and access to opportunity on the other (i.e. for content providers, startups, etc.). In other words, these are issues of fairness. How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Would you not agree that fairness as a principle is morally right? That is the definition of ethical. You made the argument in another comment that it's no more a matter of ethics than is raising taxes. But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical? If none of this makes sense to you, then therein lies the divergence. It's one regarding the basic definition of ethical.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  All I argued that it isn't an ethical issue. Because it isn't. >How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Is it unethical that Yankees spend twice the league average on their ball-club because it is most certainly unfair. After all, not every team gets to be based in New York. And I'd be careful with words like 'fairness'. A socialist and a libertarian will have vastly different definitions of what is 'fair' and what is 'unfair'. To you it's unfair that Netflix may get priced out by a Telecom, but then again, Netflix didn't spend billions building and maintaining the infrastructure, as well as acquiring all those customers. Telecoms got subsidies to build their infrastructure, but they never agreed to Net Neutrality. Is that fair? Yes, they are quasi-monopolies, and they are regulated as such. There are things they can do, and there are things they can't do. The things they can't do aren't things that are necessarily unethical. They are just regulations passed by democratically elected representatives. So why is it so wrong in treating Net Neutrality as just a legislative issue, as opposed to a violation of a non-existent human right? >But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical Yes, I can envision such a scenario but low or high tax policy still isn't intrinsically an ethical issue. All you've argued is that it may be unethical to cheat the system in order to pass your pet tax policy. So yes, measures which are used to pass pro or anti net neutrality laws may be unethical.
  - hrjet 13y ago
    > Netflix didn't spend billions building and maintaining the infrastructure, as well as acquiring all those customers. Neither did the telecoms spend billions in developing movie streaming software, yet they benefited from all the content consumption. > Telecoms got subsidies to build their infrastructure, but they never agreed to Net Neutrality. Is that fair? Neither did they explicitly assert that they will be net-biased.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Yeah, the parent seems to be advocating that the ISPs should have a right to double-dip, else it would be unfair to them.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

That's a fairly narrow and presumptious definition of the possible consequences resulting from a lack of Net Neutrality. There is no real limitation on how the ISPs can wield their power AFAIK. For instance, why wouldn't they offer HuffingtonPost (essentially a blog) the opportunity to buy faster access for their readers? But, even if we were to take your assumptions at face value, I'm not sure how you gloss over other details (such as their ability to price competitors like Netflix out of the market or essentially hold their users for ransom to the highest bidder). Given that they are quasi-monopolies in most cases, these are certainly issues that deal with consumer choice on one end and access to opportunity on the other (i.e. for content providers, startups, etc.). In other words, these are issues of fairness. How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Would you not agree that fairness as a principle is morally right? That is the definition of ethical. You made the argument in another comment that it's no more a matter of ethics than is raising taxes. But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical? If none of this makes sense to you, then therein lies the divergence. It's one regarding the basic definition of ethical.

macspoofing 13y ago
All I argued that it isn't an ethical issue. Because it isn't. >How can something be both made willfully unfair, yet be ethical? Is it unethical that Yankees spend twice the league average on their ball-club because it is most certainly unfair. After all, not every team gets to be based in New York. And I'd be careful with words like 'fairness'. A socialist and a libertarian will have vastly different definitions of what is 'fair' and what is 'unfair'. To you it's unfair that Netflix may get priced out by a Telecom, but then again, Netflix didn't spend billions building and maintaining the infrastructure, as well as acquiring all those customers. Telecoms got subsidies to build their infrastructure, but they never agreed to Net Neutrality. Is that fair? Yes, they are quasi-monopolies, and they are regulated as such. There are things they can do, and there are things they can't do. The things they can't do aren't things that are necessarily unethical. They are just regulations passed by democratically elected representatives. So why is it so wrong in treating Net Neutrality as just a legislative issue, as opposed to a violation of a non-existent human right? >But, certainly you can envision a scenario under which taxes can be raised in a manner and/or at the behest of certain groups which would make it unethical Yes, I can envision such a scenario but low or high tax policy still isn't intrinsically an ethical issue. All you've argued is that it may be unethical to cheat the system in order to pass your pet tax policy. So yes, measures which are used to pass pro or anti net neutrality laws may be unethical.
- hrjet 13y ago
  > Netflix didn't spend billions building and maintaining the infrastructure, as well as acquiring all those customers. Neither did the telecoms spend billions in developing movie streaming software, yet they benefited from all the content consumption. > Telecoms got subsidies to build their infrastructure, but they never agreed to Net Neutrality. Is that fair? Neither did they explicitly assert that they will be net-biased.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Yeah, the parent seems to be advocating that the ISPs should have a right to double-dip, else it would be unfair to them.