3 ms·

What they claim about NetNeutrality is a lie

2 points by omnibrain 12y ago

hitchhiker999 12y ago
Well that was a horribly inaccurate glimpse into a future I don't want.
jessaustin 12y ago
Instead, I’m trying to prove that the activists protesting today are liars. Hmmm, not convinced. Why couldn't they just be mistaken? Proponents claim that CDNs aren’t the fast lanes they are talking about, but that too is a lie. "Fast lane" isn't really a technical term, so maybe this disagreement is based partly on misunderstanding? Has anyone ever complained about the idea of CDNs? If I'm unhappy with a particular CDN, can't I just hire another? That puts them in a different category than local broadband service, which is what I thought we were considering. If Graham insists that CDNs are "fast lanes", then we'll just have to be more specific in our complaints. I would complain specifically about monopolistic (i.e. local) service providers charging me more for the transmission of one particular arrangement of bytes than for some other arrangement of the same number of bytes, ceteris paribus. The byte-arrangement preference is actually only a problem because I can't choose from a wide selection of different providers and plans. If the FCC would stop dragging its feet on white spaces so that WISPs could flourish, and if corrupt state legislatures would stop creating barriers to entry to this market, I'd be much less concerned about "net neutrality". I'm not lying! However, I'm also not a fool, and I've observed this market for 15 years, so I don't expect the FCC to ever really disobey their masters at the Daughters Bell and the cablecos if they can at all avoid it. That's why I don't mind falling in with the "left-wingers" that Graham so mistrusts. Sure, they're mistaken that a federal regulatory agency would ever consider consumers' interests without the threat of Congressional action. However, I'm a consumer, and Congressional action is exactly what I seek! If there were a strong political coalition dedicated to reducing regulatory barriers to entering this market, I'd support that too. The left-wingers may be right, and maybe the government does indeed need to step in and regulate the Internet like a utility. But, we should wait for problems that arise and fix them... Graham writes as if all problems with this market are "potential". I guess he's happy that we pay more than consumers in other nations, for worse service. I'm not happy about that, so I'm not convinced by this sort of capitalist-ideology-motivated concern-trolling.

2 points by omnibrain 12y ago

Well that was a horribly inaccurate glimpse into a future I don't want.

Instead, I’m trying to prove that the activists protesting today are liars. Hmmm, not convinced. Why couldn't they just be mistaken? Proponents claim that CDNs aren’t the fast lanes they are talking about, but that too is a lie. "Fast lane" isn't really a technical term, so maybe this disagreement is based partly on misunderstanding? Has anyone ever complained about the idea of CDNs? If I'm unhappy with a particular CDN, can't I just hire another? That puts them in a different category than local broadband service, which is what I thought we were considering. If Graham insists that CDNs are "fast lanes", then we'll just have to be more specific in our complaints. I would complain specifically about monopolistic (i.e. local) service providers charging me more for the transmission of one particular arrangement of bytes than for some other arrangement of the same number of bytes, ceteris paribus. The byte-arrangement preference is actually only a problem because I can't choose from a wide selection of different providers and plans. If the FCC would stop dragging its feet on white spaces so that WISPs could flourish, and if corrupt state legislatures would stop creating barriers to entry to this market, I'd be much less concerned about "net neutrality". I'm not lying! However, I'm also not a fool, and I've observed this market for 15 years, so I don't expect the FCC to ever really disobey their masters at the Daughters Bell and the cablecos if they can at all avoid it. That's why I don't mind falling in with the "left-wingers" that Graham so mistrusts. Sure, they're mistaken that a federal regulatory agency would ever consider consumers' interests without the threat of Congressional action. However, I'm a consumer, and Congressional action is exactly what I seek! If there were a strong political coalition dedicated to reducing regulatory barriers to entering this market, I'd support that too. The left-wingers may be right, and maybe the government does indeed need to step in and regulate the Internet like a utility. But, we should wait for problems that arise and fix them... Graham writes as if all problems with this market are "potential". I guess he's happy that we pay more than consumers in other nations, for worse service. I'm not happy about that, so I'm not convinced by this sort of capitalist-ideology-motivated concern-trolling.