6 ms·

He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid f

He is so completely full of shit and blatantly trying to use rhetoric to justify the fact that he's going to vote for corporate interests that bought and paid for him. I can't help but get angry about this. What's that fallacy called where you fabricate a problem where there isn't one? Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer, and are pretty much unanimously in favor of distinguishing between paying customers to adjust connection speeds and uptime. If a hospital wants to pay $5000/month for a direct, guaranteed connection to their doctors, they are free to do that. It's no different from paying for a faster or slower connection.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago
I had no idea German politicians could be as virulently incoherent as Americans. Huh.
- soong 12y ago
  Yes, nothing is ever too stupid for him, but that's a new low (again).
  - krylon 12y ago
    FWIW, Oettinger is something of an expert in discovering "new lows". He could be really funny if he wasn't in a position where people actually take him serious. It is not surprising he would just parrot the talking points of the telcos. I sometimes wonder, though, if he actually knows what complete BS he is emitting or if he actually believes that (and I am not sure which alternative I would prefer).
    - soong 12y ago
      My guess would be that despite what they are advocating believes are something you cannot be too tightly bound to as a high ranking government official. But this discussion is becoming increasingly off topic.
gojomo 12y ago
"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?
- Terr_ 12y ago
  When you buy power to toast some bread, do you pay a different dollar-per-watt rate, depending on whether your toaster was made by the same company that owns the power plant? The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    The problem with allowing special arrangements is that politicians can--and do--use regulations in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.
    - Silhouette 12y ago
      Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?

Eric_WVGG 12y ago

I had no idea German politicians could be as virulently incoherent as Americans. Huh.

soong 12y ago
Yes, nothing is ever too stupid for him, but that's a new low (again).
- krylon 12y ago
  FWIW, Oettinger is something of an expert in discovering "new lows". He could be really funny if he wasn't in a position where people actually take him serious. It is not surprising he would just parrot the talking points of the telcos. I sometimes wonder, though, if he actually knows what complete BS he is emitting or if he actually believes that (and I am not sure which alternative I would prefer).
  - soong 12y ago
    My guess would be that despite what they are advocating believes are something you cannot be too tightly bound to as a high ranking government official. But this discussion is becoming increasingly off topic.

gojomo 12y ago

"Net neutrality advocates have never, ever wanted to limit what you're allowed to pay for as a consumer." I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed? Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?

Terr_ 12y ago
When you buy power to toast some bread, do you pay a different dollar-per-watt rate, depending on whether your toaster was made by the same company that owns the power plant? The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
- fleitz 12y ago
  The problem with allowing special arrangements is that politicians can--and do--use regulations in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.
- gojomo 12y ago
  Because net paths can be congested, there can be many different ways at different costs to deliver the same bits, and different net applications have different sensitivities to lag/loss, the electrons/bits analogy isn't very applicable. Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    Not one [ISP] has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed. Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?