I'm just that annoying guy that insists that both sides of a debate are represented in an intelligent discussion. That is to say, I hate echo chambers even more than you hate this FCC decision.
Do you do this with climate change debates too? Evolution versus creationism? Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they're equally valuable to the discussion.
Better start lobbying now for page neutrality; you don't want the publishing houses and bookstores charging different prices for different types of content, thereby determining what you can and cannot read. It will be the end of civilization as we know it.
Curious - why do you think this is a good thing? How do you see the current internet as being stymied or bad?
Im tired of all services i pay monthly for. But the only solution is being self sufficient on some land and going full amish
Generally both sides are pretty well represented in those discussions, so I don't need to. But when in a setting where they're not, I often do. There aren't a whole lot of topics about which I feel passionately on one side or the other, and even for those I do, I make a point to try to understand the point of view of the other side. Just a personal preference.
To support the abolition of NN, one must first make an argument that the current status of the internet is bad. I would love for someone to make that argument.
And then there's this little nugget of info... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html
I call every service company a bitch about surcharges. They verify they are not taxes but are there to build future infrastructure. I usually call and bitch once a month until im sure ive wasted more of their time than the surcharges are worth. Only once have i gotten 1 month of surcharges reversed
To make that comparison, it would be like if the roads were owned by several companies, the bookstores are Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. The road companies are charging you extra money if you want to go to a book store to buy a book. The internet is the road. It doesn't create it's own content. It's a highway. The ISPs didn't invent the internet and they didn't create the content. The ISPs are merely the on ramp. They don't deserve more money. They haven't created anything.
Your claim here is fallacious. "Internet is bad" is not the only platform from which one can dispute NN. One simply must only argue that the internet is not perfect, and that abolishing NN could make it better. Or, one could simply argue that NN hasn't made the internet better in the time that has elapsed since it was enacted. Again, I'm not making any of those arguments, but your base premise in this post is too black and white to be accurate.
They provide a delivery mechanism for the content. If the ISP's suddenly ceased to exist, how would you access the content?
No. The argument is that NN is holding the internet back because of "gubment regulations!" I want to hear one of those people say what's bad about the internet in it's current form.
Dunno--haven't really researched the other side of the NN debate significantly enough to know all the arguments.
I want public utility internet. I don't want privately owned ISPs. We pay taxes to build roads. Apparently we pay taxes to build broadband and these fuckers get to profit off of it.
http://theconversation.com/diy-networking-the-path-to-a-more-democratic-internet-67216 If everyone meshed their wi-fi routers, we wouldn't need ISPs in the first place because wi-fi routers can talk to each other individually, which is effectively an internet.
