OT Net Neutrality

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PtldPlatypus said:
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.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement

Book neutrality exists.

The key idea of an FBPA is to promote non-price competition between booksellers in order to promote the sale of little-known, difficult or otherwise culturally interesting books rather than catering only to blockbuster readers. To do so, an FBPA is deemed to ensure that the booksellers that provide the corresponding presale services are able to recoup their higher costs with a guaranteed margin on blockbusters.
Click to expand...
 
PtldPlatypus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Natebishop3 said:
To support the abolition of NN, one must first make an argument that the current status of the internet is bad.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Using your red ink, tell us how the internet will improve now.
 
Natebishop3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They provide a delivery mechanism for the content. If the ISP's suddenly ceased to exist, how would you access the content?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SportsAndWhine said:
Using your red ink, tell us how the internet will improve now.
Click to expand...
Dunno--haven't really researched the other side of the NN debate significantly enough to know all the arguments.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
They provide a delivery mechanism for the content. If the ISP's suddenly ceased to exist, how would you access the content?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SportsAndWhine said:
So you're playing devil's advocate without knowing both sides of the issue?
Click to expand...
I'm playing devil's advocate without claiming to be an expert in both sides of the issue. I did provide one argument at the beginning of the thread, and that was just off the top of my head.

I'm sorry that's not good enough for you.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm playing devil's advocate without claiming to be an expert in both sides of the issue. I did provide one argument at the beginning of the thread, and that was just off the top of my head.

I'm sorry that's not good enough for you.
Click to expand...
Well you're just wasting the time of people who (a) want to actually hear both sides of the debate in an educated manner and (b) people who have actually done fucking research! Off the top of your head... jesus fuck is making shit up because it sounds reasonable after five seconds of thought what passes for actual debate around here?

(I know the answer is yes, don't worry)

Seriously, if you're going to pick a side and debate on its behalf, learn the game THEN post!
 
SportsAndWhine said:
Well you're just wasting the time of people who (a) want to actually hear both sides of the debate in an educated manner and (b) people who have actually done fucking research! Off the top of your head... jesus fuck is making shit up because it sounds reasonable after five seconds of thought what passes for actual debate around here?

(I know the answer is yes, don't worry)

Seriously, if you're going to pick a side and debate on its behalf, learn the game THEN post!
Click to expand...
Wow, this post really sounds like an elitist. I apologize for not preparing myself properly for discussion with you. I will attempt to be better girded for future threads, sir.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Wow, this post really sounds like an elitist. I apologize for not preparing myself properly for discussion with you. I will attempt to be better girded for future threads, sir.
Click to expand...

I can't understand a mind that thinks that knowing things about what you're debating is elitist, that asking your fellows to know what the fuck they're talking about before talking about it is elitist. If some rube thought lower PER numbers were better and said "I think Caleb and Zach should start because they're the best at PER!" would you be more likely to forgive them if they said "in my defense I didn't research PER at all lol"?

LEARN THE GAME THEN POST is the law.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
We have green font for sarcasm--I need a "devil's advocate" color. Dark red, perhaps?

There seems to be a big difference between TV and internet in that TV channels have to be provided, whereas internet content simply has to be accessed, and as such, any ISP that attempts to block access to certain content will simply lose subscribers to an ISP that won't. It would essentially require industry-wide collusion for the scenario you describe to occur. Any ISP that wanted to generate an advantage would just say "We are net neutral by choice!", and anyone who cared about neutrality would flock to them.

On the flip side, this opens up an opportunity for, as a non-existent but hypothetical example, an ISP that wants to market itself as family friendly, blocking all porn sites at the distribution level. They now could advertise, "We give more reliable internet speeds as we can guarantee your bandwidth won't be throttled by other users on our network streaming large volumes of adult content, and as a bonus, you can rest assured knowing that your children will not accidentally (or intentionally) access inappropriate material online."
Click to expand...

I already have a way to block adult content... :dunno:
 
I just want someone to explain to me why this is going to be good. What's the best case scenario?
 
All this talk of throttling and price gouging is true, but the real fear is that the internet turns into a complete propaganda machine for whomever owns it.

Whats to stop george soros/ koch bros/ other boogymen from buying comcast and simply stop allowing access to viewpoints they dont like? Do we really want the internet to become sinclair media, or worse?

Come the fuck on.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Apparently marzy wants the MSM to control what he is allowed to access on the internet. Seems like he might have been sold a rotten avacado.

But hey, suck it libtard cucks!
Click to expand...

I have indeed! But not on the internet.

Did you know I once held the patent on the use of remote computer addressing like xxx.xxxxxx.xxxxx.xxxx...
But alas it expired just before the internet blew up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top