Current Events > there still hasnt been 1 good argument against net neutrality

(+) Yeah! (+)

not one single one, from the point of view of the consumer/citizen of america

the only "benefit" is more $$$ for verizon
---

but if you're verizon, that's a pretty good argument

Hopefully it's a lot of doom crying and the market becomes more competitive, but it's sadly more likely that everyone will just agree to gouge.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

and the market becomes more competitive

why do people keep spouting this nonsense? there is nothing about removing net neutrality that would lead to more competition.
---

If this Net neutrality pass, there will be a lot less trolls on the internet. Who would pay 5$ just to get on Gamefaqs and troll people?

Idk, maybe they would.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

the market becomes more competitive,

impossible in the ISP space
in fact, if "more competition" was the goal, you should be in support of net neutrality
---

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

iClockwork posted...

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

yes they should
---

Rika_Furude posted...

iClockwork posted...

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

yes they should

No they shouldn't.

Government shouldn't be in control of internet. Neither should corporations. Internet should be a utility where the cost is dependent by how often you use it. It might cost more it might cost less but at least you'd be in control.

Cause we as people can't just "provide internet" randomly. So since we aren't in control and need someone to provide it we are beholden to them unfortunately.

But I don't think those companies like Verizon will raise the prices or create internet packages like on tv. For one there'd be the one company that doesn't do that and everyone would flock to them and hurt the other companies businesses. 2. My main tv package gives me just about every channel. HBO and Cinemax decide themselves to charge. Also I don't think the internet provider has say over if Google wants to let you see their website. I also don't think it'd be possible to create internet zones where you can't go. People are way ahead of the curve on figuring out the internet. They still can't even stop pirating.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree. It's a touchy subject and to me there isn't a fair or right answer. I don't like the government having power over something by virtue of me not liking the government.

But we don't have full net neutrality now anyway when certain areas of the internet apply differently. Like Twitter has guidelines which they choose to heavily enforce on some people moreso than others. If there's net neutrality that shouldn't be allowed.

My opinion is if it goes away I don't think anything changes. Internet sites can decide who uses and who doesn't whether there's net neutrality or not. I'm ranting. I think I made my point and like I said, I don't really sway a certain way. I hate big corporations and government's equally. Both are corrupt.
---

iClockwork posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

iClockwork posted...

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

yes they should

No they shouldn't.

if they didn't you would have rat shit in all your restaurant food and electricity 40% of the time
---

Rika_Furude posted...

if they didn't you would have rat shit in all your restaurant food and electricity 40% of the time

If a restaurant has unclean food standards then they will earn a reputation and the public won't eat there.

If a power company only provides power 40% of the time consumers will choose another company to get their power from.

This gimmick is lame, man
---

iClockwork posted...

If a power company only provides power 40% of the time consumers will choose another company to get their power from.

ah yes let me pick and choose between one of the three power companies that serves my town with a 10k pop... oh wait, that doesn't happen.
---

iClockwork posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

if they didn't you would have rat shit in all your restaurant food and electricity 40% of the time

If a restaurant has unclean food standards then they will earn a reputation and the public won't eat there.

If a power company only provides power 40% of the time consumers will choose another company to get their power from.

And for the millions of people who literally do not have another option?

Tons of cable/internet providers have monopolies in various areas. For the longest time the literal only option at my house was Time Warner Cable. If you didn't have Time Warner, you didn't have internet. Period.

Nothing about removing Net Neutrality breeds competition. It only breeds corruption and price gouging.
---

sauceje posted...

ah yes let me pick and choose between one of the three power companies that serves my town with a 10k pop... oh wait, that doesn't happen.

There would be if power was privatized.

cause you can just choose another company when theres a monopoly
---

iClockwork posted...

sauceje posted...

ah yes let me pick and choose between one of the three power companies that serves my town with a 10k pop... oh wait, that doesn't happen.

There would be if power was privatized.

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.
---

Aristoph posted...

Nothing about removing Net Neutrality breeds competition.

I never argued competition as an example against net neutrality. Who are you talking to?

topic title still applies even now
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.

If a power company was only providing power 40% of the time then yes it would be a breeze to group investors and build a new one that would capitalize on unsatisfied consumers.

Rika_Furude posted...

topic title still applies even now

You never addressed my argument :)

Topic title doesn't apply until it has been refuted.

iClockwork posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

topic title still applies even now

You never addressed my argument :)

Topic title doesn't apply until it has been refuted.

i did. your argument doesnt account for monopolies, which power companies, water companies, niche companies, ISPs, any company in a rural area etc are
---

iClockwork posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.

If a power company was only providing power 40% of the time then yes it would be a breeze to group investors and build a new one that would capitalize on unsatisfied consumers.

We currently have that same exact situation happening with ISPs failing to deliver on the broadband connections they've promised to deliver. Where's the competition at?
---

iClockwork posted...

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

ISPs don't own the internet. All they do is prove access to it, they don' gett to control content that isn't theirs.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

iClockwork posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.

If a power company was only providing power 40% of the time then yes it would be a breeze to group investors and build a new one that would capitalize on unsatisfied consumers.

We currently have that same exact situation happening with ISPs failing to deliver on the broadband connections they've promised to deliver. Where's the competition at?

he didnt even explain why a business should be unregulated. he barely presented an argument at all. he presented an opinion contrary to mine, not a good argument

and you're right, monopolies are by definition non-competitive. giving them even more power to abuse doesnt help the consumer
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

iClockwork posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.

If a power company was only providing power 40% of the time then yes it would be a breeze to group investors and build a new one that would capitalize on unsatisfied consumers.

We currently have that same exact situation happening with ISPs failing to deliver on the broadband connections they've promised to deliver. Where's the competition at?

My argument was governments shouldn't interfere with the way goods or services are delivered. I never mentioned monopolies.

There are none.

The repeal will remove the FCC's authority to do anything about shit like this: http://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Customer-Service/Are-you-aware-Comcast-is-injecting-400-lines-of-JavaScript-into/td-p/3009551

There's a focus on price at the moment, but there's so much more they can do.

iClockwork posted...

My argument was governments shouldn't interfere with the way goods or services are delivered. I never mentioned monopolies.

So ISPs should be allowed to inject ads, spyware, etc.? That's exactly what this repeal will do.

iClockwork posted...

You never addressed my argument :)

Topic title doesn't apply until it has been refuted.

What argument? That privatization would automatically breed competition? ISPs are private and that is not the case. The incumbent ISPs can block new entrants to the market, even more so without the Tiltle II regulations.

iClockwork posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

iClockwork posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Cause the energy market is a breeze to get into if it weren't for that pesky government.

If a power company was only providing power 40% of the time then yes it would be a breeze to group investors and build a new one that would capitalize on unsatisfied consumers.

We currently have that same exact situation happening with ISPs failing to deliver on the broadband connections they've promised to deliver. Where's the competition at?

My argument was governments shouldn't interfere with the way goods or services are delivered. I never mentioned monopolies.

So all you've got is context less drivel. Gotcha.
---

luigi13579 posted...

So ISPs should be allowed to inject ads, spyware, etc.? That's exactly what this repeal will do.

Ad's? Sure it's their service. You'll need to define spyware.

luigi13579 posted...

That privatization would automatically breed competition?

No that governments shouldn't interfere with the way in which services are provided.

A_Good_Boy posted...

So all you've got is context less drivel. Gotcha.

Nope the point is clearly stated. What more context is needed?

Whose alt is iclockware?
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Whose alt is iclockware?

tropicalescape
Its a new account I had to make after forgetting my password to the old one. It's been a minute.

With the way ISPs currently rule over huge parts of the country with an iron fist, I do not want net neutrality to die.
---

iClockwork posted...

Ad's? Sure it's their service. You'll need to define spyware.

Spyware, meaning code that harvests your personal data such as the sites you visit, your searches, location and purchases, and so on (which can then be sold to third-parties). Ads and spyware more or less go hand in hand actually. To inject ads, ISPs need to inspect your browsing data to determine where and how to inject ads.

There are pitfalls with ads too. For example, there's the lack of transparency. If you're on GameFAQs, you know that they're serving the ads (even if they come from a third-party ad provider) under normal circumstances. However, with ISPs injecting ads, they could replace GameFAQs' ads with their own and you would assume they're coming from GameFAQs. ISPs may even use a third-party ad service themselves, which is another level of indirection. With websites, there's plenty of choice. With ISPs, you're probably screwed.

It can even go beyond spyware into straight up dodgy shit like hijacking your searches, as ISPs have done in the past.

It'd be completely idiotic to have no regulation in this area. It's not like being served shit food in a restaurant and deciding to go elsewhere next time (even ignoring the fact that there's a lot more competition there). It's more like them serving food that seems perfectly edible at the time but gives you food poisoning. You won't necessarily notice what your ISP is doing at first.

Oh, and ISPs can even weaken or remove encryption to do these things, leaving you open to attack.

There are people that can explain all this better than me, but none of these things are minor. They all negatively affect our security online.

^ So youre saying theyll provide an inferior service. If its a big enough issue then someone will take advantage and build an ISP and take tje market share that is unsatisfied with the forher model.

You could even pitch this idea to investors yourself and start a company thay caters to consumers who have the same grievances as you!

Medussa posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

and the market becomes more competitive

why do people keep spouting this nonsense? there is nothing about removing net neutrality that would lead to more competition.

I like how what I said gets made into literally the opposite message with some editing... (then a copycat) Net neutrality is dying, and Im hoping somehow things arent as bad as they are expected to be. That implies a probable outcome that will be negative...
---

iClockwork posted...

^ So youre saying theyll provide an inferior service. If its a big enough issue then someone will take advantage and build an ISP and take tje market share that is unsatisfied with the forher model.

You could even pitch this idea to investors yourself and start a company thay caters to consumers who have the same grievances as you!

"Build an ISP" lmao

Yeah any random Joe in the town of Bumfuck, Nowhere where Comcast has a monopoly can just start their own ISP. Sure thing bub
---

iClockwork posted...

^ So youre saying theyll provide an inferior service. If its a big enough issue then someone will take advantage and build an ISP and take tje market share that is unsatisfied with the forher model.

You could even pitch this idea to investors yourself and start a company thay caters to consumers who have the same grievances as you!

google is having all sorts of trouble trying to enter the market now. google. what chance does anyone else have? this is why there needs to be regulation. why do you pretend otherwise?
---

I actually agree with @Rika_Furude completely on a topic so far. Huh! lol
---

you'll find you agree with me on almost everything if you have some common sense :)
---

lol
---

why did you @ me in my own topic
---

iClockwork posted...

^ So youre saying theyll provide an inferior service. If its a big enough issue then someone will take advantage and build an ISP and take tje market share that is unsatisfied with the forher model.

You could even pitch this idea to investors yourself and start a company thay caters to consumers who have the same grievances as you!

Again, if they're allowed to. Even Google Fiber has had trouble going up against the incumbent ISPs. The Title II regulations are partly about allowing new entrants into the market by giving the FCC the power to stop anti-competitive behavior. Not that all areas would be served any time soon.

I'm not convinced net neutrality as a principle is bad anyway. "The government should just butt out" is not an argument against it.

There's freedom from the point of view of the consumer (i.e. they can go where they see fit to without being throttled, spied on, exposed to security risks, etc.) or from the point of view of the ISP (i.e. to do all the aforementioned things and more). They're there purely to move data around just as the postal service is there to move parcels/mail around.

People would (rightly) be horrified if their mail could (legally) be opened up and modified in transit as the postal service sees fit, so why should they feel differently just because a communication is electronic? Being able to use a different company doesn't make it right.

RebelElite791 posted...

Yeah any random Joe in the town of Bumfuck, Nowhere where Comcast has a monopoly can just start their own ISP. Sure thing bub

Thats why I said you need to team with investors and pitch your idea if viable. Please keep up.

Rika_Furude posted...

google is having all sorts of trouble trying to enter the market now. google. what chance does anyone else have? this is why there needs to be regulation. why do you pretend otherwise?

Googles problems entering the market has nothing to do with existing laws or net neutrality this in fact bolsters my argument. Any market that Google Fiber has entered has seen competitors prices decrease while speeds have increased. That coupled with a sub optimal marketing strategy has left them one step behind their opposition in their selected markets. This is why google has failed not because its, "hard to enter the market."

Oh look, a new user trolling and people falling for it. You don't see that every day.
---

lilJoe457 posted...

Government shouldn't be in control of internet. Neither should corporations. Internet should be a utility where the cost is dependent by how often you use it. It might cost more it might cost less but at least you'd be in control.

The reason utilities work the way they do is because the government is in control of them
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Oh look, a new user trolling and people falling for it. You don't see that every day.

No ones trolling i've given my main and laid out the argument against net neutrality. You being unable to refute the argument =/= trolling.

You havent provided a good argument against net neutrality though. Topic title still stands
---

iClockwork posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

iClockwork posted...

Governments shouldn't dictate the way in which a company delivers its good or service.

yes they should

No they shouldn't.

In an industry where ISPs have been known to block/throttle services that should be accessible, yeah, they should.
---