Current Events > Curious how conservatives have done a 180 on net neutrality

(+) Yeah! (+)

CableZL posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I'm just checking to see if your philosophy is consistent or not.

If it is, then we can have a meaningful discussion on the role of government in regulating private businesses censoring people.

If it's not, then you're just having a hissyfit over an issue you don't actually care about because Leddit memed you into outrage.

And individual company having terms of service guidelines has nothing to do with net neutrality. Stop trying to act like it's the same thing.

If an ISP had a terms of service agreement like "no websites that unionize against us allowed" would you suddenly be cool with them blocking traffic to those sites?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

If an ISP had a terms of service agreement like "no websites that unionize against us allowed" would you suddenly be cool with them blocking traffic to those sites?

Again, stop acting like the two are the same at all.

An ISP blocking/throttling services has major implications. For example, if you work remotely and your job uses a certain VoIP provider, then you get shipped a VoIP phone that is set up to work with that VoIP provider over the internet. If you're in the midst of a 2 year contract with your ISP and your ISP decides to block VoIP services, then you're pretty much screwed. It isn't easy to "just switch to a new ISP" since you're in the middle of a contract, and you may or may not have much of a choice of other ISPs that offer similar speeds depending on where you live.

Comcast/AT&T/Verizon throttling Netflix not only prompted Netflix to pay them extra money to stop throttling them, but caused Netflix customers to pay extra money per month even if they weren't on Comcast/AT&T/Verizon because of that.

Getting banned from Twitter or Facebook for violating their terms of service is damn near meaningless, especially since the user is acting like an asshole 99% of the time.
---

CableZL posted...

Again, stop acting like the two are the same at all.

An ISP blocking/throttling services has major implications. For example, if you work remotely and your job uses a certain VoIP provider, then you get shipped a VoIP phone that is set up to work with that VoIP provider over the internet. If you're in the midst of a 2 year contract with your ISP and your ISP decides to block VoIP services, then you're pretty much screwed.

Getting banned from Twitter or Facebook for violating their terms of service is damn near meaningless, especially since the user is acting like an asshole 99% of the time.

There are people who make a living on Youtube and even Facebook. And Youtube recently screwed over a lot of those people by demonetizing their videos.

That's not fair, right? Just as in your example, YT has bottlenecked these people out of their living! There should be a law in place forcing YT to stop doing that, right?
---

nyooom

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre moving goalposts and trying to change what the discussions about. Everyone sees through your horse shit.

i think the problem with mal is he genuinely believes he doesn't do this. he genuinely believes he's making excellent points and staying on topic. you aren't going to get anywhere question/arguing with someone who can't see what he's doing

Mal_Fet posted...

There are people who make a living on Youtube and even Facebook. And Youtube recently screwed over a lot of those people by demonetizing their videos.

That's not fair, right? Just as in your example, YT has bottlenecked these people out of their living! There should be a law in place forcing YT to stop doing that, right?

Actually, yeah, I do believe there should be regulations in place, whether by Youtube or from the government, to prevent Youtube from suddenly deciding to demonetize videos. At least to the point where Youtubers aren't running into situations where they wake up in the morning/whenever to find out that their video has been demonetized.

I think it'd make more sense if there was some sort of arbitration process before a video is demonetized. Complaint filed > complaint response > arbitration > demonetization decision made as opposed to complaint filed > demonetization > Youtuber finds out and has to fight it.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

It's the usual suspects touting that it's great for it to be repealed, basically they are in the habit of brainless trolling. As far as I can tell any other conservative absolutely hates this and feels betrayed by their party as they should.

^Still applicable.

Notice how it's only the alt right morons who "support" Net Neutrality removal, specifically for the lulz? Don't give them their soapbox, these guys need to be in a psych ward with restricted access to people, not toting their notions to other people.
---

FrenchCrunch posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre moving goalposts and trying to change what the discussions about. Everyone sees through your horse shit.

i think the problem with mal is he genuinely believes he doesn't do this. he genuinely believes he's making excellent points and staying on topic. you aren't going to get anywhere question/arguing with someone who can't see what he's doing

Getting the the central point of an issue is not moving goalposts.

If you say that the government should regulate ISPs from favoring one website over another, but you don't think other sorts of businesses should have similar regulations, then your logic is flawed and your problem is with something other than what you're claiming.

CableZL posted...

Actually, yeah, I do believe there should be regulations in place, whether by Youtube or from the government, to prevent Youtube from suddenly deciding to demonetize videos. At least to the point where Youtubers aren't running into situations where they wake up in the morning/whenever to find out that their video has been demonetized.

Even in cases where the youtuber posts something obscene or graphic? Should Youtube be forced by the government to give that guy the same exposure they give to makeup gurus?

CableZL posted...

I think it'd make more sense if there was some sort of arbitration process before a video is demonetized. Complaint filed > complaint response > arbitration > demonetization decision made as opposed to complaint filed > demonetization > Youtuber finds out and has to fight it.

Would you support a similar system with ISPs then? If someone breaks their "terms of service" by, say, unionizing against them, would you be ok with them blocking traffic to their website if they first had to go through an appeals process that they will lose anyway since the union explicitly broke the ISPs ToS?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Mal you argued that ISPs didnt do any shady shit before 2015. You were proven wrong.

Wrong, I said ISPs didn't do any of the horror scenarios that are envisioned by pro-NN people, like website packages.

And btw, ISPs also did shady shit while NN was in effect. Just saiyan.
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

I don't really think this happened

---

Mal_Fet posted...

Wrong, I said ISPs didn't do any of the horror scenarios that are envisioned by pro-NN people, like website packages.

And btw, ISPs also did shady s*** while NN was in effect. Just saiyan.

Except there are documented cases of ISPs blocking/throttling/restricting services. You saying they didn't do those things is meaningless.
---

Almost 2018 and people still don't have Mal on ignore

Shame
---

Mal_Fet posted...

NN supporters are hinged in the idea that the government is a better steward of private industries than private businesses are.

They are wrong.

Imagine being dumb enough to think this. Corporations would sell your Grandma for a nickel if they could.
---

I don't know what net neutrality actually is in the lawbooks, but the general idea of internet traffic being equal is a good one.

However, I still think this all amounts to nothing, given that the internet is still as good as it ever was.
---

CableZL posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Wrong, I said ISPs didn't do any of the horror scenarios that are envisioned by pro-NN people, like website packages.

And btw, ISPs also did shady s*** while NN was in effect. Just saiyan.

Except there are documented cases of ISPs blocking/throttling/restricting services. You saying they didn't do those things is meaningless.

shockthemonkey posted...

Now your argument is that stuff isnt bad enough? Or what are you even trying to argue now? Your pre-2015 argument is horseshit, and that was your primary argument against net neutrality. Now whats your actual argument against net neutrality? Facebook censors things so we shouldnt have net neutrality?

I'm saying that ISPs have a right to block whoever they want in their service just like Youtube and Facebook have a right to block whoever they want in their service.

Would it be cool if everyone played nice? Sure, but giving the government full control over internet traffic AND individual websites is too big a price for that.

Paper_Okami posted...

Imagine being dumb enough to think this. Corporations would sell your Grandma for a nickel if they could.

Think hard now: In all of American history, which has been responsible for more shittiness: private businesses, or the government?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I don't know what net neutrality actually is in the lawbooks, but the general idea of internet traffic being equal is a good one.

However, I still think this all amounts to nothing, given that the internet is still as good as it ever was.

The problem is that certain ISPs in the past actually did block/throttle/restrict services, which is what prompted the 2015 regulations to go into place. Before 2015, we just expected ISPs to follow the guidelines of net neutrality. Certain ISPs blatantly broke those guidelines. The 2015 regulations force them to follow those guidelines.
---

When the internet gets terrible, then you can gloat about being right.

Until then, this is nothing but fearmongering
---

Trump himself may of tweeted something aout being pro NN but the thing is, he puppets for the Republican party who are only pro business.

Why people voted for that is beyond me
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

When the internet gets terrible, then you can gloat about being right.

Until then, this is nothing but fearmongering

The problem with this statement is that certain ISPs have already done things that made the internet terrible for their users in some form or fashion, which is what prompted the 2015 regulations in the 1st place.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

So youre just straight up in favor of ISPs being able to throttle traffic and block whatever they want. Jesus fuck, really shouldve led with that.

If you think the government shouldn't tell Youtube who they're allowed to censor and demonetize, then you also agree with me on ISPs. You just don't realize it.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

NN supporters are hinged in the idea that the government is a better steward of private industries than private businesses are.

They are wrong.

I just can't wait to see what's Comcast and Verizon have in store for you, I'm sure they'll have your best interests at heart.

I had no problems with the internet whatsoever prior to 2015. Why should anyone be worried about the made-up doomsday scenarios that never happened for the decades NN didn't even exist?

This is what I don't understand. What's really going to happen? Net Neutrality was a baby that was around for 2 years, it didn't change very much.

I think that we should have Net Neutrality, but the loudest people on the internet who cry and scream about why it should stay are people who have anime profile pics, dog/cat profile pics, fuck one of the guys on social media in MY TOWN had a picture of a dog like creature that just finished sucking dick. If were taking net neutrality away from these people, is that really such a bad thing?
---

Oh my god Mal is so fucking stupid
---

@Doom_Art posted...

Oh my god Mal is so fucking stupid

Should it shock you? this is how trump got elected.
---

Perascamin posted...

This is what I don't understand. What's really going to happen? Net Neutrality was a baby that was around for 2 years, it didn't change very much.

@Perascamin
That's incorrect. Net neutrality has been around long before 2015. What changed in 2015 was the US government enforcing net neutrality. There are many documented cases of certain ISPs blocking/throttling/restricting services prior to those regulations being put in place.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

If you think the government shouldn't tell Youtube who they're allowed to censor and demonetize, then you also agree with me on ISPs. You just don't realize it.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of contention is the extent to which you view the internet as a private good or as a public good, so I don't really understand how you can think this is true.

the whole point of it being a common carrier instead of an information provider is to distinguish between ISPs and things like youtube

you're literally saying, "if you disagree with me, you really agree with me"
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

So youre just straight up in favor of ISPs being able to throttle traffic and block whatever they want. Jesus fuck, really shouldve led with that.

If you think the government shouldn't tell Youtube who they're allowed to censor and demonetize, then you also agree with me on ISPs. You just don't realize it.

I havent commented at all on YouTube because this isnt about YouTube and I dont give a shit about your deflections.

It pertains to your support of the government forcing businesses to treat all "clients" equally.

Why do you support such a thing for ISPs but not other businesses?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Oh my god Mal is so fucking stupid

I dunno, he's never argued with me and he's great at antagonizing users. Basically he's just a very successful troll and not to be taken seriously on anything. That's not stupidity though, it's just his game. I wouldn't be surprised if he kidnaps people, skins them, and wears their flesh while posting here.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm pretty sure the whole point of contention is the extent to which you view the internet as a private good or as a public good, so I don't really understand how you can think this is true.

Internet service is a private good. Obviously.

And if you want it to be a public good, you're basically going to make your own doomsday scenario come true: few major ISPs with regional monopolies, able to crank up prices just because their customer have no choice but to accept it or go without the service.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

It pertains to your support of the government forcing businesses to treat all "clients" equally.

Why do you support such a thing for ISPs but not other businesses?

One thing you don't get is that a particular ISP deciding to throttle or block a service has the potential of affecting customers of other ISPs, too.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And if you want it to be a public good, you're basically going to make your own doomsday scenario come true: few major ISPs with regional monopolies, able to crank up prices just because their customer have no choice but to accept it or go without the service.

That already happens today. Regional monopolies and duopolies are already a thing.
---

CableZL posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

It pertains to your support of the government forcing businesses to treat all "clients" equally.

Why do you support such a thing for ISPs but not other businesses?

One thing you don't get is that a particular ISP deciding to throttle or block a service has the potential of affecting customers of other ISPs, too.

How do you figure
---

CableZL posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

And if you want it to be a public good, you're basically going to make your own doomsday scenario come true: few major ISPs with regional monopolies, able to crank up prices just because their customer have no choice but to accept it or go without the service.

That already happens today. Regional monopolies and duopolies are already a thing.

As a private good new ISPs can still get created (barring red tape which NN contributed to)

As a public good, forget it. Even major cities will only have one ISP to choose from and the lack of competition will result in shittier speeds at higher prices.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Internet service is a private good. Obviously.

I mean, it isn't that obvious at all, really. It's about as obvious as water or electricity being a private good. Which is to say, its provision is through largely private companies with some municipal exceptions, but very few people would uncritically refer to them as purely private due to the public resources and infrastructure that goes into maintaining them.

Mal_Fet posted...

And if you want it to be a public good, you're basically going to make your own doomsday scenario come true: few major ISPs with regional monopolies, able to crank up prices just because their customer have no choice but to accept it or go without the service.

A public good doesn't mean a government provided service. A public good is something that is not excludable. Historically the difference between a common carrier and others is that common carriers are required to offer its services generally to the public, rather than in an exclusive or targeted way. That deosn't mean the government owns the service or reaps the financial rewards that come with it.

also this is already the case isn't it? and it was that way before 2015
---

Mal_Fet posted...

How do you figure

ISP networks are inter-connected, and a certain ISP's network may not have a direct link to a particular service. Thus, for some things, your internet traffic is handed off to another ISP to reach the far end server. If you're trying to use a service that a far end ISP blocks, you're essentially screwed no matter how your own ISP feels about it.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

As a private good new ISPs can still get created (barring red tape which NN contributed to)

Net neutrality didn't contribute to red tape for new ISP startups. ISP lobbyists writing laws and buying politicians is what did that. Two separate issues.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

As a public good, forget it. Even major cities will only have one ISP to choose from and the lack of competition will result in s***tier speeds at higher prices.

It's already the case that some areas already only have 1 or 2 ISPs to choose from. My mom lives in Austin, TX and can either choose Spectrum or AT&T. Before Google Fiber came to town, both Time Warner Cable and AT&T both charged way too much per Mbps. After Google Fiber said they were coming to Austin, AT&T finally started to roll out gigabit internet options in some areas and Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) bumped up their speed packages for customers for free.

You seem to think incumbent ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. don't fight tooth and nail to prevent competition from starting up in areas they serve. It has been this way for about 15 years, at least.
---

CableZL posted...

It's already the case that some areas already only have 1 or 2 ISPs to choose from. My mom lives in Austin, TX and can either choose Spectrum or AT&T. Before Google Fiber came to town, both Time Warner Cable and AT&T both charged way too much per Mbps. After Google Fiber said they were coming to Austin, AT&T finally started to roll out gigabit internet options in some areas and Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) bumped up their speed packages for customers for free.

You seem to think incumbent ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. don't fight tooth and nail to prevent competition from starting up in areas they serve. It has been this way for about 15 years, at least.

also, municipal broadband like you find in Chattanooga is typically much better than the alternatives, which is why the alternatives lobby hard to restrict the expansion of municipal broadband
---

Doom_Art posted...

Oh my god Mal is so fucking stupid

I tought he was Libertarian?
---

Balrog0 posted...

also, municipal broadband like you find in Chattanooga is typically much better than the alternatives, which is why the alternatives lobby hard to restrict the expansion of municipal broadband

*Nods*

A lot of areas still rely on copper wiring to provide internet to homes and businesses. Copper and coax are going to be the next things in connectivity media that go the way of the dinosaur, at least in regard to getting connectivity to the premise.
---

I'm also very interested in how this Telecom Cable LLC vs Comcast lawsuit is going to play out.

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-accused-of-sabotaging-small-isp-owners-business-1796344688

Telecom Cable alleges that Comcast techs kept cutting their service lines as Comcast was expanding into the area, which caused Telecom Cable's customers to abandon ship and go to Comcast.
---

u know we need to deregulate this whole thing so ISPs can compete, so net neutrality has to go even though it has literally nothing to do with improving competition in any market
---

Please stop engaging mal. He is either a troll or possesses no actual understanding and refuses to learn.
Like I said earlier, educated conservatives actually support net neutrality.
---