|
Defend Net Neutrality
|
|
Topic Started: May 5 2014, 07:59 AM (510 Views)
|
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jun 6 2014, 11:30 PM
Post #46
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 6 2014, 11:18 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jun 6 2014, 11:05 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 6 2014, 10:59 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jun 6 2014, 09:18 PM
If comcast decided they should create a cable channel and show porn on it 24/7 and offer it on their basic package, should they be allowed to do it?
Of course.
So, why don't they?
Ask them. How would I know their policies? Exactly how I thought you'd respond. It would be weird to me to claim that I know the politics of these organizations on one issue and claim ignorance on another.
|

|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 6 2014, 11:34 PM
Post #47
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Jun 6 2014, 11:30 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 6 2014, 11:18 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jun 6 2014, 11:05 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 6 2014, 10:59 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jun 6 2014, 09:18 PM
If comcast decided they should create a cable channel and show porn on it 24/7 and offer it on their basic package, should they be allowed to do it?
Of course.
So, why don't they?
Ask them. How would I know their policies?
Exactly how I thought you'd respond. It would be weird to me to claim that I know the politics of these organizations on one issue and claim ignorance on another. What are you even talking about. That makes no sense.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 7 2014, 06:15 AM
Post #48
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 6 2014, 11:25 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 6 2014, 10:59 PM
And your analogy still sucks. Pretty sure you can't dictate browser homepages. You'd have to create your own browser.Your. Analogies. Suck. Please. Deal. In. Reality. For. Once.
It's a direct comparison to reality dreach. Verizon invests billions in running line. They should be able to do what they want with it, assuming they weren't subsidized by tax dollars or granted special privileges that restric free competition (which I'm sure they actually were). You seem to want to overcome are issues so you never have to address the core ideology which would often leave you in a state of hypocrisy. Wait wait wait wait wait. You say yer sure they were granted special privileges or were subsidized by tax dollars, but that they should be able to do what they want with the lines assuming those things didn't happen. So since they did happen, in reality you don't think they should be able to do what they want with the lines. Is that right?
I have totally addressed all of your concerns in this discussion.
1) Founding principles of the internet that make it work 2) How to solve the problem of certain websites taking up more bandwidth than others 3) How the internet can be viewed as a public resource that no one owns, hence making it an "all or nothing" service
You simply continue to ignore everything I say (as usual) and then end up with, "You can't answer my question cuz you would be contradicting yourself!" This literally happens in every discussion we have. I can totally see you sitting there at your computer, furiously typing away some ridiculous analogy, snickering like Mr. Burns "he'll never be able to answer THIS scenario!!!! MUAHAHAHAHA!" The worst part about arguing with you isn't your different opinion or your ridiculous analogies or anything. It's that you basically completely ignore what other people say.
Edited by dreachon, Jun 7 2014, 06:19 AM.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 14 2016, 12:40 PM
Post #49
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
woohoo!
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jun 14 2016, 01:06 PM
Post #50
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 14 2016, 12:40 PM
Finally some good news!
|

|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
Post #51
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
Post #52
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine." Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.
It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
Post #53
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality. I'm against it.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Post #54
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it. Hmmm. That's not what you said before.
You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
Post #55
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before. You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right? It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 18 2016, 08:08 PM
Post #56
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it. I know. So 84.9999999999% of all republicans are in favor of it.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Post #57
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before. You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid? Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 18 2016, 08:10 PM
Post #58
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before. You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid? Feel free to make your argument for when an ISP should fall under net neutrality and when they shouldn't. But given all the arguments in support of it, the only thing you've said against it to this point is that ISPs who pay for all the infrastructure privately should be able to do what they want with the lines. It seems like an extreme case on pretty thin ice as it is.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
Post #59
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 08:08 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
I know. So 84.9999999999% of all republicans are in favor of it. I'm not a republican
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
Post #60
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were. It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before. You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber? I'm sure there are some.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|