Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 108

Thread: Net Neutrality is BS

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    No he's not. He was pointing out to OG that complaining about having difficulty using torrent to rip off the movie industry is not the best argument for net neutrality.

    But you just want a fight, carry on.

    Think the issue is that no one made that argument, but that's where he wants to take it so he can demonize and belittle the tech and thus write off ISP actions against it. Like the VCR argument from back in the day.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-21-2015 at 05:35 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #32
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    No he's not. He was pointing out to OG that complaining about having difficulty using torrent to rip off the movie industry is not the best argument for net neutrality.

    But you just want a fight, carry on.
    Actually, my claim is that it's not a persuasive argument. It is completely meaningless except as preaching to the choir because no one else cares due to what the bulk of that traffic is used for. It's the same psychology which is used to dismiss objections to poor prison conditions. Doesn't make it right but it does make the argument a non-starter.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #33
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Actually, my claim is that it's not a persuasive argument. It is completely meaningless except as preaching to the choir because no one else cares due to what the bulk of that traffic is used for. It's the same psychology which is used to dismiss objections to poor prison conditions. Doesn't make it right but it does make the argument a non-starter.
    Yes, Fuzzy, you have completely grasped the concepts. You're so full of yourself that you can't even begin to admit to yourself that you may just for once not be the cleverest kid on the block. You once again use big words to make yourself look intelligent - all bluster, no substance.

    Case in point: You don't even begin to acknowledge that you're looking at a symptom, not the cause. It's way more complex than you make it out to be.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  4. #34
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,740
    Well he's not wrong, if you want to win the popular debate that does mean that the other guys get to use crappy arguments, just because they work.

    If you ask me, the biggest problem isn't even that it's already being done (though I do think it's a problem that they are opaque about what exactly they throttle), but the fact that there's not enough competition. If you could actually choose, I'm okay with some companies doing this, as long as you can choose one that doesn't. But that's not the case.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  5. #35
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Yes, Fuzzy, you have completely grasped the concepts. You're so full of yourself that you can't even begin to admit to yourself that you may just for once not be the cleverest kid on the block. You once again use big words to make yourself look intelligent - all bluster, no substance.

    Case in point: You don't even begin to acknowledge that you're looking at a symptom, not the cause. It's way more complex than you make it out to be.
    Just what is life like as a giant Fissler pot, Khend? I'm not looking at causes or symptoms, you're trying to force an inapplicable metaphor because, as always, you're so egocentric you can't conceive of anything but the way you look at things.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #36
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,447
    Just to be clear, these companies would be fine with making money by charging more for illegal torrenting. Basically, you can kill people with your guns provided you pay more and also only use our guns
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #37
    Thats how Netflix unfolded. And the entire point behind AT&Ts "sponsored" data plans.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #38
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I have several programs which use Torrent techniques to control larger downloads and updates. WoW is a pretty prominent example. I also used uTorrent to get 30 GB of high-res textures for Space Engine. OG pointed out Humble Bundle. YOU are the one who accused him of pirating. But maybe you could point out where OG was saying that he pirated movies? Don't expect me to hold my breath, though.

    Maybe you should work on your reading skills because the current ones don't paint a very flattering picture of your character if you have to descend into such character assassinations. Seriously.
    You complaining of how one poster treats another is laughable at best, Tear Lite.

    I did NOT accuse OG of anything, aside from using a potentially bad argument for net neutrality. Which he is saying wasn't the main thrust of his point. So at worst, LF and I misinterpreted the direction he was headed in...where at best you were being a douchebag of large enough proportions to clean a camel.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  9. #39
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Just what is life like as a giant Fissler pot, Khend? I'm not looking at causes or symptoms, you're trying to force an inapplicable metaphor because, as always, you're so egocentric you can't conceive of anything but the way you look at things.
    Well, if you're neither looking at causes nor symptoms then you're kind of useless in this debate.

    Oh, and boohoo, something can be misused. Once again, if you're using THAT kind of argument then you can practically ban anything. You're making movie piracy out to be the biiiig baaaad thing when in reality, it is a problem the industry created all by itself.

    I remember when music piracy was the end-of-the-world for the music industry. And now you have examples like Norway where music piracy has become practically non-existant. And not because the ISPs blocked the traffic or because the police was particularly zealous.

    Combatting this kind of piracy by using technical means is like the competition between the hare and the tortoise. And we all know how that one ended for the hare - it's a moving target and you won't ever get rid of it by clamping down.

    It's the same problem as with education - if you want the kids to behave then steer them in the right direction. Smack them around and punish them? Yeah, that's gonna work.

    So, has it become clear why I'm annoyed by this abject stupidity which shows behind Fuzzy's statements?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  10. #40
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,447
    The point is that the people who care about these arguments against net neutrality tend to care for reasons that don't really appeal to the average consumer (at this point in time) and that are difficult to separate from the taint of piracy. The ISPs are good at framing the problem as being one of freeloading and theft and it's difficult to win the argument by saying that it should be easier and cheaper to pirate things.

    Of course once you look at the Netflix thing it becomes clear that it's really about something else entirely, namely about the ISPs trying to prop up a crappy business through questionable means
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #41
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The point is that the people who care about these arguments against net neutrality tend to care for reasons that don't really appeal to the average consumer (at this point in time) and that are difficult to separate from the taint of piracy. The ISPs are good at framing the problem as being one of freeloading and theft and it's difficult to win the argument by saying that it should be easier and cheaper to pirate things.

    Of course once you look at the Netflix thing it becomes clear that it's really about something else entirely, namely about the ISPs trying to prop up a crappy business through questionable means
    Very well said.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  12. #42
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As long as a goodly portion of that material is illegal, complaining about companies whose actions hamper it, regardless of whether it also hampers other legal goods/services, is a non-starter OG and you know it.
    Similar reasoning could also be applied to the the ISP's ability to filter content: if they're going to use these technologies in monopolistic ways, then it must be regarded as suspect even if it can also be used to clamp down on illegal activity.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,562
    We also shouldn't forget that the first target of the ISPs wasn't downloading pirated content but VOIP.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  14. #44
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,168
    So the argument is that net neutrality will prevent ISPs from adjudicating allegedly illegal copyright infringement...and that the solution is to let the government micromanage instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The point is that the people who care about these arguments against net neutrality tend to care for reasons that don't really appeal to the average consumer (at this point in time) and that are difficult to separate from the taint of piracy. The ISPs are good at framing the problem as being one of freeloading and theft and it's difficult to win the argument by saying that it should be easier and cheaper to pirate things.

    Of course once you look at the Netflix thing it becomes clear that it's really about something else entirely, namely about the ISPs trying to prop up a crappy business through questionable means
    I don't see how Netflix really makes the case. The ISPs have a reasonable and capital-intensive business, and Netflix usage can and does comprise a heavy chunk of that. Distributors charging heavy users isn't that radical.

    What's radical is applying a 75+ year old communications law designed for telephone service to the modern Internet. The Leviathan of the Obama regulatory state knows few rational boundaries.
    Last edited by Dreadnaught; 02-28-2015 at 12:01 AM.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't see how Netflix really makes the case.

    Then you should dig up the last time we had this discussion. I remember lots of easy to understand graphs you ignored then too.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  16. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,562
    And he also ignores that all of this actually started over VOIP. But that narrative isn't so attractive for the ISP lobby.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  17. #47
    Senior Member earthJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't see how Netflix really makes the case.
    You being blind isn't our problem. In your anti-tech lunacy you just don't see things properly anymore.
    The ISPs have a reasonable and capital-intensive business, and Netflix usage can and does comprise a heavy chunk of that. Distributors charging heavy users isn't that radical.
    Netflix pays for the infrastructure server side. And the Netflix users pay for the infrastructure client side. If the ISP offer flat rates that they cannot implement it's their own fault. You cannot offer a 250 Mbit/s line and than not provide what you offered. Period.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  18. #48
    Internet Provider Sonic's CEO: Title II Is Only A Regulatory Burden If You're Doing Something Bad
    from the it's-that-simple dept
    A few weeks back, I was a guest on the famed TWiT netcast, on a special episode mostly about net neutrality. You can see it at that link (I tried to embed, but it appears, unfortunately, that TWiT doesn't do HTTPS embeds -- something I hope the TWiT folks will fix in the near future).

    However, this post has nothing to do with me being on the show, but rather something that was said by Sonic's CEO Dane Jasper concerning net neutrality and Title II: that Title II is only a "regulatory burden" if you're an ISP that's doing bad stuff to consumers. Much of the first hour was a discussion between Jasper and another small ISP owner, Brett Glass, who has been rather vehement in his dislike of net neutrality or Title II. Glass brought up a key talking point that big ISPs and other anti-Title II people have made repeatedly: that using Title II would be a huge regulatory burden, "burying ISPs in red tape" (as Glass noted). Yet Jasper explained how that's just not true, and, in fact, he's not at all worried about the "regulatory burden" because as long as he's not doing anything to muck up your connection, there's basically no additional regulatory issue (this is from about 27 minutes into the show):

    Dane: I think that the more substantial risk is to the Internet and web properties, particularly new innovative web properties. If there isn't some regulation around what carriers who dominate the marketplace can do to that traffic. So that I see, the threat to the Internet is the top priority, and Brett talks about an insurmountable amount of red tape. Today, Internet service providers are required to publish for the FCC a disclosure of traffic management practices. So we publish a disclosure. I think it says we don't touch your bits. We don't modify, we don't filter, we don't engage in deep pack inspection. So, I think from a compliance perspective, if the assumption is that Title II will be by and large gutted, or rather they engage in forbearance of all provisions and begin to re-enable provisions that allow them to assure the traffic is treated equally, my expectation is those of use that treat traffic equally will have a pretty light regulatory burden.

    This line has stuck with me, because the argument that Title II is burying service providers in regulation just keeps coming up. It was brought up recently by Mark Cuban in the comments to our post about Cuban's view of net neutrality. And yet, the key parts of Title II that are important for these net neutrality rules are really pretty limited. Sections 201 and 202 are the key ones, and do very little in terms of adding "red tape" to being an ISP. They just talk about not allowing the service provider to engage in unreasonable discrimination.

    Yet, as Dane notes, so long as you stick to net neutrality, and you make it clear to the FCC (as is already required) that you don't muck with people's connections, the actual "regulatory burden" will be absolutely minimal. And that's from someone who will clearly have to deal with it. So, that should probably make you wonder: when ISPs argue that there will be a massive regulatory burden associated with Title II, just what sorts of games are they planning to play with your traffic to encounter such a regulatory burden?

    https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...hing-bad.shtml
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  19. #49
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,349
    Yeah, one has to wonder about the "burden" on the ISPs when net neutrality amounts to "don't mess with the traffic" and that is the default setting of every router and switch anywhere.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post

    What's radical is applying a 75+ year old communications law designed for telephone service to the modern Internet. The Leviathan of the Obama regulatory state knows few rational boundaries.
    What's frightening is that people trust the government to do even more than they are doing now. Innovative companies like Uber and Telsa are in the cross hairs of nasty governmental legislation. (Primarily at the local level but still). And Telsa is a liberal darling and even they can't get out of the overzealous regulatory attacks. So yeah... let's let even MORE regulation in. /Boggle

  21. #51
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,447
    Don't worry about Tsla, they still get to enjoy the benefits of govt subsidies
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  22. #52
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,447
    https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...y-answer.shtml

    why did Verizon beg regulators to have its FiOS internet broadband service classified under Title II for the sake of government subsidies
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  23. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Don't worry about Tsla, they still get to enjoy the benefits of govt subsidies
    Which is crap as well but literally the vehicles aren't being allowed to be sold directly to the consumer in order to protect the interests of another business. Thanks Big Brother.

  24. #54
    Senior Member earthJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,653
    It's very usual that people actually mean 'pro my business' when they say 'pro business'.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  25. #55
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    What's frightening is that people trust the government to do even more than they are doing now. Innovative companies like Uber and Telsa are in the cross hairs of nasty governmental legislation. (Primarily at the local level but still). And Telsa is a liberal darling and even they can't get out of the overzealous regulatory attacks. So yeah... let's let even MORE regulation in. /Boggle
    Not all regulations are equal.* And like I said previously, if there was an actual proper market for internet providers, I'd be fine with them using stuff like this (which is why I think, for example, that the rules about it here are more of a populist thing than actually that useful) - if customers don't like it, they could go to a competitor who doesn't do it. However, since you have practically a monopoly in most parts of the USA, I do think regulation like this is needed. Which, by the way, don't make things more difficult for companies, it means they can actually mess less with your connection. And my biggest beef is actually that providers are as opaque as shit about what they do. Even if they are allowed to throttle certain services, they should make it clear which, and by how much. But as it stands, you buy their services for internet connection with a certain bandwidth... only to find out later that the bandwidth for what you actually want to use is far lower (or even blocked). And the provider won't comment on what they actually do, so you can't even be sure it's them causing the problems. And you can't change provider. Free market is surely a good solution to stuff like this, but you need an actual free market for that.

    * to be honest, your argument sounds kinda like: the seatbelt laws are ridiculous, so we shouldn't have speed limits either because all road regulations are crap, and the police make mistakes so it's frightening that people trust the police to do even more than they are doing now (oh wait, I forgot, you believe in utter government incompetence... except when it comes to police).
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  26. #56
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    What's frightening is that people trust the government to do even more than they are doing now.
    What exactly do you think the government will be "doing" here, other than passing a law that saying that ISPs can't discriminate against types of internet traffic?

    Also can anyone supply me with some links about the Tesla thing?
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  27. #57
    http://www.npr.org/2012/11/09/164736...franchise-laws
    just one example, you could google pretty much any part of the title and get loads more information


    Thanks to a lot of lobbying in years past most states have laws that protect dealers from underhanded tactics from the manufacturers or suppliers. Stuff that stops the car companies from opening competing showrooms/dealerships or service centers, or even favoring new showrooms/dealerships over established ones. Car buying in America sucks, and these laws are only part of the reason. So much so that Dodge is warning people interested in a new Hellcat to stay away from dealerships at the moment because of how ridiculous and borderline illegal their actions have been concerning distribution.

    Dealers are now twisting those laws and their lobbying powers to fight Tesla, Tesla generally wins in some manner.

    How Lewk is taking the lobbying power of the dealer network and comparing it to net neutrality is just
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 03-02-2015 at 06:37 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  28. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    What exactly do you think the government will be "doing" here, other than passing a law that saying that ISPs can't discriminate against types of internet traffic?

    Also can anyone supply me with some links about the Tesla thing?
    I take it the proposed regulatory item will be one page long then right?

    http://preservefreedom.org/new-jerse...electric-cars/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6437958.html

  29. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    * to be honest, your argument sounds kinda like: the seatbelt laws are ridiculous, so we shouldn't have speed limits either because all road regulations are crap, and the police make mistakes so it's frightening that people trust the police to do even more than they are doing now (oh wait, I forgot, you believe in utter government incompetence... except when it comes to police).
    Seat belt laws are ridiculous.

    Police are necessary for law and order. There are only two things that prevent crime. A person's moral code (and we know that has never in the history of the world stopped crime fully) and the threat of consequences. Police are necessary as part of the enforcement method of stopping people from stealing, killing, looting, ect. I am absolutely in favor of FEWER laws. Prostitution, seat-belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, gambling laws and drug laws are all things I'd be in favor of doing away with. Let the police focus on the thieves, intellectual property theft, murderers and rapists. (And lots of other crime that causes direct harm).

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I take it the proposed regulatory item will be one page long then right?
    8 pages, but I suspect you know that and thats why youre acting ridiculous again. 8 pages is a far cry from the 300+ pages the anti-neutrality guys were claiming a few days ago.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •