Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
-
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You can't have that both ways.
Sorry, missed this reply before.
What do you mean? Have you actually ran the numbers? I did, in the first post you replied to. You are so convinced that "taxes -> higher prices" that you are refusing to engage in any kind of critical thought. Yes, taxes of any kind will have effects on the economy, reduce efficiency and such, but the effects can be stronger or subtler. Depending on tax structure, the result could be that the economy grows more slowly, interest rates go down, etc, which has large scale impacts that can't be observed in terms of the price of a particular good itself. But those effects can't be analyzed at the level of a simple "supply/demand" curve. At that level of analysis, a profit tax doesn't affect sale price.
At the more complex level of analysis, you actually need to define the model you want to use and run the numbers to see what the effect is, and in particular, see it in comparison to other tax structures. Can't compare it to the situation with no taxes.
-
AT&T's Monopoly Offers A Cautionary Tale For Net Neutrality
The history of AT&T shows how the Internet as we know it was born out of rejecting the policies that are the backbone of 'net neutrality.'
-
@lolwhat said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Ajit Pai responds to all the
around this:Uhh... yeah. Not only is that, simply put, a bunch of flat-out lie, they're lies that have been debunked for years now.
The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Based Entirely On Debunked Lobbyist Garbage Data
For several years now one of the broadband industry’s biggest criticisms of net neutrality is that it “utterly devastated” investment into broadband networks. But for just as long…
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What do you mean?
Jacking up the price can't "make up for part of the tax" if it reduces revenue. So which is it: does increasing the price reduce revenue, or decrease it?
In fact, if it's a sales tax then increasing the price would increase the amount of tax you're paying (while also reducing your revenue, and therefore your profit: you're paying more taxes, despite also making less money). And if it's a profit tax, then since increasing the price reduces your revenue, and therefore your profit, then you'd actually reduce the amount of tax you'd pay.
Have you actually ran the numbers? I did
I would've liked to see them, because I think you've got it exactly backward.
It should be pretty easy to see from the Investopedia graphic that I posted a while back. A tax will move the supply curve in such a way as to increase the market equilibrium price.
Now, you could try to argue that a sales tax will move the demand curve to the right, if (as is often the case) the sales tax is "hidden" from the customers. However, how much this would move it, or whether it's enough to make a relevant difference when comparing a profit tax to a sales tax, I don't know.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Uhh... yeah. Not only is that, simply put, a bunch of flat-out lie, they're lies that have been debunked for years now.
He addressed a fraction of the investment stuff. There's still all the other bullshit.
-
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I would've liked to see them, because I think you've got it exactly backward.
The rest of that sentence was "in the first post you replied to". The numbers are there, you can go and see the numbers on the tables. Here's a direct link.
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Jacking up the price can't "make up for part of the tax" if it reduces revenue. So which is it: does increasing the price reduce revenue, or decrease it?
First you need to understand that revenue is not profit. The goal of the bussiness is to maximize profit, not revenue. A business will generally have fixed costs and marginal costs. Marginal costs are broadly proportional to sale numbers, fixed costs are fixed. Depending on your cost structure and the elasticity of demand, you might make more profit out of fewer high margin sales, even with a lower revenue than you'd have with more sales at lower prices. Or to put it another way, if selling at half the price triples your sales, you will make more revenue at the lower price. But if halving your sales price put the price below your marginal cost, you'll be losing money instead of earning it. Despite revenue going up.
Sales taxes affect your marginal costs, and thus force the prices up. The specifics, as I said above, depend on the particulars of the cost structure and elasticity of demand. I will correct myself and agree that I should have said "increase price and sacrifice pre-tax profit to make up for the tax". Whether that increases or reduces revenue can't be decided in the general case.
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It should be pretty easy to see from the Investopedia graphic that I posted a while back. A tax will move the supply curve in such a way as to increase the market equilibrium price.
The Investopedia article doesn't tell you whether revenue went up or down in response to the tax because it doesn't number the x axis, "Quantity of milk sold". That will depend on the elasticity of the demand, could potentially go either way.
I'm also not convinced by the article saying "the original price for milk was $2 per gallon. After imposition of the tax, the supply curves shift up and to the left. Consumers pay $2.60 per gallon. Sellers receive $1.60 per gallon after paying the tax. So sixty cents of the tax is actually paid by consumers, while forty cents is paid by the milk producers." This simplifies the situation too much. The producers are paying $0.40 per gallon, but they're also selling fewer gallons. So their profits will be down more than what $0.40 per gallon would make you think. The cost of the tax is not just what you pay in tax, but the profits you stop making because of them. Meaning, taxes not only absorb wealth, but they also destroy wealth that is no longer produced.
-
I don't know how this problem will be resolved, but I can tell you the form that the resolution will take.
It will be a change in the situation which caused the problem - a new technology, a new billing model, a new company that provides a different kind of data service, a change in usage patterns - which bypasses it completely, in the same way greater
market penetration for broadband 'fixed' the disconnect issue, or Uber 'fixes' the problem of taxi monopolies, or the iPhone virtual keyboard 'fixed' the problem of keyboard layouts in PDAs.And naturally enough, the new problems it brings will be unnoticed or ignored until the new thing is the new normal. Just like broadband, Uber, and smartphones.
Because Hegel was an ass-grabbing fool who never considered an industry in which Corporate Thesis and Regulatory Antithesis are consistently rendered irrelevant by Outside Context Solutions long before the Synthesis could be formed, leaving the forces underlying both to fester unresolved.
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Meaning, taxes not only absorb wealth, but they also destroy wealth that is no longer produced.
And they also magnify it immensely by funding investments in society. For example, how much milk would those farmers be able to sell without the network of paved roads that their taxes fund?
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., US Supreme Court Justice
If you only look at one side of something, you get a very distorted view.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Meaning, taxes not only absorb wealth, but they also destroy wealth that is no longer produced.
And they also magnify it immensely by funding investments in society.
That really depends on what the collected money is spent on. E. g. using it to subsidize the current president's ski holidays, or to strengthen the monopoly position of some senator's private company, wouldn't really provide much benefit to anyone else. In general, the dispute about taxes boils down to the question of who can more efficiently allocate the money: the state or the private sector. In any case, the statement that taxes "magnify [wealth] immensely" cannot just be taken as a given.
-
@kian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I would've liked to see them, because I think you've got it exactly backward.
The rest of that sentence was "in the first post you replied to". The numbers are there, you can go and see the numbers on the tables. Here's a direct link.
I admire your stamina, but if they haven't gotten your point by now I'd say it's hopeless :(. I don't see how you could make your argument any clearer than you already have, and I can't even discern what the other side is really arguing for or against or what points they're trying to make; it all seems to be variations of "taxes cost money hurr durr", which is ... kind of ... self-evident and tangential?
-
How Reddit views NN:
:willywanka.meme:
Tell me again how NN isn't about heavy users forcing light users to subsidize their Internet connections (or, as @boomzilla might say... FREE STUFF)
-
-
@boomzilla You boogered the link.
-
“Face reality! We need net neutrality!” Crowds chant across the country
Protests led by various activist groups manage to turn out crowds large and small.
-
@sockpuppet7 Losers.
-
@boomzilla All you gringos lost here, when the streaming services goes bankrupt and all you have is shitty TV you have to watch on their time schedule with lots of ads.
-
@sockpuppet7 Um, actually, my DVR skips ads very well. Also, I watch a lot more TV than I stream.
Anywho, as we've demonstrated pretty conclusively in this thread, these people are all either ignorant or delusional.
-
@boomzilla I dunno how your cable companies didn't kill these ad skipping DVRs yet. Down here you have to use their equipment that doesn't support it, and no generic stuff can reliably unscramble their signal.
-
@sockpuppet7 Meh...I got mine directly from Verizon. And yes @bb36e, I rent it from them.
I'm sure stations would rather we didn't skip ads. My in laws use Direct TV (satellite) and their DVR automatically skips the commercials for some stations.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla All you gringos lost here, when the streaming services goes bankrupt and all you have is shitty TV you have to watch on their time schedule with lots of ads.
I have both TV and Netflix subscription, and I watch neither.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla I dunno how your cable companies didn't kill these ad skipping DVRs yet. Down here you have to use their equipment that doesn't support it, and no generic stuff can reliably unscramble their signal.
Mine's basically manual. I press the skip-ahead button and it skips 30 seconds. half-dozen (give or take) presses, ads skipped.
-
@anotherusername said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So which is it: does increasing the price reduce revenue, or decrease it?
In general, it can do either. In standard classical pricing theory, there's an optimum price at which revenue is maximised; if your current price is lower, you can earn more by charging more, and if your current price is higher, you can earn more by charging less (as you attract more custom). That's the theory. In the real world, things are more complicated; there can be multiple optima (e.g., that correspond to an economy brand and to a premium brand) and the values of those optima change frequently as the market overall evolves.
-
@dkf And that is why charging more from the "heavy users" for their streaming won't make it any cheaper on the "light users".
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@dkf And that is why charging more from the "heavy users" for their streaming won't make it any cheaper on the "light users".
What is why? You didn't connect any ideas with your assertion.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What is why? You didn't connect any ideas with your assertion.
This connection has been deleted!
-
@boomzilla
@dkf said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:In the real world, things are more complicated; there can be multiple optima (e.g., that correspond to an economy brand and to a premium brand) and the values of those optima change frequently as the market overall evolves.
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@dkf And that is why charging more from the "heavy users" for their streaming won't make it any cheaper on the "light users".
Pretty simple connection, I think.
And as far as @sockpuppet7's point, I agree that "light users" shouldn't be expected to see much cost reduction from a Title II Reclassification repeal. I do, however, believe that if Title II Reclassification stood, and survived a court challenge, we would see an end to the "sender pays" model of CDN interconnection pricing, which would lead to either:
- Hard data caps everywhere (and "heavy users" paying more than they do right now)
-or- - All users paying more than they do right now, basically heavy users paying less than they "should" under a data cap model and light users paying more than they "should"...
depending on whether the FCC allowed for data caps as a way to segregate service prices, or only transfer rates. And yes, the original 2015 order indicated "forebearance" on the FCC meddling with what ISPs could do (which would imply either #1 would happen or a best case of the interconnection pricing model would still happen and the Title II Reclassification wouldn't have any impact at all in peering disputes like the Level3/Netflix vs Verizon/Comcast dispute... meaning your traffic would still be "throttled"...), but I personally believe forebearance would last less than a fart in a windstorm once Title II survived a court challenge.
- Hard data caps everywhere (and "heavy users" paying more than they do right now)
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Pretty simple connection, I think.
I don't see how you connected what the two of them said. In particular, @dkf pointed out that prices can be a lot more complicated (and only gave a tiny example about how / why they are that way). For sure there are scenarios I can imagine where light users could purchase cheaper plans.
For one thing, if you're selling a capped vs uncapped plan, then those are separate products with different optima. And again, it would depend on the market in which those are being sold. It might very well be profitable to use a wireless connection for light users, where mobile carriers are selling their excess capacity.
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And as far as @sockpuppet7's point, I agree that "light users" shouldn't be expected to see much cost reduction from a Title II Reclassification repeal.
Yeah, I doubt anyone can draw a straight line between those two either, but again, it's not obvious to me that some of light users won't get just that, although I suspect it's likelier without the current NN regime.
-
The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
On Thursday of this week, the FCC will vote to undo the 2015 Open Internet Order. While the FCC insists that this will just be bringing back the internet to the regulatory framework it had prior to…
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
On Thursday of this week, the FCC will vote to undo the 2015 Open Internet Order. While the FCC insists that this will just be bringing back the internet to the regulatory framework it had prior to…
If you believe that being able to participate on the internet is a right that people should have -- and that their abilities to participate and contribute to society are massively limited when the internet is blocked or diminished, then removing net neutrality represents a threat to those rights.
All you've done is convince me that Techdirt is a site filled with retards.
-
@boomzilla So where's the problem in the quoted statement?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla So where's the problem in the quoted statement?
It should be pretty obvious, but:
then removing net neutrality represents a threat to those rights.
-
@boomzilla All this shows me is what I already knew from previous discussions: that you have no idea what net neutrality is actually about. (You seem to think it has something to do with Netflix and CDNs heaven only knows what-all.
) If you did understand the issue, the truth of that statement would be self-evident.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla All this shows me is what I already knew from previous discussions: that you have no idea what net neutrality is actually about. (You seem to think it has something to do with Netflix and CDNs heaven only knows what-all.
) If you did understand the issue, the truth of that statement would be self-evident.Mostly I know that most of the loudest proponents of NN have no idea what it's about, because they make stupid comments about Netflix. Or Portugal. I mean...you've never shown any signs of comprehension about the Netflix thing, and the Portugal thing, which is perfectly cromulent under NN...
sorry, buthyperventilating about rolling back some regulations is just asking to be laughed at.Then you start making obviously dumb stuff like taking stuff like privacy regulations away from the people experienced with that and giving it to the FCC? I just have to wonder how the previous FCC co-opted you into his empire building.
I mean...I also had to laugh when they said that stuff had happened since 2015, so it wsan't really going back to 2015. This is just really dumb and sad.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Mostly I know that most of the loudest proponents of NN have no idea what it's about, because they make stupid comments about Netflix.
[citation needed] The loudest proponents tend to be the ones who say, as I have consistently said from the first time you guys brought it up, that it's not about Netflix and has nothing to do with Netflix. The only people I hear saying "net neutrality is about Netflix" are opponents of net neutrality trying to derail the conversation with red herrings.
Or Portugal.
What about it?
I mean...you've never shown any signs of comprehension about the Netflix thing,
You've never shown any signs of comprehension about "the Netflix thing" not being what net neutrality is about.
and the Portugal thing, which is perfectly cromulent under NN...
OK, that more than anything shows you have no clue what NN is about, because no, it's absolutely not.sorry, buthyperventilating about rolling back some regulations is just asking to be laughed at.True enough. But since "rolling back some regulations" is not what is happening, this is an irrelevant point for you to make.
Then you start making obviously dumb stuff like taking stuff like privacy regulations away from the people experienced with that and giving it to the FCC? I just have to wonder how the previous FCC co-opted you into his empire building.
So it's not only net neutrality you don't understand; you also don't understand the difference between the FTC and the FCC, what powers each does and doesn't have, what areas each one has authority over, etc. You know, the stuff that's actually relevant to that particular discussion. What you just said demonstrates massive ignorance of the relevant domain knowledge and nuance.
I mean...I also had to laugh when they said that stuff had happened since 2015, so it wsan't really going back to 2015. This is just really dumb and sad.
Care to be a bit more specific than "stuff"?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So it's not only net neutrality you don't understand; you also don't understand the difference between the FTC and the FCC, what powers each does and doesn't have, what areas each one has authority over, etc.
What makes you think all that? And I mean all of it. Sure, I argued against all the stuff people brought up here. What do you think I'm missing? Why do you think the FTC hasn't handled consumer privacy, etc, stuff in the past (or what exactly are you talking about here)?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Care to be a bit more specific than "stuff"?
It's your link. Did you even read it?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
"and the Portugal thing, which is perfectly cromulent under NN..."
OK, that more than anything shows you have no clue what NN is about, because no, it's absolutely not.
Well, there is a court case that disagrees with you (pretty sure it was linked upthread). But sure, maybe there's some room to reduce your credibility on this issue, so keep pounding away.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What makes you think all that? And I mean all of it. Sure, I argued against all the stuff people brought up here. What do you think I'm missing? Why do you think the FTC hasn't handled consumer privacy, etc, stuff in the past (or what exactly are you talking about here)?
- The FTC does not have rule-making authority.
- The FTC does not specialize in communications--that's the FCC's specialty. The telcos pushing for the FTC to take over here are well aware of this; they want this authority to be in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing.
- The FTC's authority covers consumer products of all kinds, and they're already badly understaffed and underfunded, stretched thin as it is. Again, this is part of the reason why telcos specifically want that authority under the FTC, so that they won't have the resources to actually deal with privacy violations. There have been around 45,000 NN complaints filed with the FCC since 2015; the FTC simply doesn't have the resources to deal with that.
It's your link. Did you even read it?
It's a very large link that covers a lot of "stuff." What specifically are you referring to?
Well, there is a court case that disagrees with you (pretty sure it was linked upthread).Which case?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The FTC does not have rule-making authority.
You should read my posts, then, because I never said that they did.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The FTC does not specialize in communications--that's the FCC's specialty. The telcos pushing for the FTC to take over here are well aware of this; they want this authority to be in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing.
That's exactly the argument (with some substitutions of words) against this nonsense. For some reason, you connect the word "communications" and all sense leaves you. It strikes me as a desperate attempt at rationalization. Look, we had a government agency that enforces this stuff. And you're asking to give it to someone else that doesn't have experience with it. It's like losing your shit because the CDC can't study gun deaths. Ridiculous.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The FTC's authority covers consumer products of all kinds, and they're already badly understaffed and underfunded, stretched thin as it is. Again, this is part of the reason why telcos specifically want that authority under the FTC, so that they won't have the resources to actually deal with privacy violations. There have been around 45,000 NN complaints filed with the FCC since 2015; the FTC simply doesn't have the resources to deal with that.
So solve that problem. More proof that you have no substantive argument on this front.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's a very large link that covers a lot of "stuff." What specifically are you referring to?
Whatever it was that happened since then that means we're not going back to 2015. Pure sophistry.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Which case?
The individual, who has been identified as Salvatore “Sal” Cipolla, was hovering around Wintrich all night and shooting video. The Huffington Post reported that Cipolla has marched alongside neo-Nazis, and has been arrested multiple times including a violent incident involving a 19-year-old woman.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Which case?
This was the link, originally posted by @xaade:
Here’s why the Obama FCC Internet regulations don’t protect net neutrality
It’s becoming clearer why, for six years out of eight, Obama’s appointed FCC chairmen resisted regulating the Internet with Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Chairman Wheeler famously did no…
Although Pai addressed this too:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/post/1272344He alludes to the case, but doesn't call it out specifically.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You should read my posts, then, because I never said that they did.
I didn't say you said they did. I said it's part of the reason why they're a bad fit for the job.
That's exactly the argument (with some substitutions of words) against this nonsense. For some reason, you connect the word "communications" and all sense leaves you. It strikes me as a desperate attempt at rationalization. Look, we had a government agency that enforces this stuff. And you're asking to give it to someone else that doesn't have experience with it. It's like losing your shit because the CDC can't study gun deaths. Ridiculous.
Where are you getting this idea that the FCC doesn't have experience with it from?
So solve that problem. More proof that you have no substantive argument on this front.
It's already solved by giving it to specialists in the field who do have the resources because they're not spread across the entire consumer products spectrum.
Whatever it was that happened since then that means we're not going back to 2015. Pure sophistry.
I ask for specifics and you literally respond with "whatever," and seem to think this is a valid point?!?
The individual, who has been identified as Salvatore “Sal” Cipolla, was hovering around Wintrich all night and shooting video. The Huffington Post reported that Cipolla has marched alongside neo-Nazis, and has been arrested multiple times including a violent incident involving a 19-year-old woman.
Huh? Did this get cross-posted due to a
composer screwup or something?This was the link, originally posted by @xaade:
It’s becoming clearer why, for six years out of eight, Obama’s appointed FCC chairmen resisted regulating the Internet with Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Chairman Wheeler famously did no…
So who am I to believe? Some blog I've never heard of, or the thousands of journalists, small businesses, and even small ISPs who say that the Open Internet Order is exactly what is needed in the current climate?
Although Pai addressed this too:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/post/1272344He alludes to the case, but doesn't call it out specifically.
Yeah. Did you see my response to that post, where I pointed out that Pai was using outright lies that have been debunked for years now?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Where are you getting this idea that the FCC doesn't have experience with it from?
Because it's what the FTC has always done.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I ask for specifics and you literally respond with "whatever," and seem to think this is a valid point?!?
It's not my fault that you're unfamiliar with your own link. The details of the stuff don't really matter anyways.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Huh? Did this get cross-posted due to a composer screwup or something?
Um...yeah. That stuff was an accidental paste.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So who am I to believe? Some blog I've never heard of, or the thousands of journalists, small businesses, and even small ISPs who say that the Open Internet Order is exactly what is needed in the current climate?
Oh, good, now you're a DC Court of Appeals Truther! The point isn't "what is needed in the current climate." It's that what you think current Net Neutrality does is something that it doesn't actually do.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah. Did you see my response to that post, where I pointed out that Pai was using outright lies that have been debunked for years now?
Yes! I laughed at them then and I'm laughing at you now for beclowning yourself.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Because it's what the FTC has always done.
- [citation needed]
- The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive
It's not my fault that you're unfamiliar with your own link. The details of the stuff don't really matter anyways.
I would accuse you of :moving_goal_post.png:, but you're not even going that far. Why are you so desperately avoiding placing any goal posts anywhere in the first place?
Oh, good, now you're a DC Court of Appeals Truther! The point isn't "what is needed in the current climate." It's that what you think current Net Neutrality does is something that it doesn't actually do.
According to some random blog I've never heard of and have no way to judge the credibility of. In this corner... them. In the other corner, pretty much everyone else. Me, I'd prefer to trust the experts.
Yes! I laughed at them then and I'm laughing at you now for beclowning yourself.
Yeah, that's always been the go-to for people who realize they've got nothing to back them up in a debate: invoke mockery in an attempt to distract the audience. It's reliable enough that you could set it up next to Godwin's Law: the first person to drop facts and resort to mockery instead automatically loses the debate.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's not my fault that you're unfamiliar with your own link. The details of the stuff don't really matter anyways.
I would accuse you of :moving_goal_post.png:, but you're not even going that far. Why are you so desperately avoiding placing any goal posts anywhere in the first place?
What the literal fuck are you talking about? Maybe you should stop posting articles that you haven't read?
Oh, good, now you're a DC Court of Appeals Truther! The point isn't "what is needed in the current climate." It's that what you think current Net Neutrality does is something that it doesn't actually do.
According to some random blog I've never heard of and have no way to judge the credibility of. In this corner... them. In the other corner, pretty much everyone else. Me, I'd prefer to trust the experts.
These aren't the Hyperloop guys are they? In any case, I could say the same thing about all your techdirt links. Oh, wait, does the DC Court of Appeals have the gold fringe? Is that the problem?
Yes! I laughed at them then and I'm laughing at you now for beclowning yourself.
Yeah, that's always been the go-to for people who realize they've got nothing to back them up in a debate: invoke mockery in an attempt to distract the audience.
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic how you keep coming back denying reality and not making a serious case. You're really asking for it.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What the literal fuck are you talking about? Maybe you should stop posting articles that you haven't read?
I am asking for specifics. You are, again and again, refusing to give any.
These aren't the Hyperloop guys are they? In any case, I could say the same thing about all your techdirt links.
Techdirt are experts on the subject. They've been covering it from the very beginning, and they've got a better handle on the actual issues, on the red herrings, and on the people involved than just about any other outfit I've seen.
Oh, wait, does the DC Court of Appeals have the gold fringe? Is that the problem?
Huh?
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic how you keep coming back denying reality and not making a serious case. You're really asking for it.
You're projecting so hard here you're in danger of blowing out your bulb.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I am asking for specifics. You are, again and again, refusing to give any.
Yes. They don't matter. And you continue to act like you didn't even read the link you dropped in here.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Techdirt are experts on the subject. They've been covering it from the very beginning, and they've got a better handle on the actual issues, on the red herrings, and on the people involved than just about any other outfit I've seen.
Your credibility on identifying experts is in the negative range. I've read the articles you've posted and I don't doubt that they've been covering this for a long time but they've lead you down a dark and misleading path.
Oh, wait, does the DC Court of Appeals have the gold fringe? Is that the problem?
Huh?
I'm trying to figure out why you dismiss the literal authority on this subject in favor of some bloggers who have "been there since the beginning." Did the techdirt guy actually say that the Portugal thing wouldn't be legal here, though? I mean, I'm taking your word on that, and your track record of being aware of what they write isn't all that great right now.
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic how you keep coming back denying reality and not making a serious case. You're really asking for it.
You're projecting so hard here you're in danger of blowing out your bulb.
Man. If I had just met you I'd swear I was being trolled.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yes. They don't matter. And you continue to act like you didn't even read the link you dropped in here.
How so? As I said, it's a long article. You're alluding to some vague "whatever" somewhere in the article, and expecting me to respond to it. Give specifics, or you got nothing. Because right now, you've given me nothing to respond to except a bunch of hand-waving. Further hand-waving accompanied by "it's in the article you posted; didn't you read it?!?" does not change this.
Your credibility on identifying experts is in the negative range. I've read the articles you've posted and I don't doubt that they've been covering this for a long time but they've lead you down a dark and misleading path.
...by telling the truth about what's going on with ISPs' problematic behavior and the long history of various attempts to deal with it?
I'm trying to figure out why you dismiss the literal authority on this subject in favor of some bloggers who have "been there since the beginning."
How is some random blogger "the literal authority on this subject"?!?
Did the techdirt guy actually say that the Portugal thing wouldn't be legal here, though? I mean, I'm taking your word on that, and your track record of being aware of what they write isn't all that great right now.
Yes, under the Open Internet Order, site blocking (including blocking unless you pay extra for it) is illegal.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
How so? As I said, it's a long article. You're alluding to some vague "whatever" somewhere in the article, and expecting me to respond to it. Give specifics, or you got nothing. Because right now, you've given me nothing to respond to except a bunch of hand-waving. Further hand-waving accompanied by "it's in the article you posted; didn't you read it?!?" does not change this.
I already gave all the specifics required for my point.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
...by telling the truth about what's going on with ISPs' problematic behavior and the long history of various attempts to deal with it?
That would be an interesting version of alternate history.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
How is some random blogger "the literal authority on this subject"?!?
How do you keep referring to the DC Court of Appeals as "some random blogger?" See? This is the sort of shit I'm talking about. It's like you're avoiding dealing with the truth.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yes, under the Open Internet Order, site blocking (including blocking unless you pay extra for it) is illegal.
Le sigh. It's kind of sad to watch you enforce your own ignorance.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I already gave all the specifics required for my point.
So... yeah. You're doubling down on the handwaving. Sounds about right.
How do you keep referring to the DC Court of Appeals as "some random blogger?"
I'm referring to the post you linked to, which was written by some random blogger and not by the DC Court of Appeals, as being written by "some random blogger." (And if you look at the actual DC Court of Appeals opinion, rather than just reading the article they wrote about it, it becomes very apparent very quickly that the things this random blogger is saying about what the DC Court of Appeals said are taken severely out of context. Which is not surprising; most anti-NN material that isn't blatant, outright lies is cherry-picked stuff taken badly out of context.)
Le sigh. It's kind of sad to watch you enforce your own ignorance.
Again with the projecting.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So... yeah. You're doubling down on the handwaving. Sounds about right.
As much as you're denying reading the article you posted.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I'm referring to the post you linked to, which was written by some random blogger and not by the DC Court of Appeals, as being written by "some random blogger." (And if you look at the actual DC Court of Appeals opinion, rather than just reading the article they wrote about it, it becomes very apparent very quickly that the things this random blogger is saying about what the DC Court of Appeals said are taken severely out of context. Which is not surprising; most anti-NN material that isn't blatant, outright lies is cherry-picked stuff taken badly out of context.
Yes, I'm sure you have to believe that to keep it up.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Again with the projecting.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So who am I to believe? Some blog I've never heard of, or the thousands of journalists, small businesses, and even small ISPs who say that the Open Internet Order is exactly what is needed in the current climate?
Both?
They're not mutually exclusive.
- This 'thing' is needed.
- The 'solution' doesn't really do that 'thing'.
And even still, do any of those journalists, small businesses, and small ISPs really understand the infrastructure and economics of the internet?
From my point of view, most people aren't capable of really grasping the outcomes of Net Neutrality.
'Curated Internet' is not necessarily bad, even.
For example, if you were to go to a restaurant, do you want to pay for every item they have on the menu, even if you don't eat it?
The question is whether a curated internet becomes more or less expansive than a full package. But, no one wants to really address that question.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So who am I to believe? Some blog I've never heard of, or the thousands of journalists, small businesses, and even small ISPs who say that the Open Internet Order is exactly what is needed in the current climate?
Both?
They're not mutually exclusive.
- This 'thing' is needed.
- The 'solution' doesn't really do that 'thing'.
And even still, do any of those journalists, small businesses, and small ISPs really understand the infrastructure and economics of the internet?
From my point of view, most people aren't capable of really grasping the outcomes of Net Neutrality.
'Curated Internet' is not necessarily bad, even.
For example, if you were to go to a restaurant, do you want to pay for every item they have on the menu, even if you don't eat it?
The question is whether a curated internet becomes more or less expansive than a full package. But, no one wants to really address that question.
When I hear "curated internet" I think AOL. Anything that leads towards anything resembling AOL or Prodigy type networks is bad. Especially when you think about what that could mean these days. AppleNet...shudder.
