Network Neutrality

[Psycho8137]

I figured this would be a good place to discuss it in general. I'm not really enough of a thinker to put it in CT. However, if someone of authority feels it needs to be moved to CT, then by all means, do so.

Comcast keeps competitors from joining in the meeting about Network Neutrality.

NOTE: Old story. But this sort of thing is still going on.

This is just low, in my opinion.

If corporations are permitted to control the content of the internet, I'm not even sure what would happen. Hacking, however, would probably go up tenfold. Of course, I think it will never become a reality. Either through legal means or illegal means, the internet will NOT be controlled by any company.

[Nyokou]

Good thing I use Verizon.

I used to have Comcast; it was expensive and slow.

Oh and yeah, that's a bad thing, etc. My friend has Comcast and they threatened to sue her after they found out she had been downloading movies illegally off of Limewire.

[JKPolk]

Comcast is one of the worst companies I've ever laid eyes on.

[sumzup]

The whole reason the Internet thrives is because of the relative freedom there is. Locking it down would ultimately result in regression instead of progression.

If corporations do gain control of the Internet, I'm moving to Sweden. I hear they don't care about all money lobbyists try to shove down policymakers' throats.

[Zennixx]

AT&T is the best internet provider if you have their phone deal aswell.

[lord_carbo]

How about the freedom to offer services the way one chooses to? Stop being myopic. There are freedoms on both sides of the issue.

And quite honestly, your "rights" don't expand to being offered the means with which to execute something. You have the freedom of speech but nobody has the obligation to give you the space or resources to exercise that right. Why should I be able to hold a rally in your living room?

Pro-net neutrality people see this:

Speed of the Internet now:
|||||
When people possibly need to start paying providers and refuse to:
||
After the payments:
|||||

When in truth, it'd more likely be or be closer to this:

Speed of the Internet now:
|||||
When people possibly need to start paying providers and refuse to:
|||||
After the payments:
||||||||

Back before I knew anything about economics, I made a good argument about why this would be the case. Now that I know economics, I can make the same case, just with more jargon; I can point out the marginal revenues and marginal costs of services.

If they block or slow your website, you'll get mad and not want to use them. But what did they gain from slowing your site? They save a little bit of a cost for a lot of revenue. In this case, the decision to do that is negative-sum because the marginal revenue was MUCH larger than the marginal cost.

In less jargon-riddled terms, think of it like this. It costs me $5 to let you use my Internet service. However, you pay me $10! Now ask me this: why on earth would I screw your service when I'm making $5 off of you?!? Blocking one site may save me, oh, $.50. But you'd likely switch services on me.

The money from price and product discrimination would result in better services, more likely.

Net neutrality is basically a non-issue that Internet-using non-economists keep blabbering on about. When you learn economics and start to apply it to your thought process, you'll all realize how much of a non-issue this is, and if anything, net neutrality is bad.

[Psycho8137]

Originally Posted by sumzup

The whole reason the Internet thrives is because of the relative freedom there is. Locking it down would ultimately result in regression instead of progression.

True. But this freedom is also the downfall of the companies trying to take it over. There are so many people nowadays that are addicted to the internet. Like me! And what's more, is that there are people willing to fight for their freedom on it. The internet is a place, too, ya know. Anyone who tries to take away freedom will ultimately lose because they aren't the ones fighting for a cause. Fighting for a cause is what makes all the difference. No doubt they would find themselves in such a mess, as they would all be busy trying to stop the endless sea of hackers and crackers alike trying to take them down. They will never win and they should realize that.

If they had normal people who love the internet advise them on the subject of network neutrality, they just might realize this. But instead they have corporate ****monglers saying "Well, we supply it, so we should control it." I don't know about you, but last time I checked, little Tai Wang in the sweatshop over in China doesn't get to pick who wears the shoes he makes.

If they do get permission to try and seize control of the internet, and I stess the word "try," then they will fail. And besides, as we all know, Anonymous is the final boss of the internet. Those guys are ****ing crazy. They'll blow up vans and themselves before they let the likes of Comcast take over the internet.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

True. But this freedom is also the downfall of the companies trying to take it over.

Why don't you recognize the freedom to give services the way one wants to?

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

The internet is a place, too, ya know.

And no corporation is obligated to give you any access to the Internet. They just recognize that they can make money off of you.

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

If they had normal people who love the internet advise them on the subject of network neutrality, they just might realize this.

Net neutrality is not an issue. It's all paranoia.

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

But instead they have corporate ****monglers saying "Well, we supply it, so we should control it."

Reality check: they're not saying that they control the Internet, just the means with which you receive your access to the Internet.

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

I don't know about you, but last time I checked, little Tai Wang in the sweatshop over in China doesn't get to pick who wears the shoes he makes.

A) He's voluntarily deciding to work for a company that chooses where to sell the shoes they make. By standard economic theory, Tai Wang sells his labor, but beyond that he owns nothing. His manager buys his labor, and decides what to do with that labor and its production until Wang says, "hey, I'm going to stop selling my labor."
B) That was the worst comparison I've ever read.

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

If they do get permission to try and seize control of the internet,

They're not trying to control the Internet.

Originally Posted by Psycho8137

And besides, as we all know, Anonymous is the final boss of the internet. Those guys are ****ing crazy. They'll blow up vans and themselves before they let the likes of Comcast take over the internet.

gb2/b/ & lurk moar

[cool110]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=27853

[devonin]

http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/0...net-neutrality

[lord_carbo]

Rhetoric doesn't trump economics, even if in devonin's case it's somewhat amusing rhetoric.

Why can't anyone make cool videos against net neutrality ;_;

[Starshot]

If certain companies choose to censor some websites, that's fine. If anything, it'll be their loss when the profits come in way below average because several of their customers quit because they're being censored.

If you don't like what a company is doing to your internet, then merely move to a different company. You're not obligated to stay with that company. An information company does not thrive if it does not.

It's their right. They provide the service. They decide who stays on. Welcome to the joy of running an information company, enjoy your say.

Net Neutrality is a joke. If you don't like it, suck it up and move to a different service. If "internet censorship" doesn't work, companies will realize it and retract the reforms. The internet is still as free as the wild blue yonder; You'll just have to find some other way to get there.

Stop complaining, it isn't doing anything.