Appeals Court Hands Obama Administration Major Win In Net Neutrality Case

[SocialD]

Of course, in the eyes of the Right, this is tyranny, socialism run amok - how DARE the government infringe upon Big Business' "right" to divide their customers by deciding who can have good access and who cannot! It's almost as bad as those tyrannical attacks on those good-hearted, well-meaning for-profit universities (and fake ones like Trump University)!

All this will lead to is the providers will throttle the consumer instead of the business for instance instead of throttling Netflix they will just throttle the individual customers who use a lot of bandwidth. it will take more effort to do it but it will still get done.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Not among those that I deal with on a daily basis. Maybe those that are extremists, but not those of us that are the average person.

And what I posted was a knee-jerk reaction - I should know better. I agree with you, especially given that most of my friends are strong conservatives - I'm the odd man out in the group, to say the least. Thanks for the courteous reminder that most of us from every side of the political spectrum really are well-meaning, good-hearted people who are all trying to do the right thing, and that the conflicts only arise because the "right things" from different sides simply don't mesh very well.

 

[natsb]

I made the claim then defended it. You then essentially said, "Nauh! Politifact is bull****ting you and your argument isnt grounded in reality". So Im now asking you to defend your claim of how what Politifact laid out is not right/"grounded in reality"....

No, actually you didn't defend it. You simply linked to a bogus article in a biased web site. Please read the article you linked. It is nothing more than an op-ed. Nowhere in it does it point to what is in the proposed FCC rules. It is a few short paragraphs containing words like "the idea that", "Net neutrality supporters think", "Proponents of net neutrality worry". "Obama said", and "he does not want". It is exactly as I said. It is an article telling you what they believe to be the contents of the new rules without referencing any actual content. If you can't admit that the confirmation goggles you read that article through are on a little too tight, and you think it actually provides proof points then I will submit content from your article that proves by point. "and they would be subject to more regulation. Currently, the Internet is classified as an "information service," which greatly limits how much the FCC can regulate it."

I mean, usually when you debate you defend claims being made with evidence, etc.

I hope you can see the irony in demanding evidence from me while offering none of your own. Which fallacy are you using?

Called the genetic fallacy. Its when you attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. Its what you did when you implied the information found in the Politifact article was not grounded in reality and erroneous for the sole reason of it being from Politifact.

That's nice.. How about answering my question this time? What was the logical fallacy you claimed I used?

 

[natsb]

You look at Comcast's >97% profit margin on high speed internet, effective monopoly, and abysmal customer satisfaction and you think "gee, what a wild success of the free market in controlling product cost and quality," ?!???!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!

It's hard to take such ridiculousness seriously.

Here is what I read... Blah blah, whine crumble complain whine whine complain waaaaaa.

Nowhere did you actually address my questions. No, Comcast is not a monopoly, effective or otherwise.

I'll repeat the questions. Why are ISP's not competitive? What is not free market about them? I won't object to a serious response if you actually have one.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No, actually you didn't defend it. You simply linked to a bogus article in a biased web site. Please read the article you linked. It is nothing more than an op-ed. Nowhere in it does it point to what is in the proposed FCC rules. It is a few short paragraphs containing words like "the idea that", "Net neutrality supporters think", "Proponents of net neutrality worry". "Obama said", and "he does not want". It is exactly as I said. It is an article telling you what they believe to be the contents of the new rules without referencing any actual content. If you can't admit that the confirmation goggles you read that article through are on a little too tight, and you think it actually provides proof points then I will submit content from your article that proves by point. "and they would be subject to more regulation. Currently, the Internet is classified as an "information service," which greatly limits how much the FCC can regulate it."

Oh boy! Still relying on the logical fallacy I pointed out.
But for ****s sake what other sources do you want? An official FCC fact sheet?
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331869A1.pdf
The official court document?
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/$file/15-1063-1619173.pdf
A Harvard analysis?
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites...2_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf
The White House official proposal?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

I hope you can see the irony in demanding evidence from me while offering none of your own. Which fallacy are you using?

I did, offer evidence but you then relied on a logical fallacy and you have still offered literally zero evidence to reinforce your claims.

That's nice.. How about answering my question this time? What was the logical fallacy you claimed I used?

I did. You asked, "What was the logical fallacy?".

Here I'll answer it again: Called the genetic fallacy. Its when you attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. Its what you did when you implied the information found in the Politifact article was not grounded in reality and erroneous for the sole reason of it being from Politifact.

 

[natsb]

Oh boy! Still relying on the logical fallacy I pointed out.
But for ****s sake what other sources do you want? An official FCC fact sheet?
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331869A1.pdf
The official court document?
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/$file/15-1063-1619173.pdf
A Harvard analysis?
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites...2_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf
The White House official proposal?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality


I did, offer evidence but you then relied on a logical fallacy and you have still offered literally zero evidence to reinforce your claims.


I did. You asked, "What was the logical fallacy?".

Here I'll answer it again: Called the genetic fallacy. Its when you attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. Its what you did when you implied the information found in the Politifact article was not grounded in reality and erroneous for the sole reason of it being from Politifact.

Oh boy is right... Look up this fallacy: appeal to authority. Then look up confirmation bias.

The FCC fact sheet? Seriously??? The same organization that wants to control the Internet puts out a "fact sheet" that proclaims their intensions are honorable. Yeah, that's solid proof. By that standard, I can but a document on the web that says I am right, and you would accept that. Again, look up confirmation bias.

Next you provide the very court case that is in dispute in this thread. Perhaps that was supposed to provide some evidence of something?

Then we are provided with a Harvard article that looked at over 4,000 articles on the web and found that most people support NN. What evidence is that supposed to provide that the Government would not be taking over the Internet? How is it even pertinent to this discussion?

Finally, we are treated to a document from the people who want the control in the first place, that is telling us how wonderful life will be when the Government controls the Internet instead of those evil corporations. You really do need to look up confirmation bias before posting a reply. When you discover what you are doing wrong, it might help people take those post more serious.

I did provide evidence. I posted a quote from the very article you linked. If you accept your linked article as fact, then you accept my evidence as fact.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And what I posted was a knee-jerk reaction - I should know better. I agree with you, especially given that most of my friends are strong conservatives - I'm the odd man out in the group, to say the least. Thanks for the courteous reminder that most of us from every side of the political spectrum really are well-meaning, good-hearted people who are all trying to do the right thing, and that the conflicts only arise because the "right things" from different sides simply don't mesh very well.

Well said. And, thanks.

 

[Absentglare]

Here is what I read... Blah blah, whine crumble complain whine whine complain waaaaaa.

Nowhere did you actually address my questions. No, Comcast is not a monopoly, effective or otherwise.

I'll repeat the questions. Why are ISP's not competitive? What is not free market about them? I won't object to a serious response if you actually have one.

You must be confused.

I don't have to explain answers to those questions. I can look at the result and tell you that your invisible hand isn't doing it's supposed job.

In fact, Joseph Stiglitz claims, "the reason the invisible hand often was invisible was that it wasn’t there."

 

[JANFU]

Why are ISP's not competitive? What is not free market about them?

Do they really compete against other?

 

[danarhea]

You can count on an appeal.

With a 4-4 SCOTUS decision on this, the ruling will stand.

 

[Aberration]

If there was a free market you might have a point. But there is no free market when it comes to the telecom companies.

You dont need a completely free market for free market principles to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[natsb]

Do they really compete against other?

Of course they do. Anyone that still watches commercial TV sees the constant commercials telling people that their service is better than the other guys. They make claims about being faster, more reliable, etc, than the other choices.

When my daughter moved into her apartment, she had to choose between three different providers. There is all kinds of competition out there.

 

[Cardinal]

Read more @: Appeals Court Hands Obama Administration Major Win In Net Neutrality Case

:applaud:applaudA huge win for the consumer and a free and open internet! [/FONT]

Mazel tov!

 

[Cardinal]

My sentiments exactly.

I am all for net neutrality. I hope this decision holds if it is appealed by the special interests who want to monopolize the internet (and any other form of electronic communication).

People who bothered to educate themselves support net neutrality. People who don't support net neutrality don't know what it is, or they work for or are shareholders in telecom companies.

 

[Beaudreaux]

With a 4-4 SCOTUS decision on this, the ruling will stand.

Maybe.

 

[Anthony60]

This is not a win for the consumer. When the free market loses the consumer loses. The cable companies own the lines, they own the servers, they should be able to offer services in whatever manner they choose. If what the consumer is supposedly demanding, all traffic to be treated the same, then companies will change their products to meet the demands. We see that with the change in plans from by the byte to monthly. We see that with increased speeds for the same price. We see that with expanded services like streaming video and recording boxes. The fact that the cable companies havent changed the product is proof that the consumer is not demanding the change.

Exactly right. The answer to this is an open market with more competition, not the government stepping in with regulations. I'm just wondering where the need for this is. Are people having trouble getting to websites because the provider is deliberately slowing traffic to that site? It is so bad that the government needed to get involved? BS! This is the government sticking it's nose in where it is not needed.

Then, you have the fools cheering this on as the government steps in and restricts freedoms, once again. I remember when they decided to regulate the cable companies. They regulated them, restricted competition, and rates went up. Don't you people ever learn? The less government, the better.

 

[Anthony60]

With a 4-4 SCOTUS decision on this, the ruling will stand.

It might be a while, like next year before it gets there. Should be someone in place after the elections.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Oh boy is right... Look up this fallacy: appeal to authority. Then look up confirmation bias.

The FCC fact sheet? Seriously??? The same organization that wants to control the Internet puts out a "fact sheet" that proclaims their intensions are honorable. Yeah, that's solid proof. By that standard, I can but a document on the web that says I am right, and you would accept that. Again, look up confirmation bias.

Next you provide the very court case that is in dispute in this thread. Perhaps that was supposed to provide some evidence of something?

Then we are provided with a Harvard article that looked at over 4,000 articles on the web and found that most people support NN. What evidence is that supposed to provide that the Government would not be taking over the Internet? How is it even pertinent to this discussion?

Finally, we are treated to a document from the people who want the control in the first place, that is telling us how wonderful life will be when the Government controls the Internet instead of those evil corporations. You really do need to look up confirmation bias before posting a reply. When you discover what you are doing wrong, it might help people take those post more serious.

I did provide evidence. I posted a quote from the very article you linked. If you accept your linked article as fact, then you accept my evidence as fact.

:lamo You have literally offered zero evidence other than one quote. All you have done is continued to blame sources for not being accurate but do not back up/reinforce your claims of how they are inaccurate.

 

[Zyphlin]

If there was a free market you might have a point. But there is no free market when it comes to the telecom companies.

Yep. This is a combination of telecoms basically having a wink wink nudge nudge agreement not to thoroughly encroach into each others lands, mixed with regulation that makes actual competition extremely difficult if not impossible, creating regional monopolies/duopolies that severely impact choice and keep a free market from truly existing. Thus creates a situation where there are no "good" options so you look for the best bad option, which in this case is government regulation. What I think is going to be very important however is extremely strict limits on what that regulation can actuall do, that is aimed more at keeping telecoms from performing certain actions as opposed to mandating that they perform certain ones.

 

[natsb]

:lamo You have literally offered zero evidence other than one quote. All you have done is continued to blame sources for not being accurate but do not back up/reinforce your claims of how they are inaccurate.

Okay, let me see if I get your logic.
You post an article that does not disprove my claim about giving control to the Government.
You quote text from that article to prove a point.
I quote text from that same article to prove a point.
Yet somehow, the article is only valid evidence for one of us.
I can't stress this enough... Look up confirmation bias, before you lose all credibility.

Yet still, after all this time, you can't find time to read the actual rules. If the Government will not be taking control, it should be easy to prove the Government's role with real text from the real rules. Or... you can continue to be smug and obtuse; your choice.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Okay, let me see if I get your logic.
You post an article that does not disprove my claim about giving control to the Government.
You quote text from that article to prove a point.
I quote text from that same article to prove a point.
Yet somehow, the article is only valid evidence for one of us.
I can't stress this enough... Look up confirmation bias, before you lose all credibility.

Yet still, after all this time, you can't find time to read the actual rules. If the Government will not be taking control, it should be easy to prove the Government's role with real text from the real rules. Or... you can continue to be smug and obtuse; your choice.

Again, I'm not arguing that it does not give regulatory powers to the government, the government already has certain regulatory powers when it comes to the internet. Im arguing against your claim stating that the politifact article was not grounded in reality. I have constantly asked you why the politifact article is not grounded in reality, something you have yet to answer.

 

[Cardinal]

Exactly right. The answer to this is an open market with more competition, not the government stepping in with regulations. I'm just wondering where the need for this is. Are people having trouble getting to websites because the provider is deliberately slowing traffic to that site?

No, because we have net neutrality. /thread

It is so bad that the government needed to get involved? BS! This is the government sticking it's nose in where it is not needed.

Then, you have the fools cheering this on as the government steps in and restricts freedoms, once again. I remember when they decided to regulate the cable companies. They regulated them, restricted competition, and rates went up. Don't you people ever learn? The less government, the better.

 

[natsb]

Again, I'm not arguing that it does not give regulatory powers to the government, the government already has certain regulatory powers when it comes to the internet. Im arguing against your claim stating that the politifact article was not grounded in reality. I have constantly asked you why the politifact article is not grounded in reality, something you have yet to answer.

Actually, I did. I said it was because it was simply an op-ed piece full of he said/she said comments. I then specifically quoted examples from your link. The article reads more like a gossip piece than a news piece. "Obama said" is not a reality proof point. ( As a reminder, Obama also said we could keep out doctors, health care cost would go down, etc. )

 

[Aberration]

Yep. This is a combination of telecoms basically having a wink wink nudge nudge agreement not to thoroughly encroach into each others lands, mixed with regulation that makes actual competition extremely difficult if not impossible, creating regional monopolies/duopolies that severely impact choice and keep a free market from truly existing. Thus creates a situation where there are no "good" options so you look for the best bad option, which in this case is government regulation. What I think is going to be very important however is extremely strict limits on what that regulation can actuall do, that is aimed more at keeping telecoms from performing certain actions as opposed to mandating that they perform certain ones.

The irony is the socialists will blame the greed of the corporation when prices go up. What they will do? Well we know that. It is meant to keep telecoms from discriminating services based on the type of data.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is not a win for the consumer. When the free market loses the consumer loses. The cable companies own the lines, they own the servers, they should be able to offer services in whatever manner they choose. If what the consumer is supposedly demanding, all traffic to be treated the same, then companies will change their products to meet the demands. We see that with the change in plans from by the byte to monthly. We see that with increased speeds for the same price. We see that with expanded services like streaming video and recording boxes. The fact that the cable companies havent changed the product is proof that the consumer is not demanding the change.

There's never really been a "free market" in telecommunications.
Most localities have granted monopolies and until we develop better ota internet services, net neutrality is a good idea.