- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
You think voters are intelligent? Please, tell me why.
In a sense, you share Professor Gruber's view of the electorate. We can't all come up to your standard of intelligence--why, Cruz himself probably misses it by a mile.
:dohWow. This is the best you can respond with?
So you have nothing them. Typical from what I've seen of your post history.:doh
No other response is needed when you are as wrong as you are.
And that wasn't the only point he made. He also referred to the taxes such classification would bring about.
:dohSo you have nothing them. Typical from what I've seen of your post history.
My point stands, Cruz was wrong and innovation happened
OK dude. If you want to debate like a grade schooler, go ahead.:doh
Wrong again.
It is you who has nothing and no valid point.
Typical from what I have seen of your post history.
Again, answer my question and I will answer yours.
Either you believe that an ISP should not be able to prioritize their content over their competitors content or you don't. Once you accept that, its then just a question of how best to accomplish such a principle with public policy.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
He said he wanted it to remain the way it is.
You do not obtain neutrality by classifying it as a utility, which is what he opposes.
The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the topic.
The real question in regards to this topic should be; Can you tell us how classifying the internet as a utility restricts innovation?
Cruz already answered that question.
Cruz is against trying to achieve neutrality by classifying the internet as a utility.
Which is what his comments are about.
As he stated in his published opinion, the following is what he wants.
And again. That is a discussion for a different thread
So you have nothing them. Typical from what I've seen of your post history.
My point stands, Cruz was wrong and innovation happened
But it's not about paying for bandwidth. Lets take his example.
Company X and Company Y are consulting companies. They both have a plan purchased through the cable company that provides them with a 30 Mbps download speed, with a clear caveat in the fine print that the speed could be lower due to network congestion.
Company X uses Adobe Connect as their means of teleconferencing. Adobe has an agreement in place with the cable company where they pay the cable company $X amount of money in order for their service to be on a "fast lane". Company X thus is able to do their teleconference at their full 30 Mbps speed they're paying for
Company Y uses Webex as their means of teleconferencing. WebEx has no such agreement with the cable company. As such, the ISP throttles WebEx's services over their network, causing Company Y to only be able to do their video conference at 10 Mpbs.
Company X and Y are paying for the same amount of bandwidth. However, because the service Company X is using pays the ISP money they actually get to use all that speed they're paying for. Meanwhlie, because the service Company Y uses doesn't pay, Company Y is hit with a reduction in speeds that is not network congestion related, therefore not geting their moneys worth.
This isn't a case of Company X paying for more bandwidth then Company Y....they're paying the same money for the same bandwidth. But because a company on the other end didn't give the ISP money, their data is slowed down, and Company Y is screwed out of what it's paying for unless it changes its teleconferencing service.
That arguably could screw up competition, but it becomes even worse if you imagine a scenario where Adobe doesn't just pay to keep its data in the "fast lane" (which is really just the normal lane), but rather pays an extra amount on top of that to be the exclusive teleconference service for that ISP...meaning if you use that ISP, it's either Adobe OR a slowed down teleconference service.
A scenario like that is not allowable under net neutrality ideals and principles. It's ENTIRELY possible with what Verizon and other ISPs have been arguing for in front of courts that allows them to discriminate against data for any reason they want and allows for them to demand payment from content providers or else have their data throttled.
I personally believe that content that is more latent susceptible should be prioritized.
So in this case, I am in favor of prioritizing content based on the content itself, not based on where the content originates.
What I am not in favor of, is allowing people that have little or no understanding of technology to rule on these issues, which is what you are apparently seeking. Once we allow government to make laws to regulate this, the people that have very little idea how things work will be put in charge.
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.
The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.
Yes. Nonsense.
I am glad that you realize what you said was exaggerated nonsense.
Good for you!
:thumbs:
That smiley is a winking for a reason.
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.
The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.
This is net neutrality, not the govenrment democrat bill called "Net Neutrality".
A liberal citing a comedy show to make their case. Who saw that coming?
First off if you have read all my posts in this thread, then you should know that earlier I stated I am quite leery of a bunch of lawyers that are completely ignorant of the subject (ie: Ted Cruz) writing laws that govern this.
That said, if we are going to enforce a common carrier principle for internet providers - which is what net neutrality is, then there has to be some sort of oversight. Hell I can setup a QoS class and policy about as quick as I can write this post, so without some sort of minimal regulatory oversight, how do you propose we prevent the Comcasts and Time Warners out there from doing the same?
And how do you propose we maintain it without some form of regulation?
Excon believes in magic as he has literally no actual other plan. Cruz believes in Magic as well.
Thing is, all of the idiots here arguing against regulation have offered nothing as a plan to maintain actual net neutrality. It's like they magically think it will just stay that way despite ISPs clearly moving to throttling and a tiered system. Seems like the same batcrazy beliefs that made many of the praise the magical Ryan "budget" plan that had zero basis in reality.
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.
The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.
If you read up a few posts, I've addressed this.
I am not on thier side either.
I have offered alternatives (see above) so I guess I am not one of the "idiots" you speak of. *shrug*
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.
The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before.
If I can implement QoS, CoS, and other Traffic Shaping policies to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic (ie: the companies that are paying me to prioritize my traffic), then there is far less of an incentive for me to upgrade my infrastructure as my "preferred" traffic is always the first in line. Moreover, in most markets I have no real competition, thus my end user customers can either continue to buy my service, or go with something much slower.
And how do you propose we maintain it without some form of regulation?
I support a net neutrality as posted in my graphic, a simple law stating that Internet service providers and governments must treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently basis of user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
I has visual aids:
ultimately, you are going to have to rely on the consumer class to not get bent over and shafted.
Personally, I feel that when it is business doing the shafting, we have far more avenues to pursue then when it is the government doing the shafting.
So until I see real signs of big problems today, not potential for problems down the road, I am not giving any government agency more power.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?