Net Neutrality

[TyGuy]

Well, let's go through this... but first, let's agree to some rules..

IF I can prove that your assertions (or the assertions being presented here) are counterfactual, and you can easily verify that yourself (i.e., proof), then you agree to state the assertion is incorrect? And I'll do the same.

That's only reasonable, right?

And this is what it boils down to. Getting that win! His platform is that both sides have some merit and that we don't know exactly what will happen.

 

[czvo]

I'm not sure how we can say we don't know what will happen when we have multiple examples of what DID happen before the protections went into effect.

But, hey, doomed to repeat history and such...

 

[gourimoko]

And this is what it boils down to. Getting that win! His platform is that both sides have some merit and that we don't know exactly what will happen.

No, it boils down to not running around in circles... can't you try to understand that?

I'm asking a simple condition, one that any reasonable person shouldn't have a hard time agreeing to.. That being, that if I can prove a point, you agree it's been proven; and if you prove a point, then I agree it's been proven. If I present a fact and it's it demonstrated to be false; then I'll admit it and withdraw it -- and if you submit a fact that's demonstrated to be false, then you'll admit it's false, and withdraw it.

It's not about "getting that win," it's about actually critically assessing an idea.

Instead of treating this topic like you're on Ajit Pai's team, trying to "win" something, just try to understand what I just said.

 

[TyGuy]

No, it boils down to not running around in circles... can't you try to understand that?

I'm asking a simple condition, one that any reasonable person shouldn't have a hard time agreeing to.. That being, that if I can prove a point, you agree it's been proven; and if you prove a point, then I agree it's been proven. If I present a fact and it's it demonstrated to be false; then I'll admit it and withdraw it -- and if you submit a fact that's demonstrated to be false, then you'll admit it's false, and withdraw it.

It's not about "getting that win," it's about actually critically assessing an idea.

Instead of treating this topic like you're on Ajit Pai's team, trying to "win" something, just try to understand what I just said.

I'm not trying to win anything and I don't belong to a team. I'm not the one asking for consent in defeat. I wanted to present some arguments for the other side so as to keep this thread from being an echo chamber. I agree with triple and Crowder that both sides have some valid arguments.

And just because you believe something to be perfectly reasonable it doesn't mean that it's reasonable for everybody.

 

[Triplethreat]

No, it boils down to not running around in circles... can't you try to understand that?

I'm asking a simple condition, one that any reasonable person shouldn't have a hard time agreeing to.. That being, that if I can prove a point, you agree it's been proven; and if you prove a point, then I agree it's been proven. If I present a fact and it's it demonstrated to be false; then I'll admit it and withdraw it -- and if you submit a fact that's demonstrated to be false, then you'll admit it's false, and withdraw it.

It's not about "getting that win," it's about actually critically assessing an idea.

Instead of treating this topic like you're on Ajit Pai's team, trying to "win" something, just try to understand what I just said.

"It's true. Those four instances are federally published in the R&O and the FCC has taken care of every known issue that has arisen to this point anyways.

As far as Comcast. It was never proven that they had partaken in any misconduct. So how can you use this as evidence? The FCC takes care of misconduct if it's proven to be going on. Just like your right, my right, as a citizen. Innocent until proven guilty."



Guilty until proven innocent then now, eh, Gour?

 

[KI4MVP]

"It's true. Those four instances are federally published in the R&O and the FCC has taken care of every known issue that has arisen to this point anyways.

As far as Comcast. It was never proven that they had partaken in any misconduct. So how can you use this as evidence? The FCC takes care of misconduct if it's proven to be going on. Just like your right, my right, as a citizen. Innocent until proven guilty."



Guilty until proven innocent then now, eh, Gour?

I'm so confused as to what you're even arguing. The misconduct in the cases you cited, that the FCC "took care of" are no longer considered misconduct, the FCC now explicitly allows these things to happen.

The FCC isn't going to take care of anything now, they just gave companies permission to do what they previously said was misconduct, even before the formalized it as misconduct.

This is why so many people are upset about the change. They didn't change it to the way things were, they made it the opposite of the way the internet has always worked, since the day ARPANET went live in 1969 and TCP/IP was adopted in 1978.

The TCP/IP protocol guarantees delivery of data at the very lowest level. This guarantee has just been broken by the FCC.

 

[gourimoko]

"It's true. Those four instances are federally published in the R&O and the FCC has taken care of every known issue that has arisen to this point anyways.

As far as Comcast. It was never proven that they had partaken in any misconduct. So how can you use this as evidence? The FCC takes care of misconduct if it's proven to be going on. Just like your right, my right, as a citizen. Innocent until proven guilty."

What is this quote? I'm not sure what this is referencing or what it has to do with my post?

Guilty until proven innocent then now, eh, Gour?

Why are you speaking so cryptically? I have no idea what you're talking about?

I asked you a few simple questions and you haven't actually responded. This.. isn't a response, as far as I can tell.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm so confused as to what you're even arguing.

This seems like @Triplethreat is obfuscating for some reason? It's why I wanted an agreement that if we go through each of these points, exhaustively, that we could at least agree on the facts if not the solution.

It is counterfactual that only 4 instances of violations of the net neutrality standard happened prior to it being made law; I've cited 4 additional violations myself, and there are numerous others. Simply saying that because the FCC only cites 4 violations doesn't support the argument that only 4 such violations occurred, let alone that there is insufficient historical evidence to support net neutrality regulations on the part of the FCC.

 

[Triplethreat]

I'm so confused as to what you're even arguing. The misconduct in hte cases you cited, that the FCC "took care of" are no longer considered misconduct, the FCC now explicitly allows these things to happen.

The FCC isn't going to take care of anything now, they just gave companies permission to do what they previously said was misconduct, even before the formalized it as misconduct.

That's inherently false.

I advise you to go read the paper posted a page back. Are you under the assumption that the repeal of net neutrality now allows ISP's to do whatever the hell they want? I assure you, that is simply not the case.

 

[Triplethreat]

This seems like @Triplethreat is obfuscating for some reason? It's why I wanted an agreement that if we go through each of these points, exhaustively, that we could at least agree on the facts if not the solution.

It is counterfactual that only 4 instances of violations of the net neutrality standard happened prior to it being made law; I've cited 4 additional violations myself, and there are numerous others. Simply saying that because the FCC only cites 4 violations doesn't support the argument that only 4 such violations occurred, let alone that there is insufficient historical evidence to support net neutrality regulations on the part of the FCC.

There have been 4 violations proven.

How can you reasonably present other instances of malpractice if there is no proof that they actually occurred?

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not trying to win anything and I don't belong to a team.

Then why assume others are?

I'm not the one asking for consent in defeat.

Defeat? You just said this isn't about winning or losing and yet you say this?

I wanted to present some arguments for the other side so as to keep this thread from being an echo chamber. I agree with triple and Crowder that both sides have some valid arguments.

I'm happy for you that you agree there are two valid arguments; I disagree. I'm demonstrating why I disagree, is that okay with you?

And just because you believe something to be perfectly reasonable it doesn't mean that it's reasonable for everybody.

Thankfully, rationality is not subjective.

 

[gourimoko]

There have been 4 violations proven.

How can you reasonably present other instances of malpractice if there is no proof that they actually occurred?

Again, that is false. There have been more than 4 violations of the net neutrality standard. I already gave you several.

You are asking me how can I reasonably present "other instances" if there is no proof that they actually occurred?

I'm putting to you the following:

1) Are you suggesting Verizon didn't block Apple Pay on it's network in 2011 (this instance, well known, is not among the 4 in the paper)?
2) If they did, will you admit you are wrong about there only being 4 proven violations of the standard?

 

[KI4MVP]

There have been 4 violations proven.

How can you reasonably present other instances of malpractice if there is no proof that they actually occurred?

Verizon admitted they blocked google wallet, what more proof do you need beyond their own admission of what they did?

 

[gourimoko]

Verizon admitted they blocked google wallet, what more proof do you need beyond their own admission of what they did?

Exactly...

I'm seriously hoping @Triplethreat can slow down for a second and think about what he's saying. Simply put, the quote from the paper he cited is in error in it's reasoning. It's misleading to assert that because the FCC only cites 4 violations that only 4 violations occurred or are proven to exist; that's nonsense.

And even in the violations cited, Comcast won it's case. They were legally allowed to throttle users who used specific kinds of content delivery. Which itself, is a violation of net neutrality.

 

[KI4MVP]

That's inherently false.

I advise you to go read the paper posted a page back. Are you under the assumption that the repeal of net neutrality now allows ISP's to do whatever the hell they want? I assure you, that is simply not the case.

I don't have time to read the paper, I'm packing for a trip. Every thing I've read says that they now have the ability to block or throttled content.

And you do realize the paper you cited is from 2011, right? Why are you claiming that's the final authority on net neutrality or what the ramifications are for the FCCs recent action?