Net Neutrality

gourimoko said:

As someone who has debated this topic, I don't think the pro-repeal advocated here have made much of an argument, let alone a compelling one. And simply asking the question "how," seems to derail their arguments entirely, and now that seems to be too much to ask?

If the argument is that this will create competition, it's not unfair to ask how.

If the argument is that this will lower prices, it's not unfair to ask how.

If the argument is that this is somehow going to lead to a better internet, again, it's not unfair to ask how.

Because it seems like you're suggesting that simply asking "how" we get from point A to point B is too much.. That we should assume legitimacy in the argument, even if it hasn't been demonstrated with any form of specificity whatsoever?

So, I don't think that's being "closed-minded" insomuch as it's asking for a modicum of reason to believe the proposition has any validity to it.

That's fair right?

Click to expand...

Gour,

You are unwilling to accept even the most basic of economic principles with regards to the subject. Shrugging them off as "not relatable" to the subject at hand.

So yes, it's very closed minded.

Triplethreat said:

Gour,

You are unwilling to accept even the most basic of economic principles with regards to the subject. Shrugging them off as "not relatable" to the subject at hand.

So yes, it's very closed minded.

Click to expand...

@gourimoko right now:

Cassity14 said:

Welcome to this part of the forum.

It's funny that you chose me to express this point when I am in the first page of the thread explaining both sides of the argument, yet told me I clearly hadn't read the thread in its entirety or tried to understand it.

If you're going to call me out personally twice, then tell me it's not worth your time to have an actual discussion, that's pretty shitty. You had the time and effort to complain about it, after all.

Click to expand...

Apologies.

I've become frustrated with the pure lack of acknowledgement of any benefit to the other side of the equation from most posters in this thread, and did not specifically meant to call you out. It's just when you can't even acknowledge that the other side of an argument has even the slightest bit of legitimacy, you're just being bias and stubborn (not you, again, the rest of the forum), and you're not opening yourself up to any sort of "learning" that can be had from being open minded on a topic.

Triplethreat said:

Gour,

You are unwilling to accept even the most basic of economic principles with regards to the subject. Shrugging them off as "not relatable" to the subject at hand.

So yes, it's very closed minded.

Click to expand...

Triplethreat..

You must try to understand that I don't accept your interpretation, understanding, or application of these so-called "basic economic principles" as you've described them, simply out of hand.

If I ask you for specifics with respect to how repealing net neutrality fosters lower network costs for equivalent service, and your response is "it's elementary, dear Gourimoko;" that's not a sufficient answer.

I say that because:

(1) I'm fairly well versed in supply-side economic theory, and I don't see any application of/for it here, and I could be wrong but, haven't bothered to explain how you're applying it here, even when asked, repeatedly;

(2) supply-side economics isn't an axiom upon which one can base their argument without relying on any further explanation, as you're attempting to do here (you do realize people disagree with supply-side economics, in various applications, right?);

(3) any economic theory hasn't much at all to do with many of the concerns raised in my numerous posts;

I'm not being closed-minded here, and I take exception to that phrase because I have been more than open to debating the topic reasonably and with fact/evidence-based analysis. I think that's a very unfair characterization of my argument, seemingly to get out of making a counterargument that makes sense.

Again, I'm open to debating the topic with you if you want to have a reasonable and rational discussion.

czvo said:

It's the underpants gnome theory from South Park.

Step 1: Get underwear
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

Click to expand...

Yes, this.. exactly..

gourimoko said:

Triplethreat..

You must try to understand that I don't accept your interpretation, understanding, or application of these so-called "basic economic principles" as you've described them, simply out of hand.

If I ask you for specifics with respect to how repealing net neutrality fosters lower network costs for equivalent service, and your response is "it's elementary, dear Gourimoko;" that's not a sufficient answer.

I say that because (1) I'm well versed in supply-side economic theory, and I don't see any application of/for it here, nor have you tried to explain how you're applying it here; (2) supply-side economics isn't an axiom upon which one can base their argument without relying on any further explanation, as you're attempting to do here; (3) any economic theory hasn't much at all to do with many of the concerns raised in my numerous posts.

I'm not being closed-minded here, and I take exception to that phrase because I have been more than open to debating the topic reasonably and with fact/evidence-based analysis. I think that's a very unfair characterization of my argument, seemingly to get out of making a counterargument that makes sense.

Again, I'm open to debating the topic with you if you want to have a reasonable and rational discussion.

Click to expand...

Once again,

You have ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, NIL facts or evidence that back your own arguments in this thread. You pose POTENTIAL threats/concerns that may arise from the repeal but nothing that has ever actually arisen, even when previously we had no net neutrality rules in place. That said, you seem to be holding the other side of this argument to some type of double standard.

So, it seems to me that we are both presenting possibilities in the future, as opposed to specific examples that these specific circumstances have created in the past. Mostly because we cannot, as they're completely unavailable.

So sure, you can say you're not being closed minded, however you've very clearly had your mind made up on what side of the fence you're going to be on long before these rules were repealed. I'm not sure what that makes you on the topic if not closed minded.

Triplethreat said:

Once again,

You have ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, NIL facts or evidence that back your own arguments in this thread. You pose POTENTIAL threats/concerns that may arise from the repeal but nothing that has ever actually arisen, even when previously we had no net neutrality rules in place. That said, you seem to be holding the other side of this argument to some type of double standard.

So, it seems to me that we are both presenting possibilities in the future, as opposed to specific examples that these specific circumstances have created in the past. Mostly because we cannot, as they're completely unavailable.

So sure, you can say you're not being closed minded, however you've very clearly had your mind made up on what side of the fence you're going to be on long before these rules were repealed. I'm not sure what that makes you on the topic if not closed minded.

Click to expand...

Considering that you're as close-minded as you keep claiming gouri is, just on the opposite side of the issue, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on here.

Jack Brickman said:

Considering that you're as close-minded as you keep claiming gouri is, just on the opposite side of the issue, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on here.

Click to expand...

No he isn’t. He’s said now multiple times that he recognizes both sides have good arguments. That’s only been a handful of people in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait, are we still arguing that no malpractices took place before Net Neutrality was instituted? That's been proven false in this thread multiple times and is easy to find a plethora of information on anywhere.

TyGuy said:

No he isn’t. He’s said now multiple times that he recognizes both sides have good arguments. That’s only been a handful of people in this thread.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, all he's done in this topic is attack those who are pro net neutrality while refusing to address any of their arguments.

Jack Brickman said:

Considering that you're as close-minded as you keep claiming gouri is, just on the opposite side of the issue, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on here.

Click to expand...

I've acknowledged the problems with the repeal of net neutrality. I've also acknowledged the benefits.

I've also acknowledged that I have no flipping idea if what we're trying to do with the repeal is going to work out better for the consumer in the end or not.

Explain how I'm closed minded?

I have no stance on the issue. I'm just trying to bring some positivity and provide some of the actual real and possible benefits of the repeal. Only time will prove if it was a completely moronic decision or not.

With that said, I'm frustrated that people in this thread won't even acknowledge it. Doom and gloom I guess.

Triplethreat said:

Once again,

You have ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, NIL facts or evidence that back your own arguments in this thread.

Click to expand...

Wait.. what?

Everything I've posted is fact-based, what are you talking about? What have I said that was not supported in fact?

Triplethreat said:

You pose POTENTIAL threats/concerns that may arise from the repeal but nothing that has ever actually arisen to this day, even when previously we had no net neutrality rules in place.

Click to expand...

Sigh.. again, you're wrong here too.

1) Regarding throttling, I've posted numerous historical instances regarding several carriers and ISPs throttling. I had a several page long conversation with TyGuy explaining how/why Comcast throttles 99% of it's users, even going so far as to cite their own webpage.

2) I posted 2 different articles regarding packet sniffing and traffic shaping on Comcast's network.

3) I posted an article from 2006 that discusses, in detail, how ISPs like Comcast were shirking the then-standard "net neutrality" and how many advocates wanted it to become a formal law.

4) I've explained historical facts about how ISPs have operated from the 1990s to the present-day.

5) When discussing the realities of the FCC as compared to foreign nations, I explained and cited facts. Poland was used as an example and I explained, in detail, citing facts, how/why this belief was wrong.

6) I've explained and provided evidence of ISPs, again, like Comcast, actually blocking competitors on their network.

Triplethreat said:

That said, you seem to be holding the other side of this argument to some type of double standard.

Click to expand...

No, I'm asking for some specifics that can be evaluated. You seem wholly unwilling to offer said specifics.

Triplethreat said:

So, it seems to me that we are both presenting possibilities in the future, as opposed to specific examples that these specific circumstances have created in the past. Mostly because we cannot, as they're completely unavailable.

Click to expand...

That's false, because, as I've said, in about 20 posts now, there is a historical precedent for these companies doing things consumers didn't want them doing, like: throttling service, violating consumer privacy, rerouting traffic for internal business interests, blocking networks... These are not "possibilities," these are historical events.

So either you're not reading my posts, which, at this point seems fairly likely; or, you're not understanding what I am saying to you?

Triplethreat said:

So sure, you can say you're not being closed minded, however you've very clearly had your mind made up on what side of the fence you're going to be on long before these rules were repealed. I'm not sure what that makes you on the topic if not closed minded.

Click to expand...

I'm evaluating the arguments, and so far, I don't see any reasonable argument presented by the pro-repeal side. If you want to close off discussion and just say "well, your mind is made up" and storm off, that's fine, but don't tell me that I'm being closed-minded because you can't come up with a rational explanation for supporting repeal.

Again... You've said that I haven't presented a fact-based argument, and I have; and I can provide factual / historical accounts for everything I've said to this point. My entire argument is based on the history of the internet from it's creation to today, and is thus entirely based in the historical record.

What facts, what specifics, what exactly is your argument based on? Because as I remember, that's where we left off in this conversation before you decided to call me closed-minded.

Cassity14 said:

Not necessarily, but I'm saying it's interesting timing given the arguments for the repeal and what's happened in the immediate aftermath.

Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of important, though? Because if the rate increases were actually due to other factors - or even announced long before the change in policy - then in fact those increases would have been decided upon under net neutrality. Which would actually create the exact opposite inference of the one your post suggests.

We have people in this thread asking what was so different before Net Neutrality statutes were put in place without taking the time to research the events that directly caused the government to implement said statutes.

Click to expand...

Did you research anything about those price increases before commenting on them?

Triplethreat said:

I've acknowledged the problems with the repeal of net neutrality. I've also acknowledged the benefits.

I've also acknowledged that I have no flipping idea if what we're trying to do with the repeal is going to work out better for the consumer in the end or not.

Explain how I'm closed minded?

I have no stance on the issue. I'm just trying to bring some positivity and provide some of the actual real and possible benefits of the repeal. Only time will prove if it was a completely moronic decision or not.

With that said, I'm frustrated that people in this thread won't even acknowledge it. Doom and gloom I guess.

Click to expand...

Every argument against net neutrality seems to be based entirely on hypotheticals. Maybe it will increase competition, but probably not, as gouri has addressed in detail a dozen times. Maybe it will lead to lower prices, but almost certainly won't because there's no reason for any ISP to lower prices.

On the other hand, we have ample evidence of the shit that ISPs pulled prior to net neutrality being a thing. You know, factual evidence of the things they tried to get away with to the point where net neutrality was needed to be put in writing at all. The assumption seems to be that, with net neutrality gone now, they'll change their ways and not go back to doing the exact same things they were doing before it, but that seems to be a massive leap of faith in a bunch of companies that have done nothing to deserve any faith from consumers.

Triplethreat said:

Once again,

You have ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO, NIL facts or evidence that back your own arguments in this thread. You pose POTENTIAL threats/concerns that may arise from the repeal but nothing that has ever actually arisen, even when previously we had no net neutrality rules in place. That said, you seem to be holding the other side of this argument to some type of double standard.

So, it seems to me that we are both presenting possibilities in the future, as opposed to specific examples that these specific circumstances have created in the past. Mostly because we cannot, as they're completely unavailable.

So sure, you can say you're not being closed minded, however you've very clearly had your mind made up on what side of the fence you're going to be on long before these rules were repealed. I'm not sure what that makes you on the topic if not closed minded.

Click to expand...

They didn't put Net Neutrality in place for no reason. Verizon has been throttling Netflix because they were releasing Go90 a rival streaming site. Consumers don't want this.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/...-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

I can only imagine you are in the ISP business because you are so gung ho about ending Net Neutrality, but can't even say how it will help.