Re: Please explain: why do we NEED this so-called "net neutrality" again?
Respectfully, I think online forums are a terrible place to try and have a debate.
211 posts • joined 1 Feb 2012
Trump had two years of Republican controlled Senate and House to get the wall done. He failed. Why oh why would he now suddenly succeed, given a flipped House? Get your head out of your ass. He has only himself to blame for not getting it done. Perhaps he should have played less golf.
Bob, read your own link. Average download speeds did not double.
"RUSH: A minor correction. Internet speeds have not doubled. The numbers are these. “U.S. Internet Speed Has Gone from 12th to 6th Fastest Since the End of Net Neutrality — Since the repeal of ‘net neutrality’ took effect on June 11, the U.S. internet speed has gone from 12th to 6th fastest in the world.” In other words, average download speeds for everybody improving rapidly since we got rid of net neutrality, which is the government controlling the internet."
The jump from 12th to 6th is evidently true. But I'd like to see evidence that this was actually the product of NN being repealed. I'd also like to see evidence that speeds weren't already increasing in months/years prior. So far all this article demonstrates is Rush's (and your own) tenuous grasp on basic statistics.
But this all meaningless anyway. NN is not about raw bandwidth, it's about treating traffic differently based on content. Surely as a "tech professional" you're aware that ISPs fudge the results of speed tests anyway whereas actual traffic is not always so lucky.
On a side note, I love how he calls it a "minor correction". Jesus Christ. But this is the kind of reporting one would expect from someone who begins article titles with "Liberal ignoramuses".
I've lost count of how many times Bob has made these fallacious arguments (which as you say ultimately rest upon the fairytale of ISP competition). Everytime someone calls him on it he cowers back into his hidey-hole, but not before collecting his 2 upvotes (one undoubtedly from Big John). And of course all the while screaming SOCIALISM. Just ignore him. It's a waste of (precious) bytes to try and engage him.
"...at 22 mB/second and pushed to Wikileaks... I'm sure someone built a nice cable to the Russkies for that data rate."
They most likely did not directly exfiltrate the data from the compromised system. It's common to move it within a compromised organization first. It seems in your quest to find anything wrong with the explanation you overlooked this obvious detail.
I can't help but think that this hurricane + associated fallout was an obvious FALSE FLAG distraction by Mother Nature (a registered DUMBOCRAT and climate change campaigner) to deflect from KILLARY CLINTON'S email server. In fact I'd bet the hurricane helped wipe away EVIDENCE of her wrongdoing from the server rooms of Puerto Rico. WHAT'S NEXT? A tornado in Hawaii sweeping away OBAKA's fake birth certificate$?
"...actual effect will be more government control"
Yes, the government will exert some control to ensure ISPs don't bend us over a barrel (in this instance at least). What's the problem? Or were you just repeating a GOP talking point without providing proof, in the hopes we wouldn't notice? Hush hush, the GUBBERMINT is not going to take away your Fox News.
"Is it now safe to allow them to take over? When did that happen?" - A defining example of "FUD"
These are just fucking code snippets - let's stop calling them "libraries".
npm is basically an automated way of jotting down which snippets of code you've lifted from Stack Overflow.
'FUD. WRONG. CLUELESS. prices/costs already _DID_ that because of OBAKA-"Care".'
Last I checked, just because something already happened doesn't mean it can't happen again. Want to try your comment again with an actual explanation for why ckm5 is wrong? I am genuinely interested to hear it.
Just go away Big John - you're the only one here "frontloading" by dragging in good vs. evil and "PC" in an attempt to derail the conversation. All you do is attack how the viewpoints are presented, not the viewpoints themselves. You still haven't managed to give a substantive argument against NN since the last time I called out your bullshit: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/11/21/fcc_net_neutrality/#c_3354515.
"But I've never heard of it being done to individual users..."
You've never seen it because you choose not to look. Here you go: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
"I didn't know consumers' concerns ever figured anywhere in Pai's considerations. Also, Ajit Pai can't tell the FTC what to do."
Well thankfully some of us have been paying attention.
"Eliminating the common carrier classification of broadband will '[r]estore the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect consumers online from any unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices,' Pai's proposal says."
So in other words you're somewhat convinced NN is a good thing (based on merrit), but since so many "undesirables" (i.e. people not willing to wipe Trump's ass for him) oppose it, you assume it's *really* something bad. Look up the word "doublethink".
NN is simply about preventing anti-competitive behavior. Cable companies just want to make money - no surprise there. A sufficiently free market will correct itself - high priced ISPs will be challenged by lower priced alternatives. And that's the problem: THERE IS NO ISP MARKET IN THE US. Local and state laws (drafted by ISP lobbyist groups) spring up everywhere that prevent local ISPs from laying down wire or otherwise operating.
Pai is the lying sack of shit in this. Between conflating NN with freedom of speech, to fucking redefining what broadband means (to give false impressions of competition in the market), he's to blame.
Like clockwork: a post from Big John about NN that is devoid of substance other than "NN = socialism". Why even bother making these bullshit defenses on a tech forum? Surely Facebook is a better venue for you?
'Throatwarbler Mangrove' summed it up perfectly the last time you came thundering in here in Trump Defense Mode (TM): https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3287105
Big John, did you come by to add anything useful to the conversation? Or just the usual diversions? I'm betting on the second, given that you have repeatably demonstrated a tenuous grasp of net neutrality. Exhibit A: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3254920
Conspiracy time: Pai is playing the fool thus reinforcing the (absurd) notion that the FCC has no business in the net neutrality debate (or non-mobile internet in general). He's said many times he'd like the FTC to handle it (e.g. https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/7/15215316/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-title-ii-plans-roll-back).
I doubt that's quite it, though. I really do believe that Pai is incompetent enough to flounder as he did.
"climate marketing organisations"
This is the part that kills me. People actually believe that companies that manufacture solar panels and windmills are bigger and have more influence than, say, oil companies. Are you fucking kidding me?
"Anyone else have a better explanation?"
Yes, I do: you're being disingenuous. Try taking the AVERAGE: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm. Specifically, see this graph: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47. While you're there, feel free to correct any other ignorances you have by consulting this page: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
"why not let the providers build those extra 'lanes" with some of that profit? In other words, leave the market alone and it will accommodate all levels of custom."
In theory, this is correct reasoning. But in practice it's a complete fantasy. The obvious answer to "why not" is because there is no market. <= just one of a thousand other articles explaining the same thing. And by the way, this data comes from the FCC itself. For example: https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers
Every NN opponent, particularly Pai, conveniently forgets about this. Look at what happened to Google Fiber. ISPs fought new deployments tooth and nail, dragging their feet over every single utility pole and lobbying to block it a hundred different ways. And what happened? Fiber, as of 2016, is no longer planning any more expansions. ISPs don't compete, they litigate. I don't know what's so hard to get about this, unless you're Pai, of course, who has a vested interest in making sure he doesn't understand.
The original comment was just words as well, but that didn't stop you from pouncing on it. Regarding the rest: I think we can both agree that Antifa is disgusting. But there have absolutely been attacks against protestors at Trump rallies - just google it. And yes, the attack against Scalise was horrible.
"Dude, that example is very weak..."
Fair enough, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Here's some better examples: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-violent-rhetoric-history-226873. But pay no mind to the particularities of that article - unlike you, I'm not going to sit here and breathlessly defend any one party as being morally superior. Both sides have zealous lunatics that do and say violent things, and to a large extent, BOTH parties are responsible for cultivating the "us vs. them" attitude that provides such fertile soil for that violence. That was the point of my original reply.
And I'm sure you do have a war-chest of "Sure, Trump/his supporters/Republicans did X, but Hillary/her supporters/Democrats [did/would have done] Y, and look at how much worse Y is than X!?!?"-style stories. That kind of arguing seems to be pretty much Trump supporters' only defense tactic when confronted with facts or inconvenient questions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019