Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

As an addendum .. a major problem is that the protocol that supports all of this interconnection at the technical core of the internet and this discussion, whereby people advertise ‘routes’, was written on the back of three paper napkins in a restaurant.

If you are bored and in geek mode then Google on ‘BGP’ .. aka the ‘three napkins protocol’. Then write a paper to explain how you would re-engineer internet backbone route advertising to deal with different traffic priorities. ...
... then explain in 200 words to the politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by legault

net neutrality is internet communism

---

This is a very bad take and shows a complete lack of understanding re: Net Neutrality and also communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Free market does not fail consumers - ever.

---

lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services.[...] Free market does not fail consumers - ever. [...] In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

---

If you can't see that such logic doesn't apply in every situation you will never get it. With the current political climate in the USA issues such as ending neutrality are actually motivated by a group of politicians who want to increase the control that certain large corporations have over things such as access to varied media outlets and other services. We are witnessing the increasing monopolisation of services the public use by using the decreased regulation to tailor the service to the desires of the supplier not the consumer - the free market will not exist in the way it should. It is a move closer to fascist existence in a country where personal freedom has been the backbone of what the country was built upon. Free markets fail consumers utterly all the time if those with enough money are allowed dominate owing to a lack of regulation.

You have some kind of unrealistic fairy-tale ideal of how free markets and capitalism should work in your head where the regulations and laws that prevent exactly the things you are clearly opposed to (fascist/communist ideologies becoming more powerful) aren't required. The real world doesn't work that way. Decades ago writers were coming up with fictions that showed the possible dystopian futures where mega-corporations who controlled things like media access existed (think The Running Man as an example); we're getting closer to that type of fantasy becoming a reality with each little step of a law or regulation being removed if the world were to work following your unfettered and unchecked idea of how free markets should work.

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

---

Or as we Post-Progressive #Demexit Berniebros might say - socialize the risk. Privatize the profit

Obama’s No Bankster Left Behind is proof of your post Ts RedVex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites with content of that type just like content to any other website. If you are a paedophile or an eager firebrand then you may indeed be in favour of keeping net neutrality in power.
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services. As soon as there appears a group of people who require something else, emerge new companies who meet that group's needs. Free market does not fail consumers - ever. In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.

---

You have dodged the issue I raised, which is not that regulation is halting competition, but that it is being used to prevent criminal activity, and that regulations that attempt to prevent the broadcast of child pornography, that attempt to prevent the sale of illegal drugs and weapons, that are used by terrorists to engage in and encourage acts of mass murder, were in place before the Net Neutrality provision, exist now, and will continue to exist if Net Neutrality is discarded.
You have dodged it because you cannot bring yourself to admit that the State may have good cause to regulate the internet with regard to the issue noted above. In the same way you claim if free markets fail it is because they do not exist, which makes one wonder why you are defending what you claim to be a free market proposition when on your own evidence as well as evidence from the USA there is no free market in internet provision, but a regulated market, or for that matter, a rigged market.

You say there is nothing wrong with monopolies and that they will cease to exist when alternative suppliers enter the market, yet the historical evidence suggests the opposite is the case. It was precisely because Rockefeller's 'Octopus' used its tentacles to grab most of the USA's oil and gas resources for itself that anti-trust legislation broke up the Standard Oil empire in 1911; and the Bell Telephone empire was broken up in 1982 having dominated the US market for most of the 20th century. You need to explain how it was that it was left to government to create the conditions for competition in the petroleum and telecommunications markets in the US, because it is clear that the markets themselves failed to do it. Why did the USA at the height of its powers as a capitalist project pass the 'Sherman Act'? Was it because John Sherman and Benjamin Harrison were Communists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Free markets do not fail, they just do not exist and that is the problem. They won't exist for as long as there is any laws designated to intervene in economy.

---

I'm beginning to think that you aren't getting involved in a debate but are simply taking a delight in being contrary; you've contradicted your own arguments or evaded questions from Stavros specifically on so many points that either you have no grasp of what the reality is or you are just arguing for arguing's sake and don't really care what you say.

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.

Monopolies only exist if governments enable their existence.

As to free markets, here is a nice vid explaining pretty much what I have been trying to explain on here to you - also why democracy is one of the worst systems you can have in a country. One of the "two winos who tell a professor how to bring his children up, because there are more of them" also makes an appearance at one point xD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AIew3RN4R4&t=2s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.

---

Attachment 1041136

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torris

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

---

Comcast do this a lot. They slow down or limit the amount of bandwidth on different types of users or from different places. So when our servers were all in Amsterdam, some users on Comcast (and other providers) would get worse speeds to our content than other users, despite being on the same backbones coming across the Atlantic. They won't admit they do this - but they do.
We've since created hubs in Dallas and Miami to counteract this, so that pretty much everyone in N.America gets similar/good speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobySteven

They slow down or limit the amount of bandwidth on different types of users or from different places.

---

Throttling. There are three variants of throttling. (1) the ISP don’t buy enough transit bandwidth, e.g across the pond, so the traffic has to compete, (2) the ISP or transit provider stop the traffic negotiating its ‘window size’ (how much in flight unacknowledged traffic is allowed), which favours local services; and (3) the ISP or transit provider explicitly act in a non-neutral way by prioritising some traffic over others.

On the servers I run we have seen both 1 and 2, and as GroobySteven says you have to move your servers nearer the user (deals with (2)) or onto a high capacity route via well connected IXP .. AZURE / AWS / Softlayer etc, or use a CDN such as Akamai. Deals with (1).

Example: I can see someone with AT&T in Texas getting a crap speed because of the route and transit engineering used to get to very well connected servers in London docklands, while someone in Seattle is running at 10Mbit/s at the same time. Nothing explicitly sinister, just US ISP crap engineering.

The net neutrality debate is all about (3) : the deliberate prioritisation or choking of some traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

The fact that it is in their interest to provide you with the best "internet experience" which includes access to any site you want to see. Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.

There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.

---

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torris

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

---

I know a chick who’s into that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

monopolies promote competition in a free market

---

lol you are so dumb :d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruRyoo2xiE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lester316

I'm beginning to think that you aren't getting involved in a debate but are simply taking a delight in being contrary; you've contradicted your own arguments or evaded questions from Stavros specifically on so many points that either you have no grasp of what the reality is or you are just arguing for arguing's sake and don't really care what you say.

---

No, RedVex is a true zealot with a fixation on one idea. As with all zealots, argument is futile. If you want to see where this thread is headed, just check out these ones. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...pecies/page147
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...un-Ban/page178

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol

---

Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

Monopolies started off as small businesses & grew through savvy business minded people.
Look at what Grooby started out as and look at it now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

---

yea trump sucks capt obvious but fuck obama voters and bush, clinton and bush voters for all the shitty years they had too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

Thanks, trump voters. Fuck you all.

---

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.

Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobySteven

Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

---

Where I live, brick and mortar retailers are closing it seems almost every month, all because of the dominance of Amazon online in the retail market, as well as Walmart.

Secondary markets are not the same as competitive businesses arising to challenge the dominant companies in a specific market.

I can't believe there's actually a discussion right now about the impact of monopolies on the overall economy.

Amazon and Walmart both control pricing in retail and I've yet to see anyone able to challenge their market share.

Small companies grow into monopolies more often than not from breaking some form of antitrust law, either through mergers with their competition or price fixing.

No one becomes a monopoly because they 'accidentally' worked harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Where I live, brick and mortar retailers are closing it seems almost every month, all because of the dominance of Amazon online in the retail market, as well as Walmart.

---

Do you stick to your principles and make the extra effort to support your local brick n' mortar stores or no?

I do.
I've spent thousands of dollars in photography equipment at my local brick n' mortar store instead of buying from the giants of B&H or Adorama...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.

Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

---

Addendum: These are the Sanders supporters that the next Democrat candidate must figure out how to win over.
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarand...roll-me-722648

Quote:

---

SUSAN SARANDON: HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE BEEN A 'VERY DANGEROUS' PRESIDENT

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Addendum: These are the Sanders supporters that the next Democrat candidate must figure out how to win over.
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarand...roll-me-722648

---

win over her ass.....:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Did you just say monopolies promote competition in a free market??lol
Monopolies control pricing and access. They literally suck the oxygen from any potential competitors.

Get your head out of your ass and stop talking about what you pretend to be true.

Monopolies by nature CRUSH competition, they don't incentivize it.

What new business models have Walmart and Amazon created in their shadow???lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobySteven

Actually Amazon have created many - from Comixology, to the Kindle books, to reselling second hand stuff on Amazon.

---

monopolies by nature still rules.....competition:party:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delhiguy

win over her ass.....:banana:

---

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.

That's delusional/pathological thinking.

It's easy to say let the whole thing burn down when you personally aren't in the path of the inferno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.

That's delusional/pathological thinking.

It's easy to say let the whole thing burn down when you personally aren't in the path of the inferno.

---

Hillary's problem was that she ignored the middle class. Both BIDEN and SANDERS recognized this.
Biden (who I like more than Hillary) didn't run but IMHO, would have beat Trump hand down and Sanders who could have won the primaries were it not for the DNC slanting the primaries in favor of Hillary.

If Biden had run, (which I emphasize again would have slam dunked Trump), he wouldn't have got past the primaries either due to the DNC slanting the primaries in favor of Hillary.

Bottom Line: If the DNC hadn't been "owned" by Clinton, then Biden would have probably ran and defeated Trump and/or Sanders would have defeated Hillary and very well Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

There's no way to win over anyone who thinks the USA would be better off with Trump as POTUS instead of Hillary.

---

And IMHO, the USA would be better off with Biden over Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Ben,
IMHO, part of how Trump got elected is that the Clinton group totally ignored the Sanders supporters.
Add to that the fact that quite a few Sanders supporters did not like Clinton. And then finally, when you factor in how the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Clinton - well a lot of pissed off Sanders supported voted for Trump instead of Hillary.
The next Democrat candidate must figure out a way to win over the Sanders supporters - they were the wild card that went with Trump instead of Hillary.

---

There is a strong argument that complacency in the Democrat Party weakened their overall campaign, but it doesn't explain how Sanders, who does not sit as a Democrat in Congress, was allowed on to the ticket in the first place. You have a strange situation in the USA where someone who is not a member of a party can nevertheless run for its top job. Sanders was never going to be nominated, he was there to undermine Hillary Clinton.

Incredibly in the circumstances, you allow no influence at all on voters of the hundreds of thousands of negative Clinton implants in social media -most of it 'fake news'- that originated from the bot factory in Russia and the extent to which the Republican candidate received money and 'assistance' from the Russians in violation of the law. The election was won small margins in a few states that tipped the balance in the Electoral College. The Republican candidate twice in one day publicly called on Wikileaks and the Russians to help his campaign- when did you last hear a Presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign beg for help from foreign governments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

To put it as simple as I can, in reference to blocking child pornography etc. - of course it should not be blocked. everyone should have access to it. This is the only way somebody may spot it and report the crime. By blocking such sites you are protecting criminals.
Monopolies only exist if governments enable their existence.
As to free markets, here is a nice vid explaining pretty much what I have been trying to explain on here to you - also why democracy is one of the worst systems you can have in a country. One of the "two winos who tell a professor how to bring his children up, because there are more of them" also makes an appearance at one point xD

---

You are against regulation on principle which is why you cannot bring yourself to support the regulation of the internet, this is not a new argument in libertarian thought although even they used to -perhaps still do- argue that everything should be allowed as long as it does not cause harm to others. And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down and why most that exist do so in the 'dark web' where the people who visit them are hard core supporters least likely to inform law enforcement. So your justification is purely ideological, and bears no relation to facts and real situations.

Again, I referred you to two specific and well-known cases of the State intervening to end monopolies that the market did not end, yet you continue to insist monopolies do not emerge from those same markets in spite of the evidence that it does in just about every economics text book that has been published since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and maybe before that..

Your opposition to democracy as usual comes with no coherent reason, you link a tedious video nearly two hours long of a notorious 'entrepreneur' Peter Schiff which tells us nothing about your position. There is plenty of material out there on those opposed to democracy because they believe voters are not sufficiently well-informed about what it is that they are voting for, but you ignore the other argument which in the USA has become part of the voter suppression movement in certain states which is designed to preserve democracy for White people for whom 'God, Family and Country' are their core beliefs, the Bible rather than the Constitution their political rule book. Voter Suppression is designed to shut out the Blacks, the Latinos and the Asians, it is a White Supremacist cause, but unlike your vague position, does not mind if the voters are semi-literate and worship the memorial statues and the flag of anti-American Confederate Terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

There is a strong argument that complacency in the Democrat Party weakened their overall campaign, but it doesn't explain how Sanders, who does not sit as a Democrat in Congress, was allowed on to the ticket in the first place.

---

I know this doesn't quite answer your question but here's a quick and dirty as to what happened on both sides.

Trump and Sanders rose quickly because both Republicans and Democrats were getting tired of their "career politicians" doing nothing. Folks also seem to forget that Trump used to be a Democrat and Independent.

So "the people" basically sided with anti-establishment individuals - hence the rise of both Trump and Sanders respectively.

What also swayed the vote in favor of Trump was the middle class independents.
Both Sanders and Trump catered to them whereas Hillary ignored them. Add to that the Sanders segment (middle class) that didn't like Hillary nor how the DNC treated Sanders and you have the recipe for the election of Trump.

My personal opinion is that my favorite Joe Biden, had he ran, would have smashed Trump - but.....Hillary's DNC primaries machine would have smashed Biden.....

MrFanti I agree with some of your post, but the public alienation from the Washington machine is not new. Both Carter and Reagan ran as Presidents who were not part of the system that produced Vietnam and Watergate, and may have won their support because the deep, structural issues that have strangled middle class income growth have been developing since the end of 'traditional manufacture' in the 1960s, but appear to be worse now than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
There was a tremendous degree of optimism when Clinton was elected with the 'peace dividend' of the end of Cold War confrontation in his pocket, and he also presided over or played a role in peace treaties in the Middle East, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Machine politics can sometimes produce positive results, even if Clinton's reckless behaviour is now returning to haunt him. That most voters supported Hillary Clinton thus suggests that the divide between people who trust and do not trust Washington has grown, but has not delivered a knock-out blow to traditional politics as, apart from the loud-mouth in the Oval Office, it is business as usual with the Republican Party committed to reversing all of Obama's policies and tax cutting, and de-regulating wherever they can.

You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.

None of which is relevant to the thread, as tends to happen.

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

---

Karl Marks????

You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.

This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh

Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.

nope :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Karl Marks????

You're talking out of your ass on this one bruh and entirely out of your depth.

This is a nuanced issue and all you can bring to the table is the blunt force of 'communism', and less regulation is ALWAYS good.smh

Go back in your hole and save the rest of us the trouble.

---

To be honest I think Stavros and yourself might as well give up arguing with RedVex; she is clearly just arguing to antagonise, using buzzwords and phrases that will provoke reactions and constantly shifts parts of her argument to suit winding people up basically - hence why I'm not bothering any more. Well either that or she is utterly deluded and actually believes some of that drivel about communism and not regulating economies because allowing monopolies to do whatever they like would be best.

Either way (and I had to learn my lesson with this during this thread) if we choose to keep arguing with a moron - regardless of the fact no rational argument will ever change their mind - we are simply on the train to moronville to join them.

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333

Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.

Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.
Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?
She and a handful of Senators have forgotten more about how Washington works than Trump ever will. That's what you want. Making Obama's changes rock solid.
She would have fed the middle class like no other candidate alive today.
The fact that the Republicans and Russians despise her so much is proof enough for me.
I very much fear that this twenty trillion dollar National Debt might doom us all no matter what, unless some miracle happens.
And I don't think Mike Pence is that miracle.
Oh well, sadder words were never penned, what could have been. Alas and Alack.
We're fucked now. Net Neutrality is going to be the least of our worries.

https://preview.ibb.co/n7s2k6/00.jpg
gif upload 20mb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12762333

Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

But I do agree with you on the point that arguing with morons is rather pointless. I think that is why almost nobody sensible ever takes part in these conversations.

---

As stated I'm done with arguing with you. If your idea of how things should work ever comes to pass then good luck to you.