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

[skirtrustler]

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.

[Tapatio]

net neutrality is internet communism

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

[Tapatio]

Free market does not fail consumers - ever.

lmao

[Lester316]

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.

[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.

[Torris]

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

[Stavros]

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?

[Lester316]

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.

[Torris]

To try and bring a discussion back to topic.

Can someone explain throttling to me?

[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