NN was repealed, nothing happened. Did a single content creator apologize for their fearmongering?

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, TheLongWay said:

Okay, so your standard is that you can make apocalyptics predictions, and then when nothing bad happens you can just say "it may happen someday" and this argument will never fail because the future is a long long time.

Yes. It allows companies to do whatever they want any time they want. 

They might not have a reason to do it on day one, but there's nothing to stop them anymore should they decide to go about something nasty.

It was always about preventing potential future abuse.

 

It's been shown many times that it's hard to trust "big corp" long term. As long as things go well it's okayish, but if anything starts going south they'll protect themselves and not give a damn about you if not forced to.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Dunno, when will Betelgeuse go supernova?  

Is this really your position now? Something bad might happen in 30 years? You do not even give me that. Could be in 100 years according to you.

 

And it does not make a lick of sense. They could do it now with Trump in the WH or wait and do it under Sanders or Biden? Seems like the wise actions of greedy people lol

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

Yes. It allows companies to do whatever they want any time they want. 

They might not have a reason to do it on day one, but there's nothing to stop them anymore should they decide to go about something nasty.

It was always about preventing potential future abuse.

It does not do that. Which is what people who understand economics have said from the beginning. You did not listen then, and it looks like evidence that should lead you the other way had instead done what it always seems to do: pushed you further into your nonsense theories and economic illiteracy. 

[Kilrah]

As usual there are "people who understand economics" who have been preaching for one side and some for the other. The only nonsense is ignoring one of them.

 

[Fasauceome]

11 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

An article about throttling? Throttling was a thing 5 years ago.

an article about throttling, and new speed plans, and the article linked about infrastructure as well. 

 

what's that? the exact things people said were going to happen are happening now, but that's just pointless fear mongering?

seriously, nobody said that throttling didn't exist under NN, but it was illegal and there was recourse. now there is no recourse and it's actively roping people into more expensive data plans. Seriously you're just ignoring all of the people being vindicated for your over insistence on "timeline" and "understanding economics"

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

An article about throttling? Throttling was a thing 5 years ago.

 

Ah yes, the backroom talks.

I remember when Linus said "Remember kids, this will only result in backroom talks and you won't see the stuff I am predicting for 10 years" LOL

This is so funny. 

In other news person who either doesn’t understand the concept that one can’t always see what is being done to one or hopes others doesn’t while they do it makes arguments that would only work on pets.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

an article about throttling, and new speed plans, and the article linked about infrastructure as well. 

 

what's that? the exact things people said were going to happen are happening now, but that's just pointless fear mongering?

seriously, nobody said that throttling didn't exist under NN, but it was illegal and there was recourse. now there is no recourse and it's actively roping people into more expensive data plans. Seriously you're just ignoring all of the people being vindicated for your over insistence on "timeline" and "understanding economics"

Nonsense. Speeds overall are up.

No one ever claimed that not a single person would ever have their speed throttled.

 

[TheLongWay]

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

As usual there are "people who understand economics" who have been preaching for one side and some for the other. The only nonsense is ignoring one of them.

 

No. One side was clearly right. 

[Fasauceome]

Just now, TheLongWay said:

Nonsense. Speeds overall are up.

No one ever claimed that not a single person would ever have their speed throttled.

 

internet speeds go up every year, who cares. we're not talking about advancement of internet technology, we're talking about price for data rates. people are paying extra now, that's the entire point.

[TheLongWay]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

In other news person who either doesn’t understand the concept that one can’t always see what is being done to one or hopes others doesn’t while they do it makes arguments that would only work on pets.

Arguments please.

[TheLongWay]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

internet speeds go up every year, who cares. we're not talking about advancement of internet technology, we're talking about price for data rates. people are paying extra now, that's the entire point.

Nope. Prices did not go up in any way that would place it even remotely out of line with normal inflation. 

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Is this really your position now? Something bad might happen in 30 years? You do not even give me that. Could be in 100 years according to you.

 

And it does not make a lick of sense. They could do it now with Trump in the WH or wait and do it under Sanders or Biden? Seems like the wise actions of greedy people lol

No it WILL happen. Or did you not get the supernova reference... 

 

Again because the FCC can change what they want, if companies are too agro they'll revert the changes, if companies bide their time they can slyly implement things over a period of say 10-15 years, long term profit vs short term cash grab. 

 

Again look back through history, companies exploit the consumer, notice how everything is moving to a subscriber model and features of things like windows are being cut because "well you don't want bloatware like office on your PC at the get go, if you really need it you ca have office 365", would that have flown if they tried it on vidta? God no! but because people get used to a model over time it's ok now even though you're paying £8 a month for say even 5 years you'd use that PC so what £480 over 5 years vs the £150 a home version of office would cost you in 2016. Oh and the standalone version of office now is £120 but that's only for 1 PC on one Microsoft account and you don't get half the suite or OneDrive or skype included for use in the suite. Which will be how ISPs will start with NN. Oh everything's running fine now but maybe you want this subscription for Media+ where you get faster access to Netflix and idk Disney plus, only you're not getting faster access they're just capping your speed for everything else. 

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

No it WILL happen. Or did you not get the supernova reference... 

 

Again because the FCC can change what they want, if companies are too agro they'll revert the changes, if companies bide their time they can slyly implement things over a period of say 10-15 years, long term profit vs short term cash grab. 

 

Again look back through history, companies exploit the consumer, notice how everything is moving to a subscriber model and features of things like windows are being cut because "well you don't want bloatware like office on your PC at the get go, if you really need it you ca have office 365", would that have flown if they tried it on vidta? God no! but because people get used to a model over time it's ok now even though you're paying £8 a month for say even 5 years you'd use that PC so what £480 over 5 years vs the £150 a home version of office would cost you in 2016. Oh and the standalone version of office now is £120 but that's only for 1 PC on one Microsoft account and you don't get half the suite or OneDrive or skype included for use in the suite. Which will be how ISPs will start with NN. Oh everything's running fine now but maybe you want this subscription for Media+ where you get faster access to Netflix and idk Disney plus, only you're not getting faster access they're just capping your speed for everything else. 

Companies do not exploit consumers. Consumers want flat rates like Netflix over paying for individual movies. You poor soul are being exploited, paying a few bucks doe access to tens of thousands of movies.

The only time consumers are exploited is in highly regulated industries like healthcare, where the government hands out monopoly rights like candy.

 

 

Industries with less regulation, on the other hand, bring you things such as the incredible phones we have today.

[Fasauceome]

11 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Nope. Prices did not go up in any way that would place it even remotely out of line with normal inflation. 

german man pulls shit out of his ass to support claims

 

meanwhile in the real world

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/comcast-starts-throttling-mobile-video-will-charge-extra-for-hd-streams/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=cebfe51b52&mc_eid=bf11efc24c

https://boingboing.net/2018/09/17/gougin-in-the-rain.html

 

again, nobody said that throttling never existed during net neutrality, but I must reiterate,  there is no recourse for this.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

german man pulls shit out of his ass to support claims

 

meanwhile in the real world

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/comcast-starts-throttling-mobile-video-will-charge-extra-for-hd-streams/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=cebfe51b52&mc_eid=bf11efc24c

https://boingboing.net/2018/09/17/gougin-in-the-rain.html

 

again, nobody said that throttling never existed during net neutrality, but I must reiterate,  there is no recourse for this.

So, all you can come up with after all this time of no NN is things that happened BEFORE the repeal?

Really?

And again, I am not defending these big companies. We would be a lot better served without the massive regulatory overhead that kills their competition.

But this is just silly.

"Look, stuff that happened before the repeal are still going on" REEEE

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

So, all you can come up with after all this time of no NN is things that happened BEFORE the repeal?

Really?

And again, I am not defending these big companies. We would be a lot better served without the massive regulatory overhead that kills their competition.

But this is just silly.

"Look, stuff that happened before the repeal are still going on" REEEE

Yeah you are.  The complaint against regulation is boiler plate:

regulation makes creating a situation where something so horrific that it cannot be fixed from happening, while law enforcement tries (generally unsucessfully) to catch and punish an entirety for doing something after they’ve done it.  That’s called locking the gat after the horses have escaped. 
 

People who want to do horrible things hate regulation because it actually prevents them from doing horrible things while laws merely attempt to punish them after they’ve done it.  Some people who don’t want to do horrible things will join the voices of the people that do and wind up HAVING to do the horrible things because it’s now the only way to stay competitive.   It’s like the regulation complainers never actually lived in the world or something. Lack of regulation guarantees something will happen.  This claim of “it’s been a whole day and I haven’t seen It happen I must be right” is stupid in the extreme.  It’s happened every other time.  But somehow this is going to be different huh?  You keep on believing that.

 

 

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

without the massive regulatory overhead that kills their competition.

Here's the other thing that I take issue with. Net neutrality was not diminishing competition, small internet providers actually favored the regulations that net neutrality put forth because they only affected the huge conglomerates

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/7/13/15949920/net-neutrality-killing-small-isps

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna824161

https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-claim-that-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps

Testimonies from almost any small ISP falls into "NN isn't hurting our growth" so I fail to see how competition is stifled. You just keep making shit up because "theoretically NN is bad"

[Lord Vile]

7 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Companies do not exploit consumers. Consumers want flat rates like Netflix over paying for individual movies. You poor soul are being exploited, paying a few bucks doe access to tens of thousands of movies.

The only time consumers are exploited is in highly regulated industries like healthcare, where the government hands out monopoly rights like candy.

 

 

Industries with less regulation, on the other hand, bring you things such as the incredible phones we have today.

Companies DO exploit consumers, did you just ignore my Microsoft example where they're charging you more and stripping away the choice to pay for something in a one off? Do you think if Netflix didn't have competitors their prices would go up? Also personally I do buy physical media because it is much better than streaming and I'm not praying to the subscription gods that they have the thing I want to watch on their service. As it happens me and my fiancée were at a hotel and wanted to watch Coraline, it's not on ANY subscription service in the UK including to buy or rent on amazon or apple tv, great job that few bucks for tens of thousands of movies I don't want to watch and none that I do. 

 

You mean without regulation you have incredible phones made by Apple and then everyone else ripping off the iPhone + gimmicks for nearly 15 years now. 

[TheLongWay]

7 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

Here's the other thing that I take issue with. Net neutrality was not diminishing competition, small internet providers actually favored the regulations that net neutrality put forth because they only affected the huge conglomerates

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/7/13/15949920/net-neutrality-killing-small-isps

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna824161

https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-claim-that-net-neutrality-hurts-small-isps

Testimonies from almost any small ISP falls into "NN isn't hurting our growth" so I fail to see how competition is stifled. You just keep making shit up because "theoretically NN is bad"

Reading what I wrote would help.

I did not say NN kills small companies. I said regulation in general does.  

Let me use an extremely simple example:

Ever heard of the epi pen? REALLY expensive. Even though there are alternatives out there that work just as well. But the government forbids the sale of them.

 

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Companies DO exploit consumers, did you just ignore my Microsoft example where they're charging you more and stripping away the choice to pay for something in a one off? Do you think if Netflix didn't have competitors their prices would go up? Also personally I do buy physical media because it is much better than streaming and I'm not praying to the subscription gods that they have the thing I want to watch on their service. As it happens me and my fiancée were at a hotel and wanted to watch Coraline, it's not on ANY subscription service in the UK including to buy or rent on amazon or apple tv, great job that few bucks for tens of thousands of movies I don't want to watch and none that I do. 

 

You mean without regulation you have incredible phones made by Apple and then everyone else ripping off the iPhone + gimmicks for nearly 15 years now. 

See. You are projecting YOUR preferences on the world and think "I do not like this, therefore not one likes this"

Also, even IF what MS offered was a shitty service (which, again, it is not) then how would that be exploitation? You can just, you know, NOT buy it?

 

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Reading what I wrote would help.

I did not say NN kills small companies. I said regulation in general does. 

But we aren't talking about regulations in general, we're talking about a very specific regulation.

 

"Yeah this specific regulation doesn't do anything harmful to small business, but other ones do, so we should get rid of this one on principal" is a useless philosophy. Is it impossible to apply regulations on a case by case basis?

[Kilrah]

1 minute ago, TheLongWay said:

I did not say NN kills small companies. I said regulation in general does. 

And to back that up you're using and example where it doesn't? Meh..

[Kilrah]

Just now, TheLongWay said:

You can just, you know, NOT buy it?

So you can just live without internet because all the services you're offered are crap?

[TheLongWay]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

But we aren't talking about regulations in general, we're talking about a very specific regulation.

 

"Yeah this specific regulation doesn't do anything harmful to small business, but other ones do, so we should get rid of this one on principal" is a useless philosophy. Is it impossible to apply regulations on a case by case basis?

No. I was replying to YOUR assertion that I claimed NN was hurting smaller companies. I pointed out that I did not say that.

Stop spreading bs. I also did not say "Repeal NN to help small business"

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

So you can just live without internet because all the services you're offered are crap?

Well, there would be a lot more choice without artificial barriers created by government.