Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fox News Against Net Neutrality

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:04:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't know who gave the worse spin, Fox or the Young Turks.

- Blonde bimbo from Fox says that Obama is regulating the internet.
---> Wrong. Obama is regulating the internet service providers.

- Fat guy from the Young Turks says that corporations are regulating the internet by choosing which websites to speed up or slow down.
--->Wrong. First off, he must not know what regulations (laws) are. Also, he fails to realize that websites that are slowed down by ISPs should, oh I dunno, go buy another ISP.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:23:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:16:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
It may not be that bad.

It is worse when the Internet traffic is monitored. I am against this.

They aren't going to monitor the internet...
They are going to monitor the ISP (Internet Service Providers)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:23:28 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
They aren't going to monitor the internet...
They are going to monitor the ISP (Internet Service Providers)
That is why I said that the former is worse.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:24:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:23:28 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
They aren't going to monitor the internet...
They are going to monitor the ISP (Internet Service Providers)
That is why I said that the former is worse

Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators, websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:41:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators, websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
It is sometimes for the people's best not to enter all kinds of sites, especially some with extremely violent content where a random man does some extreme things to say, an animal.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:46:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:41:12 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators, websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
It is sometimes for the people's best not to enter all kinds of sites, especially some with extremely violent content where a random man does some extreme things to say, an animal.

So you're saying we should give ISPs the ability to limit access to websites that don't pay them so people don't watch Two Girls One Cup or go on Encyclopedia Dramatica's offened page?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:46:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators

No, it's not.

websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.

So? It's not the intent of the ISP for the website to make a profit. It is the intent of the ISP to make their own profit. Likewise, the website does not care about the profits of the ISP.

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.

Doesn't follow.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:51:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:24:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:23:28 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
They aren't going to monitor the internet...
They are going to monitor the ISP (Internet Service Providers)
That is why I said that the former is worse

Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators,
No, it isn't. If "unfair" is going to be used in this situation, it should be to the consumers. Content creators have no deal with ISPs. The buyers of the connections do.
websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.
I don't know what this means.

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 4:54:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:46:07 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So you're saying we should give ISPs the ability to limit access to websites that don't pay them so people don't watch Two Girls One Cup or go on Encyclopedia Dramatica's offened page?
Fearing for the safety of my privacy is worse than having some worthless, extremely violence-promoting, websites blocked.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:54:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:46:07 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So you're saying we should give ISPs the ability to limit access to websites that don't pay them so people don't watch Two Girls One Cup or go on Encyclopedia Dramatica's offened page?
Fearing for the safety of my privacy is worse than having some worthless, extremely violence-promoting, websites blocked.

They are monitoring traffic e.g. insuring that ISPs are providing the same speed for each website and to each user. They are not monitoring what each person is doing on the internet. And you never have privacy when your on the internet, websites such as Facebook, Google and Youtube compile huge amounts of information about you.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:30:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nice refutations of all our other points.

At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

That is the supposed definition of net neutrality. What is your point?
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:35:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:46:29 PM, Nags wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators

No, it's not.

Websites may have to pay to insure they are placed on the ISP's 'fast lane', making it harder for smaller websites to gain recognition. <http://www.zdnet.com... >

websites will be forced to alienate a segment of their consumers because they will have to inevitably choose an ISP who caters to only a few of the people who go on their website.

So? It's not the intent of the ISP for the website to make a profit. It is the intent of the ISP to make their own profit. Likewise, the website does not care about the profits of the ISP.

Both the ISPs and content creators are important parts of the service, how is it logical to insure that they are always at odds with each other?

So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.

Doesn't follow.

Yes it does. The smaller websites would be more easily recognized and the user would have the same amount of access to every website.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:36:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:27:23 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
They are monitoring traffic e.g. insuring that ISPs are providing the same speed for each website and to each user. They are not monitoring what each person is doing on the internet. And you never have privacy when your on the internet, websites such as Facebook, Google and Youtube compile huge amounts of information about you.
I am talking about the monitoring of people's Internet traffic. It should be totally private, and certain kinds websites should be blocked.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:36:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

The distinction between internet and internet traffic is irrelevant to me, and your post also did not respond to my question. My question had your statement as its premise:
And how pray does monitoring stop [ISPs giving preference to certain websites]?
How exactly does monitoring stop them?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:39:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:30:29 PM, Nags wrote:
Nice refutations of all our other points.

Be patient I'm only one man...

At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

That is the supposed definition of net neutrality. What is your point?

And I defined it because it seems like Mirza doesn't understand the concept of net neutrality.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:40:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:39:22 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
And I defined it because it seems like Mirza doesn't understand the concept of net neutrality.
Where was I talking about that?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:41:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:35:18 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Websites may have to pay to insure they are placed on the ISP's 'fast lane', making it harder for smaller websites to gain recognition. <http://www.zdnet.com... >

So what? Paying more, generally, insures that one will receive more and better services. Are you surprised that smaller websites that pay less than bigger companies receive less services?

Both the ISPs and content creators are important parts of the service, how is it logical to insure that they are always at odds with each other?

What?

Yes it does. The smaller websites would be more easily recognized

So?

and the user would have the same amount of access to every website.

Maybe the user should get a different ISP if the user doesn't like his/her current ISP.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:46:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:36:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

The distinction between internet and internet traffic is irrelevant to me, and your post also did not respond to my question. My question had your statement as its premise:
And how pray does monitoring stop [ISPs giving preference to certain websites]?
How exactly does monitoring stop them?

Giving the FCC or any impartial body the ability to monitor internet traffic would insure that net neutrality laws could be executed. You can't enforce the law if you don't know its being broken.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 5:59:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:46:31 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:36:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

The distinction between internet and internet traffic is irrelevant to me, and your post also did not respond to my question. My question had your statement as its premise:
And how pray does monitoring stop [ISPs giving preference to certain websites]?
How exactly does monitoring stop them?

Giving the FCC or any impartial body the ability to monitor internet traffic would insure that net neutrality laws could be executed. You can't enforce the law if you don't know its being broken.

What gives you the impression that the FCC is impartial?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:41:35 PM, Nags wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:35:18 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Websites may have to pay to insure they are placed on the ISP's 'fast lane', making it harder for smaller websites to gain recognition. <http://www.zdnet.com... >

So what? Paying more, generally, insures that one will receive more and better services. Are you surprised that smaller websites that pay less than bigger companies receive less services?

That is completely detrimental to the idea of the internet, a place where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged freely. When you take away the level playing field the free exchange aspect is hindered.
Both the ISPs and content creators are important parts of the service, how is it logical to insure that they are always at odds with each other?

What?

Without the ISPs you have no internet, without the content creators you would be staring at a blank screen. How does it make sense to have the ISPs and the content creators competing with each other for profit, as they are both important components of the service they should look for what benefits them both.
Yes it does. The smaller websites would be more easily recognized

So?

So the information and thoughts on the internet would be exchanged freely, regardless of who they come from.
and the user would have the same amount of access to every website.

Maybe the user should get a different ISP if the user doesn't like his/her current ISP.

There are only a handful of internet service providers and they are generally all in favour of destroying net neutrality and they have enough money and influence to buy out or choke out anyone new coming into the market.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 6:05:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 5:59:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:46:31 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:36:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

The distinction between internet and internet traffic is irrelevant to me, and your post also did not respond to my question. My question had your statement as its premise:
And how pray does monitoring stop [ISPs giving preference to certain websites]?
How exactly does monitoring stop them?

Giving the FCC or any impartial body the ability to monitor internet traffic would insure that net neutrality laws could be executed. You can't enforce the law if you don't know its being broken.

What gives you the impression that the FCC is impartial?

What gives you the impression it is not? They don't benefit from net neutrality and they don't benefit from its absence either.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 6:16:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 6:03:50 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
That is completely detrimental to the idea of the internet, a place where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged freely. When you take away the level playing field the free exchange aspect is hindered.

Oh the irony. Are you under the impression that government regulations insure free exchange?

No one is restricting the websites from choosing ISP X over ISP Y. The website can choose whichever ISP the website wants. The website could even create its own ISP. That is freedom.

Without the ISPs you have no internet

Lol..

without the content creators you would be staring at a blank screen. How does it make sense to have the ISPs and the content creators competing with each other for profit, as they are both important components of the service they should look for what benefits them both.

Economics 101 fail.

The components which benefits them both do make a profit for each.

Also, competition and profit motive, is, well, kind of the reason the internet (and any private company) exists.

So the information and thoughts on the internet would be exchanged freely, regardless of who they come from.

You're under the impression that the government regulating a private company (the ISP) and telling them what to do is some kind of free exchange. ISPs aren't in the business of fairness. There is a reason why "fair" ISPs don't exist. The reason is that "fair" ISPs don't make money.

There are only a handful of internet service providers and they are generally all in favour of destroying net neutrality

Obviously.

they have enough money and influence to buy out or choke out anyone new coming into the market.

Doubtful. The influence to choke out new-comers wouldn't exist in a truly free market anyway.

Start up a "fair" ISP. Tell me how the profits look.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 7:16:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 6:16:50 PM, Nags wrote:
At 5/14/2010 6:03:50 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
That is completely detrimental to the idea of the internet, a place where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged freely. When you take away the level playing field the free exchange aspect is hindered.

Oh the irony. Are you under the impression that government regulations insure free exchange?

You fail to understand the fact that if you begin to charge the content creators it will result in inequality and thus the exchange of ideas wont be free, it will be easier for the rich websites to peddle their content and put the smaller independent website at a disadvantage.
No one is restricting the websites from choosing ISP X over ISP Y. The website can choose whichever ISP the website wants. The website could even create its own ISP. That is freedom.

Both ISP X and ISP Y will result in the smaller website being at a disadvantage. You said it yourself, if net neutrality is gone it becomes nearly impossible to set up a profitable and fair ISP.

Without the ISPs you have no internet

Lol..

without the content creators you would be staring at a blank screen. How does it make sense to have the ISPs and the content creators competing with each other for profit, as they are both important components of the service they should look for what benefits them both.

Economics 101 fail.

The components which benefits them both do make a profit for each.

The ISPs would increase its profit at the expense of the content creators. Hardly a win/ win scenario. How can any reasonable person believe that abolishing net neutrality will create a better internet service when it puts the creators of the actual content at a disadvantage?

Also, competition and profit motive, is, well, kind of the reason the internet (and any private company) exists.

So the information and thoughts on the internet would be exchanged freely, regardless of who they come from.

You're under the impression that the government regulating a private company (the ISP) and telling them what to do is some kind of free exchange. ISPs aren't in the business of fairness. There is a reason why "fair" ISPs don't exist. The reason is that "fair" ISPs don't make money.

There are only a handful of internet service providers and they are generally all in favour of destroying net neutrality

Obviously.

they have enough money and influence to buy out or choke out anyone new coming into the market.

Doubtful. The influence to choke out new-comers wouldn't exist in a truly free market anyway.


Look at Standard Oil and the railroad companies of the late 1800s, they existed when the market was far more "free". The "free" market results in monopolies and collusion.

Start up a "fair" ISP. Tell me how the profits look.
Verison, AT&T and Comcast make huge profits as it is, the only reason they now are so brazen in asking for the destruction of net neutrality is that they realize they have the market completely dominated.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 7:48:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 6:05:55 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:59:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:46:31 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:36:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 5/14/2010 5:20:56 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
So, simply put, monitoring internet traffic is much better for both the user and the content creator.
And how pray does monitoring stop such an action?

Monitoring internet traffic insures that ISPs aren't giving preference to certain websites over others; thus insuring the internet remains neutral.

The distinction between internet and internet traffic is irrelevant to me, and your post also did not respond to my question. My question had your statement as its premise:
And how pray does monitoring stop [ISPs giving preference to certain websites]?
How exactly does monitoring stop them?

Giving the FCC or any impartial body the ability to monitor internet traffic would insure that net neutrality laws could be executed. You can't enforce the law if you don't know its being broken.

What gives you the impression that the FCC is impartial?

What gives you the impression it is not? They don't benefit from net neutrality and they don't benefit from its absence either.

...You've never heard of capture? Really?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 8:17:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 7:16:40 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
You fail to understand the fact that if you begin to charge the content creators it will result in inequality and thus the exchange of ideas wont be free, it will be easier for the rich websites to peddle their content and put the smaller independent website at a disadvantage.

I've addressed this already. You get what you pay for. The bigger companies pay more. The smaller companies pay less. The bigger company receives better services. The smaller company receives less services. I assume you also believe that McDonald's and Joe Shmoes Diner should get equal advertising space, no matter how much more McDonald's is willing to pay.

Both ISP X and ISP Y will result in the smaller website being at a disadvantage.

So f*cking what?

You said it yourself, if net neutrality is gone it becomes nearly impossible to set up a profitable and fair ISP.

That's not at all how I worded it, but I get what you're saying.

The ISPs would increase its profit at the expense of the content creators. Hardly a win/ win scenario.

Uhh, no. The content creators receive the services that the ISPs provide. The ISPs win with profit. The content creators win with being able to sell their products or services throughout the internet.

How can any reasonable person believe that abolishing net neutrality will create a better internet service

Net neutrality doesn't really exist that much in the US. So I'm not abolishing anything.

when it puts the creators of the actual content at a disadvantage?

Hmm. ISPs should just sell their services for free to the content creators and everyone else. Then everyone would have an advantage? Right? Right? No..

Look at Standard Oil and the railroad companies of the late 1800s, they existed when the market was far more "free". The "free" market results in monopolies and collusion.

Some monopoly. Hundreds of competitors. Standard Oil was never a monopoly. Even if it were, it was never a threat to consumers. Rather, it was beneficial. Prices lowered and products and services widened because of Standard Oil.

Verison, AT&T and Comcast make huge profits as it is, the only reason they now are so brazen in asking for the destruction of net neutrality is that they realize they have the market completely dominated.

So? They are dominating because they are the best at offering what consumers want in their respective fields. Government assistance doesn't hurt either.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2010 8:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/14/2010 4:36:26 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:24:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/14/2010 4:23:28 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
They aren't going to monitor the internet...
They are going to monitor the ISP (Internet Service Providers)
That is why I said that the former is worse

Allowing the ISPs to limit access to certain websites is unfair to content creators
Do they own the ISP's?

I thought not. It's nothing of the sort.

"
So you're saying we should give ISPs the ability to limit access to websites"
Not "give" them the ability, "leave them" it. And pick your ISPs based on how pleased you are with the decisions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 12:33:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
LOL at people using Standard Oil as an example of a monopoly.

ISP providers are not an example of an industry that can choke out competition or in which competition cannot naturally form. There are a myriad of alternative ISP providers that, despite being less known, provide very good service when compared to companies such as AT&T. I don't have much of an opinion on this discussion, but get your facts straight.