Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Net Neutrality

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 7:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Moving thread to politics forum.
: 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?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 10:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 9:46:15 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Hijacked thread got hijacked.

Re-reallocating discussion here.

What do y'all think about net neutrality?

It does not justify government intervention.
: 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?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 11:19:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 10:09:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It does not justify government intervention.

But it is a problem, is it not?

How do you propose to solve it?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 11:37:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 11:19:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/3/2010 10:09:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It does not justify government intervention.

But it is a problem, is it not?
That's why it doesn't justify government intervention. Government is something that makes problems bigger =_=

How do you propose to solve it?
Petition. Or Negotiation. Or something like that.

I don't particularly understand why the problem exists though. Traditionally, costs are shifted to the consumer through higher prices, which are then used to reinvest in capital which would allow for lower prices again and thus bigger profits. Why are ISPs taking this route of theirs instead?
: 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?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 11:48:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 11:37:30 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I don't particularly understand why the problem exists though. Traditionally, costs are shifted to the consumer through higher prices, which are then used to reinvest in capital which would allow for lower prices again and thus bigger profits. Why are ISPs taking this route of theirs instead?

Because they can throttle the competition and give themselves an advantage in their product without actually doing anything to make it any better. By cutting down access and throttling smaller ISPs they can say, hey, these guys aren't getting the job done, so let us do it. It also allows the to extort the smaller ISPs for more money for better access. Either way, the bigger ISP wins.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2010 11:53:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 11:48:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/3/2010 11:37:30 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I don't particularly understand why the problem exists though. Traditionally, costs are shifted to the consumer through higher prices, which are then used to reinvest in capital which would allow for lower prices again and thus bigger profits. Why are ISPs taking this route of theirs instead?

Because they can throttle the competition and give themselves an advantage in their product without actually doing anything to make it any better. By cutting down access and throttling smaller ISPs they can say, hey, these guys aren't getting the job done, so let us do it. It also allows the to extort the smaller ISPs for more money for better access. Either way, the bigger ISP wins.

Smaller ISPs are resellers?
: 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?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2010 12:05:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/3/2010 11:53:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Smaller ISPs are resellers?

Not quite. The smaller ISPs use the same network that the larger ISPs use. Problem is, the larger ISPs are the ones who also end up owning the telecommunications lines.

Like, for example, my ISP Cogeco owns the landlines that run in area. Smaller ISPs, which have no other landlines to use, have to go through those same lines. They end up renting from Cogeco for the use of the lines. What then happens is Cogeco will do whats called "throttling," which slows and constricts traffic on the lines for the smaller ISP, ending up with the consumer having a slower net.

So the smaller ISPs aren't resellers, they're essentially renters.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2010 7:36:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/4/2010 12:05:34 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/3/2010 11:53:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Smaller ISPs are resellers?

Not quite. The smaller ISPs use the same network that the larger ISPs use. Problem is, the larger ISPs are the ones who also end up owning the telecommunications lines.

Like, for example, my ISP Cogeco owns the landlines that run in area. Smaller ISPs, which have no other landlines to use, have to go through those same lines. They end up renting from Cogeco for the use of the lines. What then happens is Cogeco will do whats called "throttling," which slows and constricts traffic on the lines for the smaller ISP, ending up with the consumer having a slower net.

So the smaller ISPs aren't resellers, they're essentially renters.

Hmm... so like, if we take privatization of rivers examples, the big ISP is basically the guy who owns the source and the smaller ones are everyone downriver?
: 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?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2010 2:35:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/4/2010 7:36:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Hmm... so like, if we take privatization of rivers examples, the big ISP is basically the guy who owns the source and the smaller ones are everyone downriver?

Something like that, yes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2010 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Landlines aren't exactly natural features :P
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.
Anacharsis
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2010 6:48:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The net should prioritize the traffic of applications that require priority service in order to function, such as VOiP, streaming video and audio. Unfortunately when ISPs try using throttling as a tool to squeeze the subscriber for more $, the free market fails to function in some cases. Nearly all cable TV infrastructure and still most of the phone wiring is owned by government sanctioned monopolies. While most people do have options to switch, the options are still pretty limited in most markets, with no alternatives at all in some. These monopolies were established because the service providers argued that it was required in order to give an incentive for anyone at all to bother servicing a market as well as the undesirability of multiple bundles of wire being strung out everywhere. Public interests, including government and consumer groups, need to coordinate with the industry to define the rules.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 2:01:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There should be no centralized control of the internet, not from public or private hands. The internet must be kept a entirely free-flow of information at all costs. It is with no exaggeration, the savior of all man-kind in this desperate hour.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2010 9:09:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If there is only one provider of internet service then there is some argument for regulation until competitors are viable. But notice that every utility the government regulates ends up with shortages. California has brownouts and water shortages because politicians decide there are more votes in keeping prices low by rationing than by providing service. So net neutrality is mainly a way of ensuring everyone gets equal, but wretched, service. Government should instead ensure that wireless services are enabled to compete with cable, and maybe even have multiple cables.

It is not fair for ordinary users to subsidize BitTorrent fanatics. The solution is to charge more for high bandwidth usage. That provides suppliers with both money and incentive to install new technology. Eventually, we all get to benefit from the new technology that leading-edge guys paid to develop. Originally, flat screen TVs were wildly expensive, but production was started to serve the people willing to pay. Eventually, technology advanced. Imagine a government mandate that everyone had to have the same screen size.

Net neutrality will diminish new technology development, as the government requires users to just get what everyone else has. The shower guy is dead wrong. It doesn't mean that everyone gets a bigger pipe, just that everyone gets the same pipe.