Shockingly, “net neutrality” works exactly as I expected. Namely, it doesn’t.
Surely socialists and busybodies must have ideas for even more laws that will fix this.
1 Like
Why should the ISP be stopped from doing so?
1 Like
Why should the ISP be allowed a license? The public interest comes first or the ISP gets burned to the ground. That is simply how it is. Ownership and property are so trivial as to be wholly irrelevant and insignificant relative to the issue here. And its why we will cut the cord on ISPs. The only rights are right of the people.
1 Like
Why should there be a license?
OK, why shouldn’t I machinegun your mob before you burn me down?
Why should anyone need a license in the first place?
Imagine having to prove SAFE is in the public interest. Lol in the US you could go bankrupt trying. It couldn’t get licensed even in the EU, let alone in places where the government “cares about the public interest” even more than the EU Stalinists 
1 Like
The license was more appropriate with a scarce airwave situation. But here it can apply to ward off monopoly censorship and oligarchic collusion. With corporations there is always a charter which is the equivalent, it has to be there so we can kill public nuissence and criminal concerns.
Its a concern, but it has the GPL3- perfect.
Who’s the we who is to do these things? Anything can be criminalized, and is, depending on who enforces its definition.
Just as SAFE is considered a panacea by the resentful and dissatisfied of all kinds, it will be considered anathema by others, and those responses are two sides of the same coin.
And to the libertarians who might nod their head in agreement, I would point out that the non-aggression principle suffers from the fatal flaw that we don’t live in a world where anyone can go off and be left alone. It is increasingly more like scorpions in a bottle.
Social activist types are incredibly boring busybodies who are always trying to coerce someone or other to “be good”, and I know of what I speak, having been on the receiving end. I have no moral problem at all with initiating force to shut them up and prevent them from pushing me around.
2 Likes
It goes both ways and there is the issue of pent up retribution. We’ve had all these years of you work so we don’t have to and you have to listen to us and do what we say because we have more money or won some lottery. Really, what we have is: we will make sure you will never have enough so you keep following our orders and we retain control. Is that freedom? And is not wanting that mere activism? I think its over. I think tech brought it on 10000 years ago with the start of agriculture and tech is about to end it. Strange to me that the economists were right in placing their hopes in tech. When machines talk and cars drive themselves its over.
There is no such thing as net neutrality over reach, the net recovers neutrality and stays that way or it should cease to exist. Every request for something else is simply a request for censorship and discrimination. Its on the level of denying the transgendered restroom access.
Maybe you missed the article above in which tha author realizes that it is impossible for all apps to work equally well given the same bandwidth and latency.
FTP and online gaming just cannot coexist without a telco-provided QoS. If FTP gets the same QoS as some gaming protocol, the game will run poorly (or, the cost will double, because the telco would have to dramatically overpovision the network to accommodate the both services without impacting the gamers).
Basic economics.
The same reason you don’t want your phone company monitoring and censoring your phone calls and preventing you from calling people with certain political and spiritual beliefs. Or for the same reason you don’t want a book store from censoring the sale of certain books. Free speech, privacy and freedom of association. Yes in point of fact your phone company DOES monitor your phone calls. Yes in point of fact book stores DO censor books. Yes in point of fact these services have been attempting to censor and control the flow of information for centuries but the fact is we don’t want them to control the flow of information because we want freedom.
2 Likes
Net Neutrality and QoS have nothing to do with that.
Anyone willing to pay the market price can get any level of service he or she wants.
The problem is not the ISPs or telcos but the government.
Have you ever wondered where the telcos buy the QoS which they according to socialists have, but allegedly don’t want to sell?
And what are those greedy bastards trying to do, leasing top quality links only to hang onto all that capacity and low latency? Could that be a wast right wing conspiracy to prevent people from downloading porn 10% faster?
Ah, the mysteries of economics…
Yeah sure if you’re a millionaire. You’re not honestly suggesting that you support internet throttling are you?
Yeah they buy the hardware and set up networks just like everyone else. I was on the board of our local community ISP for awhile. We had to set up our own local backbone and buy our own radios. It was a bitch but it can be done. Larger telcos have more money but they do the same thing. If you’re saying they rent bandwidth from some larger network then that’s just saying that the larger network had to buy the hardware in order to set up the network at some point. What are you saying that Shaw, Rogers and Telus are renting bandwidth from the government?
I’m not upset about paying for hardware usage, that is paying a subscription fee to my ISP, even though internet in North America is apparantly low quality. What I’m upset about is ISPs throttling internet usage site by site so that you can browse facebook jim dandy but can’t game or read a blog at all because it loads too slow. Your ISP shouldn’t govern what you can or cannot view on the internet. And that has NOTHING to do with hardware costs.
Well, you just contradicted yourself in that one paragraph. You seem to consider businesses of all sorts and sizes as somehow not in the human domain, not actual people, and therefore not coming under the umbrella of freedom of association.
Par for the course, I suppose, but I keep hoping for someone who thinks things through and makes their use of terms consistent.
Okay I’m sorry what? A business IS an association of people. How does that give them the right to violate others privacy and ability to freely associate? If you want to argue that a business is a person then so too can be a DAO. But no I don’t see a business as people but rather composed of people. But even if a business was a person that wouldn’t give them the right to violate the privacy of another person or their ability to associate freely. First off monitoring of which sites one visits and doesn’t visit is a violation of privacy. Second influencing data throttling based on which sites one visits is a political/religious/economic bias. Third it’s a violation of association because it would mean that only those with enough money could associate in groups that required higher bandwidth or even associate in groups that were heavily throttled and not “approved of” by the establishment. So why should I have to pay extra to compensate for my ISP’s bigotry?
You say they are people, but you also imply that they have no “right to freedom of association.” So which is it? You contradict yourself. As a person who happens to own a business, should I not be free to do business with whomever I choose and under whatever conditions are mutually aggreeable?
Ah I see where you’re going with this. The right of a business owner to be a bigot regardless of whether it’s popular or not. The same argument as allowing business owners to discriminate service based on race, sexual orientation or religious bias. Okay well in THAT case I believe the ISP should be up front about their biases and tell their customers they will be throttled and discriminated against if they visit x or y sites just the same way one would put up a sign saying “No gays allowed,” or “No .” However if you’re going to be a bigot then expect negetive customer responses and for customers to take their money elsewhere to a business that DOESN’T discriminate or invade their privacy and maintains net neutrality. I also think that if we’re going to talk about the free market like this then it should be mentioned that ISPs should forego the huge subsidies they recieve from government. If you want to be treated like a person and be a bigot that’s fine but one should also be relient on one’s own merit and reputation. If the government is subsidizing a business then that’s a political influence at work not just market forces. And if the government is subsidizing a BIGOTED business, well then that’s not just a business trading with whomever they wish, that’s social engineering.
Of course I am suggesting that ISPs/telcos should throttle the crap out of everyone.
There is always someone out there who will pay more for same 1MB/s compared to how much it can fetch when it’s not metered.
Once they crapify the bulk, “net neutral” service, the rest of us (who don’t mind to pay a little bit more) can get a decent premium service.
Why does Tesla want to throttle its new car factory and make the new cheap and crappy model? How rude of them!
I’d love to see your wish list of other services that should be regulated to become “neutral” (lol what an awful name that is - crap, even if I didn’t know what “net neutrality” was, I wouldn’t want it! - the moment one hears about it it smells of socialism).
Yes but would you feel the same if you had to pay your ISP more to surf x site instead of y? You keep confusing paying x amount for y MB/s with net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with paying a subscriber fee for internet service. It has nothing to do with paying MORE for faster internet service. It has to do with your ISP monitoring what sites and services you use and throttling your internet BASED on what you do online and therefore enforcing a political bias upon you and what you do online. It has nothing to do with paying for better services.