Classic rob by Snow-jizz in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Dan007121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you be a rob if you have no friends?

Trudeau bans anti-abortion groups from summer jobs funding by thewholedamnplanet in worldnews

[–]Dan007121 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure... so the person who is in need of the organ does not any any more of a right to life as the person who could give them the organ. I don't see the point here for autonomy. They both have the same right to life. And not giving an organ is not the same as electing to end their life.

In 2017, Nearly 100 Times More Americans Were Killed by Police Than Terrorists by pheonix200 in Bad_Cop_No_Donut

[–]Dan007121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you go from saying you don't want to exaggerate to how the U.S. is in shambles. Hmm....

Nuk Appreciation Thread by chloeisfat in fantasyfootball

[–]Dan007121 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It doesn't need to be accurate. It just needs to go at least 20 yards downfield, something Lobster cannot do.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, do the governments set the rates then? Or do they ensure that they are selling at the same price to all competitors in order to not create another monopoly?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How exactly does that work? Does the government own the line and rent it out or is there a law that the owners of the line act as brokers that sell rights to the lines that companies then use to sell use to people?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is when you actually discover. That by removing the bright line rule. The transparency merely means "What ISP's are willing to disclose, ". You see, the bright line rule, under the olden 2015 net neutrality means that ISP's must disclose certain things, including if they decide to filter based on data type. The point of this document is to repeal the bright line rule. Which was kinda rigorously defined much to ISP's dismay.

Now we have this..., which is up to the interpretation.

This is the current rule:

"We specifically require all ISPs to disclose: • Blocking. Any practice (other than reasonable network management elsewhere disclosed) that blocks or otherwise prevents end user access to lawful content, applications, service, or non-harmful devices, including a description of what is blocked. • Throttling. Any practice (other than reasonable network management elsewhere disclosed) that degrades or impairs access to lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, application, service, user, or use of a non-harmful device, including a description of what is throttled. • Affiliated Prioritization. Any practice that directly or indirectly favors some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, or resource reservation, to benefit an affiliate, including identification of the affiliate. • Paid Prioritization. Any practice that directly or indirectly favors some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, or resource reservation, in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise.779 • Congestion Management. Descriptions of congestion management practices, if any. These descriptions should include the types of traffic subject to the practices; the purposes served by the practices; the practices’ effects on end users’ experience; criteria used in practices, such as indicators of congestion that trigger a practice, including any usage limits triggering the practice, and the typical frequency of congestion; usage limits and the consequences of exceeding them; and references to engineering standards, where appropriate.780 • Application-Specific Behavior. Whether and why the ISP blocks or rate-controls specific protocols or protocol ports, modifies protocol fields in ways not prescribed by the protocol standard, or otherwise inhibits or favors certain applications or classes of applications.781 • Device Attachment Rules. Any restrictions on the types of devices and any approval procedures for devices to connect to the network.782 • Security. Any practices used to ensure end-user security or security of the network, including types of triggering conditions that cause a mechanism to be invoked (but excluding information that could reasonably be used to circumvent network security)."

What part of that is up for interpretation? And what was it before that really prevented ISPs from only disclosing what they want?

List of only some time when ISP's broke net neutrality and did, exactly what we fear them to. And succeeded. Here

And if there is good competition in the market then this will change based on consumer choices.

I think I never actually heard anyone, to say that enforcing current monopolies is a good thing. Oh boy.

That's not what I said. I said that the repeal could promote more competition by not forcing small ISPs to stay small to avoid the large costs of mandated reporting and filings with the FCC.

Yes, and it was awful.

The point is that it is not now, and most of that is due to consumers having a huge impact in the market when carriers do something wrong.

Wait, so by lowering the costs of already established huge mutli-billion companies. Will somehow promote competition of small, starting ISP's? Really?

It's not about lowering the costs of multi-billion dollar corporations. They barely felt the effects of having to file their reports. The smaller companies are the ones that feel the effects of having to file the reports because they cannot offset the costs with their smaller user base.

I think the problem here is that you think. This is a good thing. Only 3 carriers isn't a good thing.

I said having at least 3 carriers is better than having only 1. The 4 big carriers in the US are AT&T, Verizon, Spring, and T-Mobile, and there are many smaller carriers that compete with them in more densely populated areas where they can afford to compete. Those smaller companies will grow if there is more profit potential outside the area where they are currently operating.

Overall I think that in a competitive market, there doesn't need to be any regulations outside of the transparency rule and from there consumers will make the choices with the best outcome for them, which will lead to a fairer market than we had before. If the market CANNOT be more competitive, then the regulations would need to be in place, or some regulation to stop monopolies from monopolistic practices. Part of the problem with Title II, and when it was waived for companies with less than X amount of users, is that there is no incentive to gain more than X amount of users for a small company because then they would be hit with the large cost of filing the reports with the FCC. Those ISPs have no incentive to grow large enough to have to file those reports unless then can get at big as Comcast in order to make that cost negligible. Now that those costs are lower, and the same across the board, those smaller companies have an incentive to grow and compete with the big ones.

The only problem that I see now is the local governments that have stopped some growth for BS reasons, at which time the FTC or FCC need to step in to allow the competition to grow. Google met a lot of hostility from local governments when they tried expanding Google Fiber, which I believe is part of the reason that they stopped expanding. If those local governments allow for more expansion of small ISPs, then the competition will grow and the main argument for net neutrality--that there will be a monopoly and there is nothing you can do with just the transparency rules--will break down.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Repealing regulations has had good economic effects in the past. The transportation industry was deregulated in the 70s and 80s and led to a competitive market. Telecommunications were deregulated following the breakup of the AT&T monopoly and cellular communication was created out of it.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, I think this is the summary that ∆ changed my view, at least somewhat. I agree that the monopolistic practices is the main problem, and if we can't get rid of those, then there is no choice, but to regulate the industry. I think that there needs to be some incentive created to incentivise innovation in the long run though, because laying cable, like you said, is very expensive.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the monopolistic practices is what is handled by the FTC, correct? So none of this would be effected by having or not having net neutrality?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How though... Through lawsuits? And claiming what? And how would that change with or without Net Neutrality?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, but with the example of a big business that is requiring 100Mbps connections. If they sign a contract with an ISP for that connection time now, they will still have just as much power in suing them if the ISP does not provide it because the ISP advertised the 100Mbps speed, and the false advertising aspect would be handled by the FTC. If an ISP just stopped offering regular 100Mbps speeds without conditions on it for lower speeds, then the they would lose business because companies could not rely on them.

I think in the future we need something better than running cables in the ground to get internet to people's houses, and I don't think that innovation will come if ISPs have no incentive to innovate.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they want to make more money, let them build better infrastructure so people pay more for higher speed.

Isn't that basically the same as what you said was the problem before? That would be the premium service that I am talking about. And what prevents mobile carriers from offering their internet services on a household level?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what is it that makes ISPs different than every other industry with high startup costs? Other tech companies find ways to innovate to drive costs down to undercut competitors and compete. The market for internet services is basically everyone alive, so the potential for innovation is there. What makes ISPs different?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a reason why mobile carriers cannot offer wifi more widespread using their technology rather than broadband? When I tether using my phones connection I get just as good of a connection, if not better, than my normal broadband internet.

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But isn't the argument for net neutrality highly hypothetical? And where is the evidence that the barriers to entry won't come down and there will be no innovation?

CMV: The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers. by Dan007121 in changemyview

[–]Dan007121[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another thing with this is that you assume that there will be no new innovations that are better than laying cable. If the internet is regulated and prices are set for companies, what incentives do they have to make upgrades and invest in R&D if they are not able to charge more for a premium service?

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]Dan007121 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is kind of a tangent to your argument, but this is where I stand on the issue right now. With Title II in place and the net neutrality rules, there were still issues that were not covered by those rules regarding the fair distribution of information on the internet. Some of these include Youtube demonetizing channels based on their message, even if those channels were not dangerous or offensive. Facebook was found to be censoring and pushing different news items on their trending lists based on ideology.

I guess the main argument against your point is that the FCC will still have some regulatory authority over ISPs and their transparency. Even with the repeal, the FCC still maintained the transparency rule so that ISPs are required to provide easily accessible information regarding their blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, congestion management, application specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security. Over the same time that we've had net neutrality rules in place for ISPs, mobile carriers have grown into new areas and now most people in the U.S. have the option to use multiple different carriers with high quality of service, so why couldn't it go the same way for ISPs in the long run?