PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on December 14, 2017, 02:02:31 PM
-
The FCC has repealed Net Neutrality in a 3-2 vote today. From Ben Shapiro at The Daily Wire:
The level of panic set off by the end of net neutrality is utterly out of proportion to the actual effect that end is likely to have. The basic debate over net neutrality is actually a reasonable one: is the best way to ensure a better internet for consumers to ban internet service providers (ISPs) from charging certain content providers more for their use of bandwidth than others, or is it to free ISPs to charge what they want, thereby incentivizing ISPs to compete with one another to offer different services at different prices?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691/breaking-net-neutrality-repealed-left-loses-its-ben-shapiro
-
Meanwhile, the real threat to the Internet continues to be government:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/government-is-the-cause-ofnot-the-soluti (http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/government-is-the-cause-ofnot-the-soluti)
-
Without going into all the details, the large picture devolves to: Managed by the ISPs, private companies, scratching for the consumer dollar. OR: Managed by the Fedguv, which gave us ACA, Medicaid, TAMF, VA health system, etc. The cost structure works just fine, because if ATT screws up and raises prices too high, people leave, and they lose money. As for the govt mandating speeds and feeds - trust me on this, we don't want to go there.
-
So why does the left care so much about this? Other than the one complaining that without net neutrality you won't be able to find an abortion provider online?
As a generality, liberals concentrate in big cities. Big cities will have high speed internet. Sparsely populated areas suffer from companies not investing to connect them. Repealing net neutrality will help incentivize bringing the internet to these rural areas. So, point number one, liberals don't care about that since they're concentrated in cities. Point number two, liberals HATE their ISPs (and corporations in general). But why? Again, they are concentrated in cities where your ISP might give you terrible service.
Just my experience having lived in a big city with abominable internet provider service, and in the tiny rural towns with fantastic internet service (once they do connect you with high speed) - because they appreciate each and every customer.
I don't know much about this net neutrality debate but on the face of it bought the line at first "I want the internet to stay free," only now that I've looked into it a bit, it seems the other way around. Keeping government out of it is how we can ensure its continued growth and keeping it free. By "free" of course I mean open to be used to connect me to whatever information I want, not "free" as in I don't have to pay for it.
Is that the other thing liberals are trying to achieve? They don't like to pay for other stuff (college education, healthcare, etc.) so is this all about trying to keep costs to the consumer regulated to a minimum? Maybe I'd rather have the option to pay more if it connects me to more and better data. Is that what's behind this? Yet another case of liberals wanting government provided stuff for free or low cost?
-
It's about forcing control from large corp to a centralized govt structure. i.e. socialism. They want the hand on the lever of commerce, and more importantly the access to information to go through the govt, and so that certain liberal friendly locations are protected, while certain other non-liberal sites are highly regulated. It's the fed IRS system applied to the media platform. They don't give a wet, dribbly shit about getting service to outlying areas(conservative), they only care about limiting access to conservative viewpoints by insuring that control of the wires is in the hands of the feds. Also, they want their high speed all the time access to be subsidized by those hicks in the sticks who only use the internet for mail and cat pictures.
-
So why does the left care so much about this? Other than the one complaining that without net neutrality you won't be able to find an abortion provider online?
As a generality, liberals concentrate in big cities. Big cities will have high speed internet. Sparsely populated areas suffer from companies not investing to connect them. Repealing net neutrality will help incentivize bringing the internet to these rural areas. So, point number one, liberals don't care about that since they're concentrated in cities. Point number two, liberals HATE their ISPs (and corporations in general). But why? Again, they are concentrated in cities where your ISP might give you terrible service.
Just my experience having lived in a big city with abominable internet provider service, and in the tiny rural towns with fantastic internet service (once they do connect you with high speed) - because they appreciate each and every customer.
I don't know much about this net neutrality debate but on the face of it bought the line at first "I want the internet to stay free," only now that I've looked into it a bit, it seems the other way around. Keeping government out of it is how we can ensure its continued growth and keeping it free. By "free" of course I mean open to be used to connect me to whatever information I want, not "free" as in I don't have to pay for it.
Is that the other thing liberals are trying to achieve? They don't like to pay for other stuff (college education, healthcare, etc.) so is this all about trying to keep costs to the consumer regulated to a minimum? Maybe I'd rather have the option to pay more if it connects me to more and better data. Is that what's behind this? Yet another case of liberals wanting government provided stuff for free or low cost?
The general argument from the liberals on net neutrality is that without it, an ISP can charge you extra to access Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, or any other platform or content provider. They're afraid that, for example, Comcast might partner with Netflix and block access to Hulu, or slow the bandwidth to Hulu, or charge a higher premium for Hulu, because they aren't partnered with them.
The liberals seem to think the end of the Internet is here. Net Neutrality was only instituted in 2015, so it hasn't been around very long. The right answer is to allow the market to handle this. Let competition be the deciding factor in which company does better than another. The right answer is to also keep the government from regulating anymore than it has to.
-
The general argument from the liberals on net neutrality is that without it, an ISP can charge you extra to access Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, or any other platform or content provider. They're afraid that, for example, Comcast might partner with Netflix and block access to Hulu, or slow the bandwidth to Hulu, or charge a higher premium for Hulu, because they aren't partnered with them.
The liberals seem to think the end of the Internet is here. Net Neutrality was only instituted in 2015, so it hasn't been around very long. The right answer is to allow the market to handle this. Let competition be the deciding factor in which company does better than another. The right answer is to also keep the government from regulating anymore than it has to.
Very well stated. When the ISP starts to play favorites with content, then customers are free to say 'you don't like HULU? Ok, cya, there is a company that does like them, and I'll go over there'.
the one caveat that NN was supposed to solve, is the limitation on content cost/dist for single source network locations. Well, guess what? All those big city libs have at least 3 if not 5 sources for their content. It's the people out in rural areas that need protection from content control, and there's the rub. That's the part of the equation that the libs are trying to get their hands on. If they can force content to the conservatives who have only one source(you'll get CNN feed for free, but FoxNews will be a fee based provision), then they can control the message by control of the media.