The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[-Akronite-]

Love Q-Tips argument of “don’t let them tell you net neutrality is good, let me provide a single link for it being bad first so your default position can be on MY side!”

Net neutrality protects consumers from ISPs having too much control over the free and equal opportunities provided by the internet. It’s not only essential in protecting us as consumers, but it retains the democratic nature of the internet that makes it the wonderful thing it is. The only major groups fighting against net neutrality are ISPs. This isn’t about helping consumers or the common man or protecting us from “heavy handed regulations” (absolute nonsense). Without these protections the internet providers would have the power to control the speeds at which you view certain content. And given the lack of choice in many areas, that is dangerous.

Reminder: the free market didn’t invent the internet. This shit isn’t owned by Verizon, we as a nation and people are well within or rights to regulate it from becoming an unfair and narrowed commercial environment. Gouri already posted what internet access in Portugal looks like and there are plenty of videos/websites that explain the detriments.

But you know what, why don’t you do your own research @MediumBaller? Not saying this as a criticism, just being honest. Chances are most sources you’ll find will be something that developed out of an open and free internet that wishes to remain that way.

All this being said, I certainly hope that even if they do get away with this shit that the market is strong enough to protect us from a la carte internet. But given how people die in this country rationing their insulin, somehow I don’t have a lot of confidence in the free market.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Love Q-Tips argument of “don’t let them tell you net neutrality is good, let me provide a single link for it being bad first so your default position can be on MY side!”

Net neutrality protects consumers from ISPs having too much control over the free and equal opportunities provided by the internet. It’s not only essential in protecting us as consumers, but it retains the democratic nature of the internet that makes it the wonderful thing it is. The only major groups fighting against net neutrality are ISPs. This isn’t about helping consumers or the common man or protecting us from “heavy handed regulations” (absolute nonsense). Without these protections the internet providers would have the power to control the speeds at which you view certain content. And given the lack of choice in many areas, that is dangerous.

Reminder: the free market didn’t invent the internet. This shit isn’t owned by Verizon, we as a nation and people are well within or rights to regulate it from becoming an unfair and narrowed commercial environment. Gouri already posted what internet access in Portugal looks like and there are plenty of videos/websites that explain the detriments.

But you know what, why don’t you do your own research @MediumBaller? Not saying this as a criticism, just being honest. Chances are most sources you’ll find will be something that developed out of an open and free internet that wishes to remain that way.

All this being said, I certainly hope that even if they do get away with this shit that the market is strong enough to protect us from a la carte internet. But given how people die in this country rationing their insulin, somehow I don’t have a lot of confidence in the free market.

But certainly, if given free reign and a monopoly over most areas of the country, the corporations will do what's in the best interests of their customers, right?

 

[gourimoko]

Yes, I like how you reason things out. I guess a pros and cons list would be cool. Again, it was not directed strictly at you, so others can feel free to respond as well.

It's just an issue I don't know a lot about and I'm trying to learn more. I figured this could potentially hit you hard in the tech world, maybe I'm off?

edit: I just realized I don't even know if you're for or against it. My bad on making any judgments one way or the other.

I'm very much in favor of net neutrality.

If I were to attempt to play Devil's Advocate, however, I would make the following assertions:

(1) Free markets would drive down costs over time, and net neutrality negatively affects business practices that would allow for optimizing and sell banded or tiered access to the internet -- effectively, preventing new products being created via only throttling. While this seems like it makes the internet better for users; instead, it keeps costs artificially higher than they need to be.

(2) That throttling is already a thing; and throttling is based on subscriber address/identification, as well as total usage. That, throttling based on content is not much different than throttling based on subscription, and that's legal as well, particularly on mobile networks that allow unmetered usage for certain domains (YouTube, Netflix, etc).

(3) That people do not have a positive right to access the internet on unmetered, uninterrupted, unfiltered and uncensored subscriber lines. Thus corporations have every right to monitor traffic and shape it to optimize their private lines.

(4) That businesses have the right to negotiate deals with ISPs for "fast lanes" .. effectively; the government has no place (and no authority) in these private, corporate negotiations.

(5) The opportunity cost to small ISPs is fairly substantial, since they would benefit more so than large ISPs as they could negotiate lucrative deals with companies like Netflix, Amazon, etc.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Love Q-Tips argument of “don’t let them tell you net neutrality is good, let me provide a single link for it being bad first so your default position can be on MY side!”

That is a true shit post. And I'll bet you didn't even bother reading the link I provided, or you wouldn't have made that criticism.

As I specifically mentioned, that article not only mentioned opposing viewpoints, but was footnoted and provided direct links to a bunch of pro-net-neutrality articles, which I actually encouraged him to read. I actually hesitated linking that article because it amounted to linking only one article against net neutrality, while linking to ten other articles supporting net neutrality.

You're now the only guy on my ignore list. Congratulations.

 

[Whittaker]

That is a true shit post. And I'll bet you didn't even bother reading the link I provided, or you wouldn't have made that criticism.

As I specifically mentioned, that article not only mentioned opposing viewpoints, but was footnoted and provided direct links to a bunch of pro-net-neutrality articles, which I actually encouraged him to read. I actually hesitated linking that article because it amounted to linking only one article against net neutrality, while linking to ten other articles supporting net neutrality.

You're now the only guy on my ignore list. Congratulations.

It was quite the shitpost.

 

[-Akronite-]

Honestly very weak move. I wasn’t even critizicing his link, which I did not get a chance to look at (though I WAS planning to see out his argument). Just thought it was funny that he opened by saying “don’t listen to these biased guys, look at what I’M providing.” It’s alright if he can’t take the joke... Edit: Looking back he did in fact argue to look at both sides in a different post before his post to support his argument. So perhaps my critique wasn’t fair. Oh well though.

But I’ll stop here rather than dragging out a one-sided personal argument. It was nice (sometimes) debating him.

Anyway, does anyone else here support ending net neutrality? And if so, any thoughts on the rest of my shitpost?

 

[czvo]

View: https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/933018353949691904

 

[gourimoko]

Anyway, does anyone else here support ending net neutrality? And if so, any thoughts on the rest of my shitpost?

I don't know of any legitimate arguments for ending net neutrality. The list of arguments I offered above are fairly easily countered; so I myself would be interested in hearing the opinions of everyday citizens, rather than just citizens repeating talking points written in the board rooms of telecoms.

 

[FiveThous]

I'm very much in favor of net neutrality.

If I were to attempt to play Devil's Advocate, however, I would make the following assertions:

(1) Free markets would drive down costs over time, and net neutrality negatively affects business practices that would allow for optimizing and sell banded or tiered access to the internet -- effectively, preventing new products being created via only throttling. While this seems like it makes the internet better for users; instead, it keeps costs artificially higher than they need to be.

(2) That throttling is already a thing; and throttling is based on subscriber address/identification, as well as total usage. That, throttling based on content is not much different than throttling based on subscription, and that's legal as well, particularly on mobile networks that allow unmetered usage for certain domains (YouTube, Netflix, etc).

(3) That people do not have a positive right to access the internet on unmetered, uninterrupted, unfiltered and uncensored subscriber lines. Thus corporations have every right to monitor traffic and shape it to optimize their private lines.

(4) That businesses have the right to negotiate deals with ISPs for "fast lanes" .. effectively; the government has no place (and no authority) in these private, corporate negotiations.

(5) The opportunity cost to small ISPs is fairly substantial, since they would benefit more so than large ISPs as they could negotiate lucrative deals with companies like Netflix, Amazon, etc.

Thanks Gouri, much appreciated!

 

[Cratylus]

It was quite the shitpost.

He's great at them. It's his forte.

 

[Cavatt]

View: https://twitter.com/markberman/status/933408923238981633

 

[Sebastian]

View: https://twitter.com/markberman/status/933408923238981633

His communications director resigned.

 

[Cavatt]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip/amp

I remember at the time thinking this was very damning. Seems really irresponsible. At best it makes Israel believe Trump is compromised.

 

[inliner311]

The internet isn't like electrical, gas, and landline utility services, which are essentially fully mature industries whose distribution networks simply need to be maintained and occasionally upgraded over time. The inevitably slow, constraining effects of government regulation and oversight can move at their normal snails pace without doing too much damage because not a whole lot changes.

In contrast, the internet has been a rapidly growing, expanding, and improving phenomenon that has developed during a free market period when federal regulators lacked most of the legal power to regulate them. Yes, growth and development in the free market can be "chaotic" at times. But that free market also fosters lightning fast responses to consumer demands and preferences, rapid growth and improvement, and large scale investment. When someone starts to screw over consumers in one direction, alternatives eager to compete for those dollars spring up almost immediately. Competition for consumers is fierce, and when that happens, consumers are almost always going to be the biggest winners.

Once you cede to government regulators the power of control, that power will inevitably increase over time. It is the job of regulators to write regulations, and by damn, that's what they're going to do. And that will introduce into what was a vibrant, freewheeling tide of advancement a slowness, and fiated unpredicatibility, both of which are huge turnoffs to investors. The regulators will never be able to keep up with the pace of advancements and activities in the private sector, and so their regulatory function will be inherently skewed. That also opens the door to crony capitalism and favoritism, which doesn't happen when the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers.

You have to balance the certainly or steadiness you believe you are gaining with the likelihood that you are going to be suppressing innovation and necessary corrections/actions by competitive players in the market.

I separate ISPs and tech companies when it comes to net neutrality. I agree the lack of rules has helped the internet grow but I don't put the ISPs in that category. ISPs in my mind are the infrastructure to bring the internet to customers. They are not quick moving and are like utilities. Cable internet is build off lines that were put into place in the 1960-1970's. DSL is off copper lines 100+ years old. We think of fiber as new but Verizon and At&t started rolling it out 10+ years ago.

The structure is there and can handle our needs especially when the phone companies finally upgrading all the lines to fiber. Cable is able to give us 10 gbits per second with docsis 3.1 and that is always being updated. Fiber has a limit of 100+ TB per second. 4k TV needs only 13 mbits per second to stream, 8k is 48 mbits.

I don't think net neutrality is going to change the pace of fiber upgrades. Other rules might effect that but in the end, fiber per mile and user density will be the driving force to upgrade those lines.

I just read that 51% of households in the US only have 1 broadband provider. Repeal rules that directly effect that and keep net neutrality as protection for everyone to have a chance at an open and free internet. Just look at Google fiber and the troubles they are having in Nashville and Louisville because not the government but At&t, comcast, and Spectrum are suing the cities and Google to stop them from building fiber at a accelerated pace because of some sort of poll ordinances.

5g wireless will have just as much barrier to entry to enter the market as wired. Comcast and Dish had to spend 8+ billion each in the frequency spectrum. Even before they put up towers or invest in any physical structure, a company needs to out bid for a frequency that only comes up for government auction once in a blue moon. A small company isn't getting a chance to break in.

 

[Sebastian]

I don't know of any legitimate arguments for ending net neutrality. The list of arguments I offered above are fairly easily countered; so I myself would be interested in hearing the opinions of everyday citizens, rather than just citizens repeating talking points written in the board rooms of telecoms.

And it isn't a hypothetical that ISPs and others will abuse the shit out of consumers who are trapped by effective monopolies. Here are examples: