Another Survey Shows Massive Bipartisan Opposition To Net Neutrality Repeal
from the will-of-the-people dept
ISPs like Comcast (and the politicians, think tankers and PR/policy consultants paid to love them) have been successful framing net neutrality as a partisan issue to sow dissent and stall policy progress and consensus. But the reality is that net neutrality and net neutrality protections continue to have overwhelming, bipartisan support. Survey after survey have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans support net neutrality, and for most people preventing natural monopolies from being bullies (at least until somebody has the courage to embrace policies that encourage broadband competition) is a no brainer.
This week another survey highlighted how opposition to Ajit Pai and the Trump FCC’s net neutrality repeal is overwhelming. According to a new study out of the University of Maryland (pdf), 86% of the country opposes the FCC’s decision to roll back net neutrality protections at ISP lobbyist behest. And again that opposition is bipartisan, with 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats opposing the FCC’s obnoxiously-named “restoring internet freedom” repeal. While the sample size of 997 registered voters is arguably a little small, there’s really nothing subtle about the findings:
It’s worth noting that since the last survey, Republican opposition to the repeal has actually grown from 75% to 82% as more people realize the ISP-manufactured reasons for the repeal are based largely on fluff and nonsense. There’s absolutely nothing “partisan” about trying to keep the internet relatively open, healthy and neutral. There’s nothing partisan about protecting consumers from natural monopolies who’ve literally bought and written state laws keeping their broken, anti-competitive status quo intact.
While the survey found the traditional ISP arguments about net neutrality being “heavy handed” or “stifling innovation” work a little better on GOP voters, the public overall isn’t really buying them:
Of course majority public opinion doesn’t automatically make something right, but in this case we’ve noted time and time again that the logic and data supporting this repeal are little more than hot garbage pushed by companies terrified of open competition and truly level playing fields. It’s difficult to tap dance around the fact that the attempted repeal of net neutrality is arguably the worst government tech policy decision in the history of the internet, making the SOPA backlash look like a toddler’s hiccup in comparison.
And while ISP lobbyists believe they’ve “won” the battle by convincing Ajit Pai to ignore the will of the public, they’d be pretty foolish to think this giant policy middle finger aimed squarely at already angry consumers isn’t going to result in mammoth and unforeseen political and policy blowback over the next decade. That’s assuming the FCC repeal survives its looming court challenge, something that’s no sure thing given all of the bizarre and unethical behavior Pai’s agency engaged in as it tried to float this monumental turd of a policy proposal.
Filed Under: ajit pai, bipartisan, broadband, fcc, net neutrality
Comments on “Another Survey Shows Massive Bipartisan Opposition To Net Neutrality Repeal”
California approves and is moving into reinstating NN. In a more comprehensive way. The ISPs are in pure despair. Somebody said before, there are few things sweeter than monopolistic telco tears.
so, instead of ‘showing bipartisan opposition to the repeal of net neutrality’, why not actually get off your fat, useless, fucking asses and do something to stop it? coming out with this bullshit and the alternatives that actual fuck things up even more, like, for example, good ol’ Martha Blackburn’s stupid suggestion, dont help! get shot of Pai, put in someone who respects what the job entails and is meant to be doing and go from there. improving on what Tom Wheeler started would be a good beginning!!
Re: Re:
Wow, you’ve got it all figured out but are preaching to the choir so to speak. I think it is the policy makers you wish to address.
Re: Re:
We’re so lucky to have you here to advise us on how fat and useless we are.
Re: Re:
Congratulations on being a complete and total, oblivious idiot.
If you regularly read this site (or, you know, bothered to go back through some of the archives) you’d know that TD has called for many types of action, including, but not limited to: calling your representatives, voting for people more tech literate, taking part in protests, and explaining to people who don’t understand NN what it’s really about.
If you’re all fired up about doing something about it, you must already be doing all those things and more, right? Right?
This is a blog, they write about news they care about. This is news and interesting facts related to a topic they care about. Not every article has to be a “This is how you fix it!” article. If you don’t like it, you’re perfectly welcome to never come back.
Re: Re: Luật Hùng Phát
i don’t think so
A _dingo_ could do a better job of running the FCC.
Re: Re:
There is your misconception: Pai was not made head of the FCC for the sake of running it but ruining it.
And I want to see a dingo do a better job at that than Pai does.
Re: Re: Re:
You did. His name was Tom Wheeler.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see it is all to easy to fool people like you.
Wheeler still put in zero rating, and the new rules are more than ambiguous enough to allow the FCC to regulate like it has always regulated… that is to the benefit of the telco sector and to prop up their natural monopolies.
The only different between Pai and Wheeler is that Pai does not act like he cares for consumers like Wheeler did. Both are still patsies.
It does not matter, the FCC has been locked into regulatory capture since it was created. Day 1 it was intending to regulate telephony as natural monopolies!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And I see it is all too easy to speak over your head.
The question was whether or not a dingo (Tom Wheeler was referred to as such) could do a better job than Pai. Enforcement aside, Pai has removed many consumer protections where Wheeler actually put some in place, including enshrining net neutrality principles.
On the enforcement side, yes Wheeler didn’t restrict zero rating, but he did say it would be ruled on on a case by case basis. Before he left office, he ruled that ISPs were in violation of net neutrality for ZERO RATING their own content and not third party content. So even though he didn’t ban outright, he left a mechanism in place to put a stop to it if it got out of hand. Pai did the exact opposite and told ISPs to do whatever the hell they wanted because he wouldn’t lift a finger to stop them.
Given this, your argument completely, and totally falls apart. Nice try.
Please explain then why ISPs absolutely hated Wheeler and the rules he put in place. Doesn’t sound like a patsy to me.
It does matter. Please provide proof of this. All documents pertaining to the FCC’s creation and mandate contradict you.
I still want proof of this. But even if true, there was very good reasoning to regulate telephony as a natural monopoly. The barrier to entry was and is extremely high effectively making it a natural monopoly by default, just like water or electricity. Intending (as you claim) to regulate ONE service as a natural monopoly for very good reasons, does not make it evil or bad.
Additionally, your arguments are contradictory. If the FCC was under regulatory capture from the start by big telco and ISPs, then it makes no sense that telephony would be regulated as a natural monopoly from the start. Instead the FCC would have instantly DE-regulated it.
Go get an education, your ignorance and stupidity is on full display.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Enforcement aside, Pai has removed many consumer protections where Wheeler actually put some in place, including enshrining net neutrality principles.”
With loopholes, meaning what is the difference? If you only make the loophole that police can shoot citizens if they feel threatened then all the police, feel all the threatened, all the time. BLAM!!! now your loophole dead because you got loophole suckered.
“Please explain then why ISPs absolutely hated Wheeler and the rules he put in place. Doesn’t sound like a patsy to me.”
Because that is the game. One of the ways businesses get you folks to support the regulations they want is by acting like they hate them. Have you not see this activity before? I have heard many political pundits says shit like, well if they hate it, then it must be good! The same principle applies here… reverse psychology does work and it is very easy to pull off when you can get and issue politicized which is why politicization works very well!
“I still want proof of this.”
You already have it! The fact that you ignore it is part of the problem here.
“But even if true, there was very good reasoning to regulate telephony as a natural monopoly.”
It is a manufactured monopoly! How are you so stupid to not see that? The regulation of the wiring created it. Sure that was a good reason do that so we don’t have a rats nest of wires running down every block but we can tell them that they no longer own them and it all become public property managed by the government so private business cannot control it like a natural monopoly.
“The barrier to entry was and is extremely high effectively making it a natural monopoly by default, just like water or electricity. Intending (as you claim) to regulate ONE service as a natural monopoly for very good reasons, does not make it evil or bad.”
Like I said… you are easy to fool. The barrier to entry was not high before they had regulations! You just got suckered into believing it! No business starts big! You are easily mentally defeated by the specter of uncertainty and hard work. I bet cleaning your bed room would be a daunting task for a person as easily demoralized as you, but I bet you think you can fix the world don’t you?
I can’t be fixed… not with people like you in it! And since I support the idea that you should have the liberty to fuck your own life up sideways, then it is now “impossible” to fix it!
You won’t learn, and you cannot be made to understand, leaving us with no solution except the ones that the industry bought from your representatives you sent to save you from them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well that much is painfully obvious.
A big one. Just because there is one loophole doesn’t mean the entire thing can be bypassed by it. In this case, they could only get around with stuff like zero rating and even then, it was still subject to FCC review on a case by case basis, which you conveniently and consistently ignore. You should try being honest for once.
Are you a total idiot or do you just act like it? Newsflash, ISPs DON’T want net neutrality rules. At all. Period. Full stop. Why do you think they’ve been fighting it for the better part of a decade? This argument makes no sense, if they are acting like they hate NN rules so that we’ll support it because they really actually want NN rules, then putting Pai in charge of the FCC was an even bigger screw up than I thought. Wheeler put NN rules in place, they got what they wanted. Now it’s all in danger of being taken away. Do you hear yourself?
Where? You have provided no proof, and the arguments you’ve made I have systematically proven wrong with facts and logic. You haven’t even come close to proving me wrong or providing basic evidence in support of your claims.
How are you so stupid to see that it isn’t? Running wires/fiber/etc… to every home in a neighborhood, along with building switching stations and all the rest of infrastructure needed to run a telco or an ISP is PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. And that’s just for serving one community. When you start trying to expand, your costs jump exponentially. Or are you seriously going to sit there and argue that anyone can spin up their own telco/ISP for a $100,000 or less? Don’t make me laugh.
This is about the only true statement in your entire rant. You are right, no business starts big. That doesn’t mean that every business has a dirt cheap entry cost, or that there are little to no barriers to entry.
Please explain how I’m easily mentally defeated when I can win an argument with you in 5 minutes flat? No one can fix the world, but there are certain scientific and historical truths that you can’t just hand wave away. You are the one who is too mentally lazy to actually go out and learn how the world works.
This describes you, not me. I could tell you the sky isn’t actually blue, it just looks that way, and you probably wouldn’t believe me.
Dude, how many times do we have to go over this? The industry didn’t buy NN rules. If that was the case then for some inexplicable reason, they keep shooting themselves in the foot by paying off Pai to get rid of them and suing the FCC and Wheeler for putting them in the place in the first place.
Re: Re: Setting the bar a little low are we?
And I want to see a dingo do a better job at that than Pai does.
A rock could do a better job than Pai, because while it wouldn’t actually do anything, it also wouldn’t be spending large amounts of it’s time lying and trying to screw over the public.
A literal dingo you’d have to worry about getting a large enclosure, food, medical checkups and so on, but again, no lying and trying to screw over the public.
‘Do a better job than Pai’, at least when it comes to serving the public, is a standard so low you need to dig to get to it.
Re: Re: Re: Setting the bar a little low are we?
I swear people don’t read what they are replying to these days. It’s not just this reply, it’s every single one. No wonder they are electing Trump.
"massive" bipartisan opposition
So what kind of massivity are we talking about here? What kind of post-office do-nothing jobs and engagements with ridiculous pay checks for Pai?
Or is that opposition all talk and no cash? Please remember: Pai already has a massive amount of tax payer money secure in his pocket. This does not count in your favor: you need to beat the additional bribes (or what you want to call separate money on top of the taxpayer covered salary for a full-time job): what you already have been swindled out of does not count.
Re: "massive" bipartisan opposition
“What kind of post-office do-nothing jobs”
Postal work is not do-nothing type jobs. The postal service is not going bankrupt. And Amazon does not get free postage.
I am shocked I tell you…shocked.
Re: Re:
It’s almost like they were warned…
300 MONKEYS
1 monkey Screams the Sky is falling..
300 monkey’s Vote and Agree the Sky is falling..
1 monkey looks up and says, The Sky ISNT falling..
300 monkey’s all Look up and see????
Trees..
(cant see the tree, because of the Forest?? Cant see the Sky, because of the trees??)
When all the polls agree...
The polls said Hillary was going to crush Trump. Excuse me, I meant to say “President Trump”.
Re: When all the polls agree...
It depends on who is being polled. Ever heard of “confirmation bias?”
Re: When all the polls agree...
Apples to oranges. Especially since the presidential polls were quite a bit closer. Those polls had Trump trailing Hillary by a small amount, it was a close race.
This, this isn’t even a race. It’s a shut out.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: When all the polls agree...
Richard is mad that people found out that most of those who polled favorably for his side turned out to be bots masquerading as people and his master Pai can’t just magic that gaffe away…
Re: When all the polls agree...
Polls don’t vote … remember that one?
LOL
Re: When all the polls agree...
You mean ‘Accident Trump’.
and who has read this latest crap proposal from Blackburn, then?
h***s://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/isps-should-charge-for-fast-lanes-just-like-tsa-precheck-gop-lawmaker-says/
i wonder how much she’s getting for coming up with this shit-show??
Re: Re:
Gee, Jon Brodkin is trolling, I’m shocked.
Re: Re: Re:
And what you do isn’t?
Try again Richard.
Polls, of course, have no policy relevance.
Re: Re:
Is that why you tried so hard to convince everyone that bots were perfectly good stand-ins for people when it came to repealing net neutrality?
If polls didn’t have any significant relevance it begs the question of why you care so much…
Re: Re: Re:
I did what?
FCC is meant to be an expert, not a pollster. Sorry, but that’s the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that’s fine enough as far as it goes (although there’s reason to question their expertise in some instances), but it doesn’t mean that it’s legitimate for the FCC to pretend that a “poll” (as you put it) supports the policy move they want to make when it doesn’t.
It’s also tangential from the point of whether the voices speaking up in that “poll” are legitimately people expressing their legitimate opinions, which is the point raised by the mention of “bots”, although I’ll concede that there’s room to argue that that point is itself irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There was some good discussion of the Democrats’ bot hysteria in the RIFO comments at last week’s Communications and Technology hearing on prioritization. Matt Wood, speaking for the vast left-wing conspiracy, offered the traditional complaints about fake comments. One of the Republicans – I forget which one – asked him if the content of any of the comments was fake. The law, you see, requires the FCC to pay attention to content but not to personalities. Poor Matt was forced to admit that the comments said what they said.
The facts, logic, and ideas matter, but the names don’t. It’s sad that you’ve been misled about APA process by the troll blogs you’re reading.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
This statement shows just how divorced from reality you are and shows your true bias. You aren’t interested in having an honest discussion, you’ve got an agenda to push, facts be damned.
Yes? And? So? What does this have to do with anything? The fact remains that there were still more comments in support of NN than against. Bots or no. Also, the comments against NN were devoid of any factual basis and in many cases used lies and quack studies to support their case. If the FCC was supposed to pay attention to the content and the "facts, logic, and ideas", then they should have thrown out those comments anyway.
It’s sad that you’ve been misled about facts, logic, and reality by all the money you get from big ISPs to have you shill for them.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
A comment made once has the same significance to the FCC as one made a million times. That’s not my opinion, it’s the law.
Don’t try to pass your ignorance off as wisdom.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Irrelevant. Your ignorance and dishonesty is showing.
Whether a comment was made once or a million times doesn’t invalidate the fact that the FCC wholesale just flat out ignored ALL the comments.
If they had taken them into consideration, they would have found that the comments on the pro-NN side were based in logic, facts, and reality; while the anti-NN comments were based in a mixture of half-truths, misunderstandings, outright lies, bad data, and quack studies.
The fact that you didn’t respond to that part of my comment is telling.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The pro-NN arguments are based on fear, ignorance, and the economic interests of the firms that pay for this site.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Oh really? Is that so?
Well then I guess you wouldn’t mind giving some hard facts to back that up? Because otherwise all I hear is someone who either doesn’t understand how networks and the internet truly work, or are deliberately lying, spouting off a bunch of hot air.
Anti-NN arguments have been debunked my hard facts, reason, and logic, so many times it’s not even funny.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
*debunked BY hard facts, reason, and logic.
Ugh, too early for typing.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
And once again Richard “Dick” Bennett bails as soon as someone calls him out on his bullshit. And he calls other people cowards.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I’m sorry, but as I have a job I don’t have time to cater to every irrational blog reader demand instantly.
Here’s a post for you to read on why the Wheeler Title II order is bunk: http://hightechforum.org/from-the-core-to-the-edge-perspective-on-internet-prioritization/
Pay special attention to the written testimony, and watch the hearing.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Heh, Techdirt blocked my response. A no-blocking rule for thee, but not for me.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
A likely response. Not buying it. Unless you were spamming? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Links upset Masnick.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
This is patently and blatantly false. All you have to do is check the comments section of almost any of TD’s articles and you’ll find links to sites from all over the place.
Heck I’ve posted comments with multiple links in them. Sometimes they get held for moderation for a bit but they show up eventually.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Don’t be so hard on Techdirt. They moderate all comments with links, and sometimes allow them after a few days of deliberation.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Easily disproven as mentioned above.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Of course the contents say what they say. That’s tautological.
The problem is that (at least in the allegation, many of) the people who are purported to have made those comments did not actually make them.
The number of comments in each direction, much less the number of comments saying verbatim the same thing, is irrelevant; the objection is to pretending that all of the comments represent the views of, not merely "different people", but the people whose names are attached to them.
The former is only important if trying to point to these comments as indicating popular support or opposition for one side or the other. (Which I have the vague impression I’ve seen the FCC trying to do, at least once, although I can’t swear that that’s accurate).
The latter is a question of identity fraud.
Regardless of whether the number of people supporting each view deserves consideration (a topic on which you may have a point, although you make it somewhat more offensively than may be necessary), the use of identity fraud in presenting those views deserves attention, and more serious treatment than the stonewalling the FCC has apparently given the question thus far.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It doesn’t matter who made the comments, the FCC is supposed to evaluate their reasoning neutrally.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re focusing too narrowly on specifically the context of the effect of the comments on the FCC’s decision-making.
It may not matter who made the comments for the purposes of assessing whether or not it is appropriate to keep the regulations in question. (If the FCC is treating the comments as an indication of which viewpoints are more popular, even only for purposes of marketing their ultimate decision as being supported by the public, then it does still matter; if – as you correctly state is supposed to be the case – they’re instead focusing only on the contents of the comments and ignoring what volume the comments take up, it indeed probably doesn’t matter.)
But the use of people’s identities to post comments without their permission is itself a problem for other reasons, far outside of the scope of the FCC’s decision-making. For the FCC to decline to cooperate with attempts to look into that matter for the matter’s own sake – which I understand to have happened – is questionable at best.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And you keep ignoring the point that everyone else brings up, which is if the FCC evaluated the comments’ reasoning honestly and neutrally, they would have found ZERO evidence for repealing NN and many good reasons based in facts, logic, and reality to keep the NN rules.
You are being dishonest in continually screaming “It doesn’t matter who made the comments”. Well, actually, I guess you’re kind of right. It DOESN’T matter because the FCC couldn’t have cared less about who or what was said in the comments. The decision had already been made and NO amount of comments with hard facts, data, or logical reasoning was going to change their mind.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
There’s never been an honest economic or technical analysis indicating NN is the way to go. NN is religious dogma.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Says the guy who literally either doesn’t understand or deliberately lies about how networking and the internet works.
I would counter that there has never been an honest economic or technical analysis indicating we don’t need NN. Anti-NN views are, mostly, religious dogma.
The fact that basically the only groups supporting the repeal of NN are big ISPs is kind of telling.
Try again Richard. (And I do mean TRY, this is embarrassing, even for you.)
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Why would I want to try, because your good opinion is so important?
NN is embraced by people who have daddy issues. Sorry about that, but I’m not your therapist.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Daddy issues? Really? That’s the best you can do? It’s not even related. Weak sauce. Are you really just resorting to slinging insults? No facts or data to back up your claims? Oh right, you have none.
Here’s some hard facts:
I could go on but those are some hard facts and good reasons why we need NN. What have you got? A boat load of nothing.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Verizon deliberately throttled Netflix data to Verizon customers to force Netflix to pay them exorbitant prices. FTC sat by and did nothing. However, magically, they suddenly backed down as soon as the 2015 rules went live.
False. Netflix’s transit provider, Cogent, slowed it down because Netflix was over quota. See Streaming Media Blog, Cogent Now Admits They Slowed Down Netflix’s Traffic, Creating A Fast Lane & Slow Lane
Comcast blocked ALL P2P traffic on their network until there was enough customer backlash. Again, FTC did jack squat.
False. Comcast limited the upstream BW piracy apps could use in order to protect Vonage from degradation. See Tech Liberation Front, "BitTorrent Was a Bad Case from the Start"
Comcast and other ISPs are moving to implement data caps in order to charge customers more, despite there being no technical reason to do so.
False. Data caps do serve a purpose and they’re endorsed by all serious NN advocates, including Lessig and Wu.
Without NN, ISPs will be able to speed up traffic from their services and slow down traffic from any competitors if either a. customers don’t agree to pay them more, b. competitors don’t agree to pay them more, or c. both.
False. Federal competition law outlaws this abusive behavior. The catch is Title II, which protects firms from this law. The solution is Title I classification for all firms in the Internet space.
So not just daddy issues, rank delusions as well.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Nope, you’re wrong. Dishonest much? Nowhere in there does it state they were over quota. Additionally, what Cogent did was put a QoS policy in place (this is openly admitted in that same post you quoted). Note that QoS ONLY activates when there is congestion. Additionally, Verizon began slowing down Netflix MONTHS before Cogent put that policy in place (slowdowns started occurring in October 2013, Cogent put QoS rules in place in February and March of 2014). Also, it was noted that it was Verizon deliberately congesting connections to Cogent so that Netflix would have to pay Verizon for direct access to customers to get better speeds. And it was also noted that Comcast used this same tactic.
You mean that article that consulted you before publishing? Yeah that’s not suspect. Regardless Bittorrent is not a "piracy" app and has many legitimate uses. Besides, it wasn’t just Bittorrent data that got blocked, it was various other P2P traffic as well. Again, dishonest much?
I would be willing to admit that in some cases they could serve a purpose (such as mobile data, maybe) but they have absolutely ZERO purpose in hardline internet access, other than to price gouge consumers. You have provided no proof otherwise. And Lessig and Wu? I assume you mean Lawrence Lessig and Timothy Wu, the same ones who co-authored a letter to the FCC in SUPPORT OF NN? I can find no evidence online suggesting either one of them support data caps. Again, such dishonesty.
I will admit that upon further reading of the FTC mandate, it does appear to not apply to common carriers. That said, I don’t believe it is appropriate to classify "all firms in the Internet space" (what does that even mean?) under Title I. ISPs are, quite literally, the poster child definition of telecommunication services and common carriers. To insist otherwise is dishonest and/or delusional.
What was that you were saying about "rank delusions"? Out of your four points, the first three were complete and total outright lies, and while part of the fourth was true, the rest was also a lie. Seems like someone has problems telling the truth.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
How about you try again. You have yet to supply a shred of evidence that your support of net neutrality is driven by anything but daddy issues. Your multiple non sequitur comment certainly doesn’t even qualify as reasoning, let alone evidence.
If you were right, you would have offered an economic analysis by not. Not your speculation, but a real economic analysis.
You can’t.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
And there you go changing the topic again. Obviously you can’t refute any of the points I made in my topic, so you change the subject to economics and continue to sling a tired insult that has no relevance to you, me, or the topic at hand.
In addition, focusing on just economics is also dishonest because there are many more facets to NN than just economics. Besides, I bet you are only focusing on economics as it relates to infrastructure buildout. Am I right? But there’s more to it than that.
What about the economics of startups that have to buy internet access to get their products and services online? Just to name one.
But, just to humor you, here is an economic analysis supporting Net Neutrality. If you want more I can provide them upon request:
h**p://policyintegrity.org/documents/Free_to_Invest.pdf
I have provided evidence of why I support NN. But since you seem content to ignore that, in the immortal words of Levar Burton "But you don’t have to take my word for it."
Here’s a list of known ways ISPs have screwed with the internet and provide good evidence as to why we need net neutrality:
h**ps://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
All of the items on that list can be independently verified from other news sources.
So far we have established that you suck at insults, you are a compulsive liar, when you get backed into a corner you try to change the subject, and have ZERO facts to back up your claims.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:14 Short attention span
This thread began when I said: “There’s never been an honest economic or technical analysis indicating NN is the way to go. NN is religious dogma.”
When I point that I still haven’t seen such an analysis, you accuse me of changing the subject. That’s a very sad maneuver, but par for the course with drive-by anonymous attackers.
The “economic analysis” you offer was written by lawyers.
The Free Press list of offenses is bunk that I’ve discussed before: hightechforum[dot]org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/
I’ll tell you what: don’t try again, your answers are getting worse.
Re: Re: Re:15 Short attention span
As you said your whole quote was "There’s never been an honest economic or technical analysis indicating NN is the way to go. NN is religious dogma."
I have responded to both your claims about a technical analysis AND it being a religious dogma. I have provided evidence to disprove BOTH.
I am not an economist so I tend not to speak to economic claims, though I certainly have my opinions on them. My responses dealt with the technical and religious parts of your statement.
While you did have economics in one of your comments, I chose to engage you on the technical and religious side. You ignored all the evidence I presented and instead basically shouted "Yeah well, economics!". So you kind of did change the subject but I’ll give it to you on a technicality.
That being said, I did now address your economics question with an actual economics analysis, which you promptly dismissed because apparently "lawyers can’t do economics".
Lawyers can’t also be economists or have knowledge about the practice? Given many laws affect economics, I would expect lawyers to have some experience with at least basic principles. Regardless of that, of the two authors, one holds a PhD in economics (so he is an economist, lying again I see) and the other holds a degree in political science, which by necessity, must include studies in economics. Your argument is false and invalid.
Yes, I’ve read that drivel you call a forum/blog. In that particular article, most of your analysis is bunk, misleading, misquoting, or outright lies. All of which is easily fact checked by anyone who bothers. You also completely ignore the throttling of Netflix by Verizon and other ISPs. Your revisionist history is a load of crap.
All that aside, you still have not responded to my points that you have consistently lied in almost every single comment you’ve made during this discussion. I’m not going to let you deflect from that, no matter how much you try. Every time I point out where you have blatantly lied (and provided proof of it) you simply ignore it and talk about something else. So answer me this, why do you feel the need to lie if you are so right and I am so wrong? And why should I believe anything you say since almost everything you’ve said has been a lie? Hmm?
Tsk tsk, Richard. You should well know by now that nobody on the internet gives up that easily, nor is likely to do what they’re told by someone who is clearly a compulsive liar and doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. I’m quite enjoying our little debate, but I can see where you may be getting frustrated, what with not being able to prove me wrong at all and having to resort to constant lies that I can disprove with one arm tied behind my back.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:16 Short attention span
Good trolling.
I’ve made my case and I stand by it.
Re: Re: Re:17 Short attention span
Your case, then, is that you are a liar and nothing you said can be believed. You are standing by a sunken ship.
But please, by all means, present your evidence that proves that you are not lying. I have presented evidence that shows all the instances where you have lied. You have not countered a single one. Nor have you even provided so much as a denial that you were NOT lying and were telling the truth. You’ve simply ignored it. I cannot think of any reason other than you CAN’T deny it for why you have not done so. I would think that if someone who is telling the truth were accused of lying, they would be falling all over themselves to say and prove otherwise.
If you mean that I have utterly destroyed every one of your arguments, I thank you and agree. If not, believe what you wish. NN is something I care very much about and I truly believe it to be necessary for the future of the internet. History has proven that not having an open and free internet is a very dark place indeed.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:18 Short attention span
NN is a paranoid conspiracy theory; it’s impossible to help a victim of paranoia with mere fact and reason, as you’ve proved.
Fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:19 Short attention span
Don’t you realize a comment similar to this is what started this whole conversation to begin with? What I’ve proved is that you’re wrong and a liar. Please see all of my points above which you have yet to deny or provide evidence to the contrary. I’m still waiting.
Did I not literally just say that anyone on the internet is unlikely to respond to this? Except for maybe to keep responding? Not surprising coming from you since you obviously are incapable of learning from history. I do find it entertaining though that when faced with a superior opponent who doesn’t need to lie to prove his point, your only remaining tactic is to hurl insults and try to get them to leave you alone.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:20 Short attention span
What part of “fuck off” do you fail to understand?
You’ve repeatedly called me a liar for making statements supported by evidence while offereing nothing but conjecture and vague reference to sources you haven’t read as justification. You suffer from grandiose delusions and have nothing to offer that’s better than warmed over bullshit.
“Fuck off” means I don’t care to engage you any further. If you want to believe that you’ve won an argument, be my guest.
Re: Re: Re:21 Short attention span
I understand it quite well, thank you. I choose to ignore it. What you fail to understand is that this is the internet, where people rarely do as their told. As well as this is a public comment section where you are not a moderator. Therefore I can do as I please and don’t have to do as you say.
I’ve called you a liar and provided evidence to support my claims. You’ve not denied them in the least. You still haven’t denied that you lied in almost every single one of your posts.
None of what I have stated is conjecture, it is all well established facts that can be easily checked. You have failed to do so since I called you out on lying about your responses to some of them. I also have read the references I have mentioned, including yours (which isn’t even worthy of being called bullshit) which has so many logical holes in it you couldn’t even compare it swiss cheese.
I have won the argument since your only responses to my claims have been lies that are easily exposed for what they are. If you have any evidence that doesn’t require a lie to believe, by all means present it. Until then, yes, I’ve won the argument. And I think pretty much anyone else would agree with me.
If you don’t care to engage me anymore that is your choice, not mine. I do care to engage you and so I shall.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
“False. Data caps do serve a purpose and they’re endorsed by all serious NN advocates, including Lessig and Wu.”
How so?
I’ll help
Data caps serve the purpose of(your answer here)
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Honest question here, Richard.
How would you combat a company like Comcast letting NBC.com stream video at top speeds to their end users, but slowing down streams from ABC Go, CBS All Access, Netflix or YouTube just because they are competitors? What solutions to this very real problem are you offering up if net neutrality isn’t the way to go in this day and age where the large ISPs are buying up the content producers?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Federal competition law – enforced by the FTC – already makes such anti-competitive conduct illegal regardless of who does it. Tom (“Dingo”) Wheeler blocked FTC enforcement of competition law against ISPs by classifying them as telecom carriers.
So all the Title II freakout did was offer a weak solution to a problem it created.
Has it ever occurred to you that monopolies user their market power to stifle competition is not a new thing in capitalist market economies?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Then explain why ISPs keep engaging in it while the FTC sits around and does jack all to stop it?
No, he didn’t. FTC anti-competition laws still applied to them, even after the 2015 rules were passed. That’s a blanket power the FTC has for all companies, regardless of how they are classified.
In case you hadn’t noticed, ISPs ARE telecom carriers, because, you know, they provide telecommunications services. Seriously Richard, you must be really desperate if you pulled that line.
The problems existed well before the 2015 rules and DIDN’T exist back when ISPs were originally regulated under Title II. And its solution is far better than the nothingburger we had before it.
Has it ever occurred to you that that is exactly what was going on and why we needed NN rules?
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Your claims are delusional; see my prior fact check.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I fact checked your fact check. Conclusion? You’re wrong and you’re a liar.
Try again Richard.
Re: Re: Re:12 Đinh Ken
i don’t think so
Re: Re: Re:13 Đinh Ken
hi. i think so
Linh Huong
The other argument against the proposal fared better. It asserted that ISPs, though they do not provide website content, would be able to charge consumers ever-higher fees for internet access, that the big companies with websites could pay for the faster download speeds while smaller competitors could be driven out of business.
hoc cham soc da
Great post!
Thanks for sharing.
Good trolling.
Thanks for sharing.
Dong ho casio edificce
hi. i think so
Thanks for sharing…
I
"It asserted that ISPs, though they do not provide website content, would be able to charge consumers ever-higher fees for internet access, that the big companies with websites could pay for the faster download speeds while smaller competitors could be driven out of business…" => I same idea with U about this
Kroger survey
As of now no stores is giving a massive prize for customer feedback surveys like Kroger store. Taking Public feedback through surveys is really helpful to Expand our business. Kroger takes customer experience survey at https://www.thekrogerfeedback.com/www-krogerexperience-com/ and 50 Kroger fuel points are survey rewards. Secured login site Kroger express hr manages full details about store employees on their server.
Hey Dick, here’s a fact check for you: How did the destruction of Title II and net neutrality help firefighters’ Internet access during emergencies when promised support by Verizon?
Answer: it didn’t.