John Oliver and Net Neutrality - Take 2

? Maybe. What is practical and workable is not often completely any one ideal.

Basically the section about "I Want More Competition":

"We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs to build a health care website that doesn't work,"

A lot of people are against the U.S. government doing things just because it costs so much more, besides any discussion of liberty... And yeah from what I've been reading, big corporations have their fingers in all the net neutrality stuff, and all the other regulatory stuff. I'm not necessarily against neutrality regulation, but I'm definitely thinking more critically about it lately.

1 Like

It's true. I'm just frustrated because we don't really have bandwidth limitation issues on the backbone, from what I can tell. We've got way too much dark fiber to claim that.

Reminds me a bit about that whole Kony 2012 thing that everybody bought into.

Security Now is about to start. The title is Go FFC Yourself. This gun b gud.

https://player.twitch.tv/?channel=twit

2 Likes

ISPs will lobby in their best interest no matter the circumstances. You guys scare me a bit. The government represents you... or should. You take government away from regulating critical systems and the corporations will have one less hurdle to overcome in order to screw you.

Fix your government.

The ISPs have the gun and you are unarmed. The government should keep them from shooting you... but hey, if your government does not work... just give corporations all the freedom to squeeze every penny out of you... LOGIC.

IDK, libertarians seem to forget the reason a government exists at all.

1 Like

The problem as far as I understand is currently that the government is saying .. F**k net neutrality

In the USA, yes.. yes it is.

They also steal all the d*ck pics off of everyone's phone. :scream:

Never said libertarianism works. If you toe the line to libertarianism, you believe in no taxes, police or fire service. How would that work in modern society?

It's an idealist ideology, but something close to it would work.

Who shit in your bagel? Seriously, you seem extremely disappointed in companies. If you think about what they provide for you, the price isn't too bad. Instant access to the collective knowledge of the world... damn good if you ask me, but maybe I'm just not entitled.

Boo!

1 Like

I used to really like him when he focused on a wide range of topics and called out large companies for shitty practices, but once the election came around he showed his far-far-far left side and I can't get behind that. We need more journalism (/comedy) that takes a moderate approach to political issues.

IIRC, you pay companies to provide you a service. They work, you pay. ISPs don't give away service at a loss...

...oh wait, in my city they do offer high-speed broadband to low income families at a "loss" (like 90% off)... but I digress.

Taking a page from your book: What has you on your knees "praising" the corporation? There is ample evidence of companies taking advantage of the opportunity to make money at the expense of the communities they affect and the economy the government secures for them to function in.

De-regulation might seem better in some instances, but that is because some governments are paid to prioritize the needs of special interests over their majority constituents. Fixing the regulation, instead of eliminating it, is almost always the optimal way to keep things improving.

Disclaimer: I am fully aware that I am talking out my butt... I don't feel like having a proper debate right now... laziness.

I like that idea and in a lot of areas it makes sense, but in smaller areas like mine we had only one choice of ISP up until a few years ago when Comcast set up services here. On one hand they offer better speeds at better prices but their reliability in my area is repulsive, our other option is Windstream which offers lower speeds at higher prices but we have less than one internet outage a week (usually). In a situation like mine if ISPs weren't regulated Comcast could offer amazing deals to customers and win over all of Windstream's customers, effectively kicking them out of the area. Then Comcast could charge whatever outrageous prices they wanted and get away with it because they would have a monopoly over the entire county.

That however is just one of the ways it could play out, for all I know Windstream and Comcast could play nice and have healthy competition with one another, but you can see the situation I'm thinking of.

I'm not. I'm not a fan of them, but that doesn't mean I want to hamstring them to make them even less effective. There's plenty of evidence of it. This is why I say we need to go after them via the antitrust act, not with additional regulations. Regulations should be the last option because they stifle innovation.

If you want to talk about ineffective government regulations, look at the FDA. 10 years to get approval for a drug that could save lives? fuck that. Some people will die. Some people die anyways. It's not like we're unaware of the risk. The word "Experimental" comes to mind.

That's just fucked. This is the problem with all the bleeding heart people out there. "Let's provide for those who cannot otherwise" No. How about we provide for everyone or we provide for no one. Internet is NOT a vital resource, even in this day and age, not like food, water or shelter is. Do not provide it for those who can't afford it, especially when it's available at every coffee shop and library in the US.

Regulations don't have to hurt corporations as much as they should protect the population, and the functional economy.

College tuition is now also free for lower income families... let me guess: That's fucked up too?

I seem to think you don't value real investments. Are you ignoring all the benefits to offering a path for people to improve their worth on the open market? Is everyone that needs a little help a moocher?

They don't, but I've seen too many of them doing just that recently. Regulations don't have to, but overregulation absolutely does. It's a fine line and can be hard to see a lot of the time, which is why this is such a difficult discussion.

Just so you don't misconstrue this response, I'll humor you on this question. No. Not everyone. There are some, but they don't concern me because certain types of help are necessary to try to provide a better quality of life for society as a whole.

Depends on the situation.
You expect me to make a blanket statement on all situations and then start virtue signaling. That's turned me off to this discussion.

Why stop now? You have been doing it all thread long.:kissing_heart:

Legalized weed is on the floor as well. SoonTM.

Yes. I do not agree with some of his political opinions but he often actually trys to make a good point on some things.

Yet without rules you don't have freedom.

Rules are not inherently contrary to freedom. Domination, "archaï" is.
Hence why anarchists are against archaï, not against all rules.

Those definitions were pulled from a basic dictionary and are not sufficient for this type of argument. People have studied freedom for literally millenias, there is more to it than a couple of lines of vague quasi-meaning.

A more appropriate understanding of freedom, specifically in the case that we talk about freedom of speech, can be gained from a scientific encyclopedia:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

1 Like

Thanks for post this! Here was my FCC comment:

venturebeat also has this template in case anyone wants to use it:

Website: gofccyourself.com

I'm not too sure about it works, isn't there something called "eminent domain"?

TL;DR - The FCC is being spammed by anti-net neutrality groups using stolen names and addresses.
The Verge contacted a few of the negative posters and they were like "I never wrote that."