FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
Of course not, you've been marketed to.... one of the goals was to increase video usage over other types of data usage. The smoke and mirrors worked its magic. You were so focused on one video provider over another that you missed what Dash and I had mentioned - that it was prioritizing video over other media forms.
Now do you see how this works? It's never that simple. Unless you think Pai is a freaking idiot, he obviously knew this and was on board with moving the US distribution of video higher on the lists at the cost of other media types.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
What users benefited? I don't agree, at all.
Everyone who can now stream video from anywhere without paying out the ass for data...
They could have done that without this. You are being manipulated by the exact thing Dash and I were discussing. The Sony power problem. They want you to do X, you see X as cheap, you forget that they also contro the base price. They just changed the RATIO of what you get with your own money. You will always pay, now they determine more of what you get ... and what you don't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
Of course not, you've been marketed to.... one of the goals was to increase video usage over other types of data usage. The smoke and mirrors worked its magic. You were so focused on one video provider over another that you missed what Dash and I had mentioned - that it was prioritizing video over other media forms.
Now do you see how this works? It's never that simple. Unless you think Pai is a freaking idiot, he obviously knew this and was on board with moving the US distribution of video higher on the lists at the cost of other media types.
What other media type is suffering here? I see the logic but if there were ways to enhance other media types they would do that to.
No video agenda here. It’s an end user experience agenda and it’s competition.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
Of course not, you've been marketed to.... one of the goals was to increase video usage over other types of data usage. The smoke and mirrors worked its magic. You were so focused on one video provider over another that you missed what Dash and I had mentioned - that it was prioritizing video over other media forms.
Now do you see how this works? It's never that simple. Unless you think Pai is a freaking idiot, he obviously knew this and was on board with moving the US distribution of video higher on the lists at the cost of other media types.
What other media type is suffering here? I see the logic but if there were ways to enhance other media types they would do that to.
- All other media suffers if one media is prioritized, that is the same as saying all others are deprioritized. Saying one thing is "free" is the same as saying all others went up in price.
- They didn't enhance other media and you can't make claims like that. There is no basis for that belief.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
Meh, highly logical but not practical in any sense. So we are going to pay way more for data than we need to just in case some unknown media is being suppressed?
I see the logic. But what end users want should be the top priority. Otherwise we are left with thought leadership like this controlling what we get.
I like sitting at the park with my kids for 4 hours and watching my shows and not getting an extra $150 bill for data usage.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
No video agenda here. It’s an end user experience agenda and it’s competition.
You are depending completely on going by unfounded belief in the altruism of ISPs which goes against all rational observation and visible actions. What we KNOW is that video's agenda got a bonus and other things did not. What you claim about it is not logical nor likely. There is no reason to believe that favouring the agenda of one media type over all others was completely benign, especially given that the resulting action isn't benign.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
Meh, highly logical but not practical in any sense. So we are going to pay way more for data than we need to just in case some unknown media is being suppressed?
Nope, the notion that we pay more is completely falsified. We made and solidified that point in Mike's discussion. That's marketing trickery and completely backwards.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I see the logic. But what end users want should be the top priority. Otherwise we are left with thought leadership like this controlling what we get.
No, it should not. First, because they don't even know what they want until after the fact. Second because you are assuming that you can know what they want. Third you are assuming that they can tell you want they want after they've been tricked with things like this. You can see in this thread how end users can't articulate what they want once it has been called "free". It makes taking away their choice "feel" like want they want, because they can't see what they lost.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
Meh, highly logical but not practical in any sense. So we are going to pay way more for data than we need to just in case some unknown media is being suppressed?
I see the logic. But what end users want should be the top priority. Otherwise we are left with thought leadership like this controlling what we get.
I like sitting at the park with my kids for 4 hours and watching my shows and not getting an extra $150 bill for data usage.
And this is what Pai is about, instead of abroad sweeping legislation that will be constantly fought over lets create laws that benefit the user and gives consumers what they want on an as-needed basis. The internet is not like telecom and NN is just ancient telecom law.. “common carrier”
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I like sitting at the park with my kids for 4 hours and watching my shows and not getting an extra $150 bill for data usage.
And that you feel that this is what was provided to you by this is why I'm so opposed to it. This is the exact misinformation that I'm scared of. You aren't saving money, the Mike discussion proved that, I feel. This is basic economics, the customer always pays. They just determined WHICH things you get for your money instead of you deciding. How much it was going to cost never changed. They just artificially raise prices to trick you. And this statement shows how well that works.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
Meh, highly logical but not practical in any sense. So we are going to pay way more for data than we need to just in case some unknown media is being suppressed?
I see the logic. But what end users want should be the top priority. Otherwise we are left with thought leadership like this controlling what we get.
I like sitting at the park with my kids for 4 hours and watching my shows and not getting an extra $150 bill for data usage.
And this is what Pai is about, instead of abroad sweeping legislation that will be constantly fought over lets create laws that benefit the user and gives consumers what they want on an as-needed basis. The internet is not like telecom and NN is just ancient telecom law.. “common carrier”
You keep saying this... what do you feel is wrong with the old law that the Internet needs to have different? From Pais' actions and all yoru examples, it sounds like the old laws had it right.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
But now, because Verizon was stopped, every carrier and video provider is doing a version of this, and users benefited. So... thank goodness for Pai
And name a situation where someone is losing here? Who is experience a deprioritization or who is being filtered?
We don't know, that's how this works. that what is so bad about it, we never know who is deprioritized because that info isn't public. Non-video services, video services that don't work with the service, anyone they want to not work. How is this discussiong being accelerated by this?
Meh, highly logical but not practical in any sense. So we are going to pay way more for data than we need to just in case some unknown media is being suppressed?
I see the logic. But what end users want should be the top priority. Otherwise we are left with thought leadership like this controlling what we get.
I like sitting at the park with my kids for 4 hours and watching my shows and not getting an extra $150 bill for data usage.
And this is what Pai is about, instead of abroad sweeping legislation that will be constantly fought over lets create laws that benefit the user and gives consumers what they want on an as-needed basis. The internet is not like telecom and NN is just ancient telecom law.. “common carrier”
You keep saying this... what do you feel is wrong with the old law that the Internet needs to have different? From Pais' actions and all yoru examples, it sounds like the old laws had it right.
This old law is for telecom, NN isn’t old law. It’s 2 years old and no one had any issues before this except p2p issues. Throttling legislation was introduced by Pai in 2012 and was voted down. Everything else was just speculative. And if anything lobbyists got this thing brilliantly beaded and put into law.
-
Here is the overview...
NN: X price and I control what I get with that.
No NN: X price and private companies control what I get with that.The price never changes, that's just obvious economics. NN doesn't change how expensive a packet of data is. Revoking it doesn't change that. What revoking it changes, is which packets I pay more for and which packets I pay less for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Here is the overview...
NN: X price and I control what I get with that.
No NN: X price and private companies control what I get with that.The price never changes, that's just obvious economics. NN doesn't change how expensive a packet of data is. Revoking it doesn't change that. What revoking it changes, is which packets I pay more for and which packets I pay less for.
Why? Why does it never change to free? It’s the same as if they had unlimited data.
If they had it for just Netflix and wouldn’t offer it to any other provider it would definitely be a huge bias and wrong.
But it’s not that, and that’s where I say the law is not written for modern times. It’s was made to be exploited. It solved nothing.
It was named brilliantly.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Here is the overview...
NN: X price and I control what I get with that.
No NN: X price and private companies control what I get with that.The price never changes, that's just obvious economics. NN doesn't change how expensive a packet of data is. Revoking it doesn't change that. What revoking it changes, is which packets I pay more for and which packets I pay less for.
Why? Why does it never change to free? It’s the same as if they had unlimited data.
Because this is basic economics. There is no free, the customer always pays. That's how it works.
This is like the common "free fries" trick. My a hamburger at a higher price, get fries for "free". It's not free, you just paid for it. if you want to make it really appear free, raise the price of the hamburger.
You, as the customer, are the source of income. You will always have to pay for what you get. There is no free, that's always an illusion. You always pay, anything like free or unlimited is just a pay to manipulate your emotions because humans are suckers for the concept of free, even when logically they know it isn't.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If they had it for just Netflix and wouldn’t offer it to any other provider it would definitely be a huge bias and wrong.
But that's how it started. Then it was modified, but it is still for certain TYPES of providers. It's not universal. Unless it is universal, we have a problem.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But it’s not that, and that’s where I say the law is not written for modern times. It’s was made to be exploited. It solved nothing.
It was named brilliantly.
So you keep saying this, but we keep asking what you mean? Net Neutrality was named for exactly what we need. True. So shooting it down is terrible, I agree.
Modern times work just like ancient times, information needs to not get prioritization to manipulate us. How was it exploited? I've heard no rumour of such a thing.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html
Actually looks like all video providers are now signed on... it was simply Verizon who was pissed.
How is this "all", it clearly looks like a really tiny list. Anything but "all".
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But it’s not that, and that’s where I say the law is not written for modern times. It’s was made to be exploited. It solved nothing.
It was named brilliantly.
So you keep saying this, but we keep asking what you mean? Net Neutrality was named for exactly what we need. True. So shooting it down is terrible, I agree.
Modern times work just like ancient times, information needs to not get prioritization to manipulate us. How was it exploited? I've heard no rumour of such a thing.
Then why was Comcast still throttling Netflix to 10mb through the entire life of the bill?
I’ll post some specific verbage on this.
