FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal a Win For Broadband Cos
Epic Fail for Consumers
Seriously, you don't see the problem with what that actually means?
What if your employer gave a raise to every race at your company but yours, and said, "hey I'm not discriminating against your race, I'm just giving the other races more."
Would you call that "racial discrimination" or "racial neutrality"?
No, that isn't how this works. you don't get to just blow off my argument by labeling it invalid. You have to show how it's invalid. And if you aren't willing to do that, then we don't have much basis for discourse.
But I think we're done, as you're not interested in intelligent discourse. I'm convinced you're simply trolling.
>>But I think we're done, as you're not interested in intelligent discourse.
You want intelligent discourse but yet you make insults. People who resort to insulting other people istead of their arguments have run out of logic. But thats ok. I'll be able to intelligently debate you no matter what you throw at me.
>>What if your employer gave a raise to every race at your company but yours, and said, "hey I'm not discriminating against your race, I'm just giving the other races more."
Would you call that "racial discrimination" or "racial neutrality"?
In your example I assume that the employeer would be the ISPs. While myself and my coworkers would be internet companies. You are saying that the the ISPs pay interne...
(continues)
>>You want intelligent discourse but yet you make insults. People who resort to insulting other people istead of their arguments have run out of logic.
I believed you to be intentionally ignoring my argument and purposefully making logical fallacies, hence the insult. Also, you're ignoring the fact that after I insulted you I explained to you what you were doing wrong.
But the insult must have worked because you gave up your little game. As fallacious as it may be, I do commend you for the attempted rebuttal.
>>But thats ok. I'll be able to intelligently debate you no matter what you throw at me.
It hasn't worked so well for you in the past, but you're more than welcome to keep trying. At l...
(continues)
(continues)
If you're paying for internet speeds of 1.5mbps. Then you are going to get that internet speed. But of course that is determined by other internet traffic by your neighbors. That is way internet is slower during peak hours. This FCC proposal would make it so that companies who pay the ISPs would get to deliver their content to you at the speeds you pay for no matter what the internet traffic is.
Ok, but what if I'm paying for 40 Mb/s? Does the proposal guarantee I will get that? No, it doesn't.
>>But of course that is determined by other internet traffic by your neighbors. That is way internet is slower during peak hours.
No, this is why crappy cable internet is slow during peak hours. Because they're lying bastards and they can't deliver the speeds they advertise. DSL, fiber, and satellite only slow down for one of two reasons - servers that deliver the traffic are overloaded and become a bottle neck (not the ISP's fault and not what we're talking about) or the ISP is intentionally throttling the traffic.
But cable companie...
(continues)
Net neutrality doesn't guarantee that you are going to get 40Mb/s either.
You next section also has nothing to do with net neutrality and not entirely accurate, but I think the point is still extremely valid. If we are paying for internet speeds of 50mbps then that is what we should be getting.
You other section about peak times and being the content provider and the content consumer is about peak times. That is a problem that exists right now. Net neutrailty will not help that problem. The proposal of Tom Wheeler would help those companies with deep pockets avoid the problem of peak hours we have now.
However making the poi...
(continues)
No, but it does guarantee that someone else won't be getting it at my expense. It guarantees that I will get equal treatment and that I can use the internet as I see fit, and not as ATT says I should be using it.
>>You next section also has nothing to do with net neutrality
How so? It addresses the problem of network congestion during peak hours, which is a common argument in favor of throttling and traffic discrimination. It seems to me that its one of the key points of the net neutrality debate. It's also a point that you brought up, not me.
>>is about peak times. That is a problem that exists right now. Net neutrailty will not help that problem.
Sur...
(continues)
This forum is closed.