Dumb Political Correctness

ProdigalHorn said:


I feel like things that aren't an attack on the LGBTQ community is becoming a really short list...
Click to expand...


That's dumb and likely a "hey, look at us" attempt by jumping into a big issue with mega media exposure. Could ISP's throttle access to sites focused on LGBT issues? Yes, legally now. Will they? Doubtful. Afterall, ISP's could care less about social issues. They'll only care about $$$. What could happen is that these minority sites can't pay to play thus get throttled for that reason alone. Today, the FCC codified internet fast lanes and slow lanes.
 
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn said:
They say they do so who are we gonna believe?? ;)
Click to expand...
Hmm...all I can say is that they don't give a damn about lesbians. Well, unless the lesbians inject themselves full of testosterone and claim they are men. They have been more focused in the past decade on the men in dresses...
 
Seattle Husker said:
That's dumb and likely simply a "hey, look at us" attempt by jumping into a big issue with mega media exposure.
Click to expand...

Could be - I've also heard BLM activists (or politicians channeling them) make the argument that what we're REALLY talking about is "Internet EQUALITY" - and that BLM sites, online communications, etc... are all now at risk. Abortion providers won't be able to provide information about their services, poor people won't be able to use the internet, everyone but the rich will have slow internet... Man, we live in horrible times.

Honestly, I had mixed feelings about this argument and had basically decided that both sides had valid concerns (even though I feel like it's basically been people who listen to the service providers against people who listen to Google/Facebook/Netflix), but the hysteria of the past few days by the NN advocates have pretty much soured me on it. When you have to start lying to me in order to get me interested, then I'm done. (And yes, that counts for conservatives too.)
 
In reality, your Internet service will move to a model more similar to cable. This is what you can expect. Welcome to your new internet service. If you are a Netflix user, better get the package that includes faster access to Netflix. Do you also enjoy Spotify? Add that package too. A online gamer? Add that package too for faster access to those sites. Do you do all 3? Better get all 3 packages.

All this is unnecessary but WILL happen and has happened in any number of countries that do not have Net Neutrality rules. You need only look to ISP's in Mexico as an example. This is just how Comcast will charge you as a customer. They'll also squeeze internet companies too. The next Google won't be able to pay enough to get into the fast lane.

original.jpg
 
Last edited:
mb227 said:
Hmm...all I can say is that they don't give a damn about lesbians. Well, unless the lesbians inject themselves full of testosterone and claim they are men. They have been more focused in the past decade on the men in dresses...
Click to expand...

That's really what's amazed me about this past year more than anything else. Women have been completely thrown under the bus - the idea that men can identify with women kinda takes the shine of "girl power", and then basically telling women that if they don't want an anatomically male "woman" undressing in front of them, then that's the woman's problem (although at the same time raging and furious over Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer essentially doing the same thing, because seeing a straight male naked against your will is offensive, but seeing an identifying female naked against your will should be OK if you would just lighten up a little.) Not to mention that the message of "be comfortable in your own body and be proud of your gender" takes a hit when your child says "i feel more like a boy than a girl" and the response is "well that's because you shouldn't BE a girl..."
 
Seattle Husker said:
All this is unnecessary but WILL happen and has happened in any number of countries that do not have Net Neutrality rules.
Click to expand...

Do ISPs in Mexico (or those other countries) have any level of competition?

I get that people think this will happen, and maybe it will. But it hadn't happened in all the time leading up to the time when NN was enacted. Somehow the Internet functioned and people got the access they needed. It seemed like the ruling was a reaction to something that MIGHT happen - which is ironic considering no one seems to care what Google, Microsoft, or Amazon MIGHT do with the level of power that they're amassing. They're the ones pushing for NN the hardest - I guess we're only supposed to distrust evil corporations if they don't offer open space offices, play rooms, and free snacks?
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Do ISPs in Mexico (or those other countries) have any level of competition?
Click to expand...

Yes, more competition than the US due to a growing infrastructure in most cases. We've already divided up our infrastructure among national ISPs. A few cable companies get the copper wire into your home (Comcast and Charter have a monopoly that covers >210M customers) and 4 wireless telecoms own the airwaves.

That's it. The race is OVER. There is no more competition but rather these 6 rearranging the table. The US has 6 providers with viable broadband technology capabilities and reach (customer access). Most of the other ~1k are rural providers with sub 100k customers within reach and/or vastly inferior technology like DSL.

Here is the full list annotated by me. The top 2 offer "satellite internet" service which is great if you're in the outback of Australia in a pinch but would cost you $10k/month to deliver what Comcast does in their $100 plan. So you can see the list for yourself here it is.

ISP.PNG



I get that people think this will happen, and maybe it will. But it hadn't happened in all the time leading up to the time when NN was enacted. Somehow the Internet functioned and people got the access they needed.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh...but it DID happen. Comcast already was caught redhanded packet sniffing and throttling Netflix. Verizon slowed down Youtube and others. That was what started the movement toward Net Neutrality. Yes, Net Neutrality was preventative to keep ISP's from evolving this direction. Guess what, an analysis of each of those 6 companies balance sheets shows they invested more in infrastructure during the period that NN was in place than the prior 10 years combined. Clearly NN wasn't stopping internet infrastructure investment which was the false claim of Pai.

It seemed like the ruling was a reaction to something that MIGHT happen - which is ironic considering no one seems to care what Google, Microsoft, or Amazon MIGHT do with the level of power that they're amassing. They're the ones pushing for NN the hardest - I guess we're only supposed to distrust evil corporations if they don't offer open space offices, play rooms, and free snacks?
Click to expand...

So, this WAS happening thus the argument that NN was based on what might happen is based on false information.
 
The internet has become as integral into citizens' lives as television did 40 years ago. The government isn't going to allow "the people" to be without their pacifier ... because it's the ultimate tracking apparatick.

So ... I will embrace it.
 
I say tell the net neutrality hippy weirdos to go back to cable access tv for their communication needs.
 
The problem is always lack of competition... which was created or enforced by the government. The solution to government intervention is always more government?

Investment in the internet slowed 2014-2017 while NN was in place. That leads to a worse situation for consumers. The chairman of the FCC whole lead the charge for this vote claims that investment in the internet should increase in 2018. Regulation usually freezes an industry in place or causes any change to be slow.

The government now needs to go one step further and eliminate the regional monopoly/seller restrictions. Get Comcast, Spectrum, Cox, etc. competing nationally. That would work wonders for consumer choice and price reduction. Reduce barriers to entry as much as possible like available wireless spectra and you will be amazed by what comes out of the electronics industry.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Not true
Click to expand...

really? I suppose, then, the experience of us rural residents in Erath County/et al ... have an experience which is simply an anomaly.

Fiber optic cable was being laid at a mighty clip ... until ... about 2015, come to think of it. We were eagerly anticipating unrestricted internet service. Currently, the only systems available are dial-up (yeah right), satellite (data plans and not very reliable) ... fixed wireless (if you can get LOS to the transceiver 7 miles away in town ...) ... and cellular (also data plans)

AT&T only this year ... has rolled-out REAL unlimited data ... but ... throttling is "possible" after 22 GB. Well ... good grief.

So ... fiber optic was within a few miles of us ... now it may as well be 100 miles ... 10,000 miles cause it's not here. That was driven by the price fixing of NN.

Finally ... if repealing NN will avail us to contemporary internet service, even at 3-4x the price in a metromessplex ... I'll pay it. But with NN, it's not even available. Isn't that the irony? Obama said he was gonna make broadband internet available and affordable to rural residents. It was his NN which stopped it ... cold.
 
Last edited:
Well, SH, the article says some spent less and others spent more. It doesn't discuss an actual industry number. Large companies like Comcast are favored until regulations like NN so I would have to understand more to grant you the point.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Ahhhh...but it DID happen. Comcast already was caught redhanded packet sniffing and throttling Netflix. Verizon slowed down Youtube and others. That was what started the movement toward Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

And at the same time, Netflix admits that it was actually throttling ITSELF...

As I said (I think I said it anyway...) I feel like this is one of those issues where reasonable people are going to have different ideas on the best way to move forward. Both sides I think bring up issues that are valid. Ultimately, what makes me distrustful of the NN movement is that it's a constant drumbeat of the "evil service providers" but that's coming from platforms like Google, Amazon, and Netflix, all of whom want to be able to control the customer. That's what all this is about - who has access to the audience, who controls traffic, who gets eyes on their content?

I haven't been particularly vocal one way or another on this largely because I'm not convinced that at the end of the day, this isn't just a question of which massive market force gets to win out and take control over our computers. I think there has been a lot of time and energy getting users to believe that the Internet is at stake, when what's REALLY at stake is traffic control. Partly also because this is an incredibly complex question, and there are a lot of people smarter and more knowledgeable on the subjects on both sides of the argument.

Ultimately, the fact that we have mechanisms already in place to investigate ISPs who are throttling speeds in conflict with their service agreements, and that those complaints are being heard and investigated, makes me feel like we don't necessarily need more regulations, as much as we need to continue ensuring that things are being done fairly and legally, and that competition barriers aren't being thrown up by either side of the equation.
 
The other game changer in the next few years will be 5G wireless internet for home use. The barriers to entry to the home ISP market will be significantly reduced. We should see more competition for sure. Likely still will not be an efficient market but much better than we have now where most consumers have 1 (2 if you are lucky) choice for high speed home internet.
 
Ahhhh...but it DID happen. Comcast already was caught redhanded packet sniffing and throttling Netflix. Verizon slowed down Youtube and others. That was what started the movement toward Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

Yep - and the move away is a deviously clever trick - start out by gaining market power through use of government power, then lobby to reduce the government power (using "free market" as your claimed reason) and transfer it to yourself. So that way, both the initial "intervention" and the following "nonintervention" both serve to screw the clients and bolster your corporation. And since you can talk out of both sides of your mouth and sincerely claim to be both using regulation and reducing regulation, you may be able find a lot of support from both major parties.

That's really what's amazed me about this past year more than anything else. Women have been completely thrown under the bus - the idea that men can identify with women kinda takes the shine of "girl power", and then basically telling women that if they don't want an anatomically male "woman" undressing in front of them, then that's the woman's problem (although at the same time raging and furious over Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer essentially doing the same thing, because seeing a straight male naked against your will is offensive, but seeing an identifying female naked against your will should be OK if you would just lighten up a little.) Not to mention that the message of "be comfortable in your own body and be proud of your gender" takes a hit when your child says "i feel more like a boy than a girl" and the response is "well that's because you shouldn't BE a girl..."
Click to expand...

This.

Especially when "I feel more like a boy than a girl" usually means "I want to things that society stereotypes as 'boy things'" - progressives saying that this must mean "you really are a boy and not a girl" is them flat-out agreeing with very non-progressive opinions about gender roles.
 
Speaking of PC...my wife is a teacher and was informed that when she returns to school after the holiday she'll have a new student in her class. This student is a high-functioning autistic and transgender 8th grader. When my wife asked the counselor what to call him/her the answer was "they". :yikes:
:mj:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top