The Bogosity Forum

The Show => Future Episodes => Topic started by: Virgil0211 on June 13, 2009, 01:56:08 AM

Title: Net Neutrality
Post by: Virgil0211 on June 13, 2009, 01:56:08 AM
I personally don't understand this topic very well, but from what I've read on the Cato Institute's web site, It's more unnecessary intervention into an area that doesn't need it.

Any chances of doing a video about this?

Does anybody know of any good videos concerning the topic on youtube?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: MrBogosity on June 13, 2009, 08:05:16 AM
I'd love to blow this one out of the water. I mean, talk about your blatant corporatism! And also, talk about the government trying to provide a solution to something it created the problem for, without stopping the thing they did to create the problem (government monopoly providers) but by inhibiting the freedom of everyone else.

I remember back when AOL was king. They TRIED to do the things that the scare-mongers peddling net neutrality say will happen, and it didn't work.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 15, 2009, 08:59:13 PM

*nod* Sounds like blatant corporatism to me.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: MrBogosity on August 15, 2009, 09:17:40 PM
Yeah, they'll keep the internet open and free...except when they go in to shut down the site you've been distributing your legally-created videos on...

Assholes.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Lord T Hawkeye on September 03, 2009, 07:39:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ

Ask a Ninja's take.  ^^
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: valvatica on December 11, 2009, 09:57:39 PM
I was under the impression that Net Neutrality meant NO government intervention, but as Virgil has said I'd love to see a video on this because from the searches I've done (even Wikipedia) I just can't get a good picture of what is is and what it isn't. I know what the ICANN is, I know there are companies like VeriSign in charge of .com and .net domains, and I know there are webhosters, whom someone pays to host their website. Isn't the Internet in its current state pretty neutral?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: MrBogosity on December 11, 2009, 10:04:32 PM
It is. Net neutrality is based on fear-mongering, nothing more. The fear is that these big corporations will control what you can and can't do on the internet; but way back when a staggering number of people got on through AOL, AOL TRIED to control what they did, and couldn't.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 11, 2009, 10:11:16 PM
It is. Net neutrality is based on fear-mongering, nothing more. The fear is that these big corporations will control what you can and can't do on the internet; but way back when a staggering number of people got on through AOL, AOL TRIED to control what they did, and couldn't.
Fuck!
Don't even get me started on AOL/Time Warner...
We didn't like their service after we signed up, but they wouldn't stop charging us & giving us the service.
Fucking corporate fascist FUCKERS!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 12, 2009, 04:50:58 AM
Fuck!
Don't even get me started on AOL/Time Warner...
We didn't like their service after we signed up, but they wouldn't stop charging us & giving us the service.
Fucking corporate fascist FUCKERS!

You think Time Warner's bad? Try suddenlink. They're even worse. And Comcast? Well, they're kinda okay. The signal's a bit better, although the customer service system is still an obamanation. The worst part about Comcast, though, is the adverts. They all seem psychotic. One was of these people singing in this emotionless monotone voice how they loved comcast while never changing their facial expressions or anything. It was like some weird Orwellian nightmare. Then another where a mother was singing love songs (as in, from a girl to her boyfriend) as a way of communicating with her son while they were out at dinner. It was to advertise some new music service, but it ended up just being creepy as hell. Comcast just needs to fire their whole advertising department.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: MrBogosity on December 12, 2009, 07:58:49 AM
One wonders how much better cable and DSL internet providers would be if the government didn't guarantee them their monopolies.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on December 12, 2009, 11:31:12 AM
One wonders how much better cable and DSL internet providers would be if the government didn't guarantee them their monopolies.
Wow...
They're government granted monopolies?
Well, I suppose that DOES explain a lot.
Thanks for the input, Shane.  You too Virgil.

Also, I just wonder what the crap was with those slimeballs at AOL/Time Warner constantly scamming us out like that...
Bunch of leeches they are...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Virgil0211 on December 12, 2009, 04:50:00 PM
Wow...
They're government granted monopolies?
Well, I suppose that DOES explain a lot.
Thanks for the input, Shane.  You too Virgil.

Also, I just wonder what the crap was with those slimeballs at AOL/Time Warner constantly scamming us out like that...
Bunch of leeches they are...

Oh, I know. I used to have them. Then Time Warner and Comcast did some kind of chinese fire drill with their customers. Some kinda anti-trust agreement of some sort. Anyway, now we have comcast. Or, at least, my parents did. Then I moved to Huntsville for college and I now have Suddenlink. Suddenlink has a guaranteed monopoly in this city for cable services, and my apartment complex has a contract with them where, if any of the residents want premium television, they have to go through suddenlink. So I either get Suddenlink, or give up my subscription to Anime Network. Choices...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: AHPMB on December 12, 2009, 11:01:02 PM
It's amazing people are still going on about Net Neutrality after it's been proven again, and again, and again how consumer power works against this supposed evil corporate power on the internet without any help from government.  The most recent example being Time/Warner's attempts to implement tiered charges for heavy use customers.  It was met with a revolt by users who started canceling their subscriptions en mass at the very notion of it.  So much for those corporate jack-booted thugs.  Now they're re-implementing the policy only in the areas where regulation grants them a monopoly.  So much for protection.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 08, 2010, 11:04:04 AM
@Virgil:  Me neither.

What exactly IS Net Neutrality?
I don't get it...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: AHPMB on April 08, 2010, 02:14:56 PM
I have no problem with the basic principles of net neutrality...in principle.  By why in the name of zombie Jesus would you put the FCC in charge of it?  What the hell does the FCC do besides stifle creativity, stifle free speech, and prevent free and open competition on every single medium they interact with?  I think insuring that companies do not abuse markets in which they have a commanding share could be much better handled by a private licensing agent.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: MrBogosity on April 08, 2010, 02:58:54 PM
I think insuring that companies do not abuse markets in which they have a commanding share could be much better handled by a private licensing agent.

You don't even need that--all you need is competition. Notice that the big fear is with big cable and DSL companies doing this, and that's because they're given monopolies in their areas by local governments.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on April 08, 2010, 04:11:24 PM
Once again what IS net neutrality?
Seriously...

Is it the government wanting to force internet providers to treat all content equally or something like that?
If so, why not allow competition to do that job by getting rid of current corporatism such as patents and local monopolies.

I ask because I've never been sure on what the situation is or what the proposal is.

Against: 
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: valvatica on May 21, 2010, 04:42:09 AM
Thoughts?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Travis Retriever on May 21, 2010, 05:04:22 AM
That was epic failure on JaguarJ0nes' part.