Done. ng, ng.

ng,ng good get, JM!

Done

Thanks jackt. I'm glad to see that you're back.

done

drwho is wrong again here. Net neutrality is not about what the end user pays. Net neutrality is about regulations to prevent Internet hubs from slowing or blocking traffic. The authoritative answer at https://www.internetsociety.org/policybriefs/\nnetworkneutrality/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3MyGhoOH\n2AIVwSWBCh3IPgYxEAAYASAAEgIeKPD_BwE

to be fair, Dr Who does mention ISP throttling in his initial post. I am not sure why he mentions end user charges? That is already a market driven price. Problematic because so many markets have little or no competition.

Hi lonibelle, my apologies. I didn't read all of the racist's writing, just some of the most recent. I don't really have time for that.

And I meant to edit that before hitting return. Damn. Yes, he has written racist stuff in the past. This is separate and there is not edit button. I'm done.

I have also missed posts in the past. it happens to everyone.

Ionibelle, the people providing content on the internet also have to pay for the bandwidth they use. Yes, the end user charges are loosely based on bandwidth, you pay more for a higher speed connection. Your ISP charges you a flat rate based on average use of all its residential customers. In contrast, your cell phone charges you a flat rate up to a certain maximum then charges you extra for overages.

Content providers are charged for their actual bandwidth use. That would be like a fee for every bit of data they put on the net. So the issue is whose bits get priority when the net is congested. Net neutrality says nobody gets priority! The free market says that you should be able to pay more for the privilege of having your content get priority over others.

Suppose my webpage was given the same priority as Netflix. It would load very fast, but not many people would care. On the other hand Netflix customers would be very unhappy!

Perhaps the most important point that I made in previous posts about net neutrality is that contrary to what the proponents will tell you, net neutrality is not how the net has always worked. It was only put into effect in th US on January 12, 2015. Before that there was only the free market and FTC regulation. Did you notice any difference?

slow starter on this for an easy, but nothing difficult about it

the real issue with net neutrality is not service but content. Much like what has happened with terrestrial radio being bought up by a few large corporsations and only putting on Conservative talk radio and Sinclair broadcasting buying up local TV stations to put forth their Conservative propaganda, allowing the large communication companies to block or slow down access to content that doesn't support their agenda is not good for the public and probably a 1st amendment violation.

So the first amendment is about preventing big corporations from buying up air time? Of course that is not why conservative talk radio is big. Its big because people listen. Of course big business likes that because then there are more people to listen to their advertisements.

Of course that IS why conservative radio is big. They have pushed all the competition off the air. At the corporate level. It is a monopoly plain and simple. Conservative talk radio is big because the game is rigged. Corporate boards will not put on liberal talk, not because they don't make money but because it runs counter to their corporate mission. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al are losing advertisers, ClearChannel stock price is almost worthless. They have been lying to you for almost 40 years now.

Ed Schultz? How do you explain him? He lost his job at MSNBC because of ratings, not because MSNBC only wants to broadcast conservative shows.

If Rush or Hannity had ratings as low as Schultz, they would be off the air too.

drwho the idea that ISPs can block or slow down content so others can get a faster speed by paying more is a classic big business bully boy tactic. It is unfair market dominance that has to be kept in check. There are so many examples where manipulation takes place to drive out the little guy or treat people in an unfair way unethically because of profit, that regulations are required to protect those freedoms. You've only got to look at big pharma to see how poor people around the world suffer because they can't afford ridiculously inflated prices for medicines that are pushed by doctors paid to do so. Everyone is entitled to make a profit, but massive profits at the expense of humanity should be seen as unconscionable.

Start

ding

i solved this problem a long time ago by identifying
as a fast internet user

laughing face with tears = where are the emojis!

Phil, without "unfair" treatment in the market place poor people would have no access to the internet or medicine at all. You get what you can afford. I can't afford the most expensive "new" medicines but I can get by just fine with generics. If I really need a very expensive medicine, I have insurance for that.

Likewise with the internet. If you charge everyone the same and provide the same service, poor people will not be able to afford any access to the internet.

Penguin, if you were referring to me as having "written racist stuff in the past", I would appreciate some evidence to back up that statement.

drwho, I have to say you are wrong on both counts. Universities produce incredible work and made the internet available to all. Likewise they often produce superb new medicines and make them available cost effectively. If governments did more of this research the world would be a fairer and nicer place.

University professors that make new discoveries often leave the University and form their own company so they can profit from their work. If they could not make a profit there would be little incentive to make the discovery available to the public.

In your world it seems you think everyone does things for altruistic reasons.

Far from it, they should be rewarded, but the obsession with excessive profit and excess at the expense of others is sadly too prevalent. If you travel the world there are so many people with very little yet happy, and there are so many with too much that are pretty unpleasant. I know who I'd rather sit around a table and share a meal with.

Yes, but who would you rather be? The poor man or the rich man?

Back to the main discussion, since when do you get to define what excessive profit is? So the question is would you rather have the government determine how much profit is enough or the market?

I understand that Netflix and others have contracts than can be violated and therefore they can sue; I just don't understand why we wouldn't want to make sure that everyone had a flatter playing field. I am worried if your website got slowed down, your voice would be effectively quashed. I just don't fundamentally believe money is speech. Though it certainly appears to talk.

Personally I think the Scandinavians have it about right, high taxes but fair distribution, great healthcare and education and far fewer are left struggling. And guess what, they are happy to pay the taxes. Strange concept I know, but a much fairer and pleasant place as a result.

Does free speech mean you have to subsidize my speech? That would be particularly abhorrent to those who disagree with my speech.

Since when did you pay to speak?

I pay to maintain a website. I can speak freely here as long as the owner of this website allows it. But he is free to shut me down or anyone else here since he is paying for this site.

If you think that all speech is free, meaning no cost you don't live in the real world.

And we are all free to disagree and discuss the merits or otherwise of different viewpoints because of his generosity. He isn't greedy, hopefully made a bit of money from it but no doubt gets pleasure from providing enjoyment to others.

Yes, he make money. If he didn't I doubt that he would maintain this website.

Well, some speech is market-driven (advertising, etc.) and I am perfectly fine with that; but I disagree with the notion that the government cannot regulate or limit campaign speech. So I disagree with Citizens United, for example.

But isn't that exactly what the first amendment is about, preventing the government from regulating political speech?

It's free where I come from unless you break fair and just laws that result in suffering of others.

Going to lunch, bye.

Ionbelle, we are struggling with donations. The major parties think it's fine, but the majority of the people I think would like to end all political donations and have a fixed sum of money for each candidate to advertise, and have to front public forums on national tv and radio. We should not be run be those who are influenced by receiving payments from anyone with an agenda.

Sorry, I was unclear. I don't want the government to regulate content. I want them to regulate the expenditure of cash on campaigns for the good of democracy. Since for me, cash is not speech.

Now if those who invented the blockchain started using it to secure internet voting, we could have many more referenda to give more weight to public policy. The majority are decent fair minded people as recently seen in the same sex marriage vote.

Phil, that would be my preference as well.

This rubbish of visual currencies where people are making millions out of absolutely nothing, it's all virtual, apart from using up ridiculous amounts of the worlds resources in performing the transactions is highlighting how total freedom to do what you want without government intervention is a bad idea.

Anyway, off to sleep, night all.

EZPZ 10.

Done