Here are the words from the link:
Here is what I said about that line:
In what particulars am I incorrect?
I deny that your examples are similar.
So when you say that your examples are undeniably similar, you can see this is clearly inaccurate: I have denied it.
I’m certainly interested in honest debate. Loaded bullshit hypotheticals are not that.
Bricker,
What do you believe will be improved by removing net neutrality?
I believe I answered that question in Post #7:
You’re right there. People can deny anything. Some people deny climate change despite despite evidence that is undeniable to any reasonable scientifically literate person.
Can you explain how the hypotheticals are different? How is a taxi driver privileging certain restaurants over others completely dissimilar to an ISP privileging certain internet traffic over others? Because on the surface they seem remarkably similar.
Since you are so interested in debate, could you possibly be inclined to share this with us? You know, participate in the debate instead of just dismissing it in manner that is hard to interpret as anything but complete and utter hostility to honest debate?
That second sentence could not possibly be typed if the first is true, so again I assume it was an accident.
You claimed the article said “that Madison River blocked Vonage”
When in fact the article said “Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage”
You conveniently left out “voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service” in your assertion.
The original article leaves the discerning reader to believe that MRC blocked the VOIP functions of Vonage.
Your summation is lacking in specific wordage, leaving it open for you to later claim that MRC didn’t block “Vonage web traffic, Vonage SMTP traffic, and Vonage ftp traffic” so therefore they didn’t “block Vonage” which was a claim that only you put forward.
So you put forth a truncated quote in order to later validate your own quote.
But whatever. Your opinions of the news article are not interesting to me. Your opinions on the up-sides of today’s vote are, since you claim that it is “potentially a good thing” but you have yet to put forward anything that can potentially be good about it except for the generalized “less regulation is good”
Do you have anything else to offer that could be considered “potentially a good thing”?
Not to satisfaction.
As has been pointed out, regulations were put in place when monopolies pushed too far. It’s working.
What specifically (or an example) do you think will improve with the de-regulation of internet provider monopolies?
Is it just me or does his answer boil down to “the thing that will be improved by removing these regulations is that these regulations will have been removed”?
It’s not just you.
Almost all opposition to net neutrality comes from 2 camps, in my observation: Those who are ignorant and/or have been lied to. “The internet is great how it is, we don’t need a government takeover of the internet!” (these people actually support neutrality, they just don’t know it) and just a general libertarianish “True freedom doesn’t come from everyone in the world having an equal access to every information, product, and service out there. True freedom comes from 5 or 6 companies in the US having complete control over that information. Their property rights trump everything else. Regulation bad”
Bricker doesn’t appear to even be dressing it up. He must know that this is almost certainly bad for the consumers - acknowledging that he has no problem with ISPs blocking VOIP or streaming video traffic, which is inarguably worse than what consumers have now - and his only proposal for the benefit people will receive in exchange for this is… what, saving a tiny bit of ink when we print up the FCC regulations?
As I read it I imagined, in my head, him saying:
“hyurrr dyuurr less regumulation hyrrr dyrrr”
with glassy, empty-stare eyes and just a bit of drool emerging from the corner of his mouth.
You know, no offense to you, but these types of comments are off-putting towards people who actually want to know the thoughts and opinions of people, especially in this forum. I disagree with **Bricker **on this issue, and agree with the sentiments others are stating, but I’d like to hear actual arguments and/or opinions and not absurd characterizations of people. Not in this forum anyway.
Well, in post 7 he even states that his opposition to net neutrality is because of his faith-based belief that regulations are bad. No evidence needed or provided, just faith that regulations are bad.
IOW, he is a typical Republican.
If the government mandated the kind of internet that we are likely to get absent net neutrality people would be swinging from lampposts. Why are you willing to put up with from the private sector that which you would not be willing to tolerate from government.
My BIL (also a republican that voted for trump) also believes that regulations are bad. Particularly EPA ones. He happens to be the CEO of a company tied into manufacturing oil well equipment.
Yes, you’re right. My apologies to all, Bricker in particular. I shouldn’t have characterized you as a mindless right-wing drone in that manner.
In reality, though, I get the sense that Bricker is somewhat of a contrarian, and to SenorBeef’s point, does know full well that this is bad for consumers. I haven’t seen him offer any serious rebuttal to any of the concerns that have been presented, other than to nitpick and get down to semantics and silly technicalities (the whole Vonage line of reasoning is absurd). I guess it’s tough to break out of lawyer mode.
I definitely agree with you here.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Of course there wasn’t a rule - an explicit rule making an explicit reference to data caps isn’t required to effectively impose a data cap. If you’re treating streaming data and video calls differently than logging on to SDMB, chances are that decision isn’t based on the types of content but rather the volume of data being transmitted. You understand how the law works, but maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand how the internet works.
Come on, he apologized and it seemed sincere.