Datasets:

dlb

/

mentalreddit

like 2

daddit

>Everyone in Congress understands what Net Neutrality is; we've got to stop thinking these people are literally stupid. Sure, some may struggle on certain concepts, but I would imagine you don't get into the U.S. Senate without an understanding of core concepts of society. Making a *lot* of assumptions here. There is no merit test for higher office. The only requirement is that you get the most votes.

daddit

I just shot soda out my nose. Congress people are so isolated from society they have NO FUCKING CLUE what core concepts of society even are. [They don't do their own shopping](http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/05/us/bush-encounters-the-supermarket-amazed.html). [Lindsey Graham has never sent an email. Not one. Ever.](http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/lindsey-graham-ive-never-sent-email-n319571) And he's on the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. You think he understands ANY of it?

daddit

More like your friend saying "Fuck this." Bringing the milkshake home, and letting everyone drink it with their own straws.

daddit

Someone already commented that this analogy was on "There will be blood". However I don't buy it. Why would someone go on the Internet and lie !?!

daddit

If you ignore advertising, it's pretty accurate actually. Most web content is 'free'. The cost is paid for via advertising.

daddit

And we now have a presidency candidate.

daddit

[I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!](http://youtu.be/s_hFTR6qyEo?t=1m35s)

daddit

It's like that was the point of this post or something.

daddit

What... you mean there aren't thousands of kindergarten classes all over the country having discussions about such basic topics as net neutrality, abortion, gay rights, or Keystone XL? Here I thought every kid was concerned about these very important issues...

daddit

yeah this story is so full of shit

daddit

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding within the general public of who pays for data transmission. For the majority of home users (mobile not included), you pay a fixed fee for unlimited data transfer at a particular rate of transfer. You pay more for faster throughput. This gives you access to the entire internet for that fee at that speed - other factors obviously affect your speed, but that's the idea. On the other end, content providers *also* pay for their connection. In many cases they also pay for the amount of data they transfer as well as the speed of that transfer. That has always been the case and hasn't magically changed. If I want to setup a website, I'll need to host it from somewhere. I could use something like Amazon Web Services, Linode, or even just the built-in hosting solutions at a domain registrar like godaddy.com. I might also choose to purchase my own servers and run them in a datacenter somewhere, perhaps even my own datacenter if I am a large enough content provider. In all of these cases, part of my operating costs will include connectivity/bandwidth/throughput charges or a combination of the three, whether it be usage based or a negotiated flat-rate. Content providers have to pay for their connection to the greater internet, just like you do at home. Very large providers such as netflix, will actually peer directly with a tier 1 backbone provider because they are transferring so much data that they require this kind of beefy connection. There are maybe a dozen [tier 1 providers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network) in the entire world. The one thing they (generally) have in common is that they don't charge one another for traffic between them. They are the backbone of the internet, they are the major highways of data transfer, and they talk to one another for free. Going back to Netflix, they use a tier 1 provider known as Level3. Level3 charges Netflix for its connectivity, so Netflix *is* paying. They always have. What changed is that Comcast didn't like that their peering connection to Level3 was suddenly going to have an increase in traffic due to all Netflix content flowing through that peering point for Comcast's Netflix customers. As far as Netflix is concerned, this isn't their problem. This is a problem between Level3 and Comcast. Eventually Level3 relented and raised its prices to Netflix so it could pay off Comcast, is my understanding of how that particular arrangement ended up. In any case, both the end user and Netflix are paying money. This does not change under net neutrality - which, of course, is a silly thing to say because what we have *right now* is net neutrality. The only thing net neutrality restricts is for the ability of an ISP to filter content from specific sources (netflix, google, mylamewebsite.com, etc.) and treat it any differently from any other content. It can't throttle one while prioritizing another. And, most importantly, it can't charge end users more for one vs another. So most of the internet's bandwidth comes from only a handful of content providers? That may be true, but that's what the users who are accessing that content wish to see. It's the end user's usage that determines the total amount of traffic, and the way that traffic is distributed doesn't really affect an ISP except by giving them an inclination as to which peering points need to be able to handle the most traffic. What if there were 1000 smaller netflixes out there and all of netflix's current traffic was split between them? Would the ISP see any less total traffic? Nope. All net neutrality does is keep the ISPs from double dipping their fees and restricting content access behind paywalls. It keeps them firmly in the role of access provider. End users and content providers will still continue to pay for the investments and infrastructure upgrades needed to keep the internet straws wide enough for all the new, thick, delicious milkshakes. It's just the ISPs might actually have to, you know, invest some money back into their business instead of double dipping and gouging end users and content providers alike. Oh, and as for the analogy to physical roads.. bits and bytes don't wear down wires the way vehicles do roads, and all bits are equal as opposed to real life where shipping trucks are in no way equal to a passenger car in its damage to road surfaces. I am certain that you know this, but you did mention it briefly and I've seen that argument used a lot.. it's a very flawed analogy, though there *is* upkeep and maintenance in an ISP.

daddit

You found the point where this 9yr olds metaphor breaks down. Congratulations. However, consider this: Netflix & Co. are already paying for bandwidth with their own "ISPs" (the people that run their server farms). So if you want to extend the milk shake analogy to reflect this properly it goes like this: You and the Ice Cream manufacturer both buy straws. The Ice Cream manufacturer buys a straw through which the Milk Shake gets put into the cup (the internet) and then the customer buys a straw to suck the milk shake out of the cup (download content to his local devices). What the whole fast lane business means is that the Straw Manufacturer now wants to hand out different straws to the CONSUMER that magically discern between different kinds of Ice Cream and let certain types of Ice Cream pass at a higher rate (liter per second). And this will not be based on the thickness of the ice cream (which would be amount of data transported), but the FLAVOUR of the ice cream (whether you are watching videos on netflix, youtube or hulu).

daddit

>Problem is the consumer has a thing for thicker shakes and just wants thicker and thicker shakes. So the straw maker has to raise the price of the straw. The shake lover yells "foul", I should be able to have the thickest shake I want and not have to worry about how you make the straw." I think most consumers, if not all consumers, recognize that more bandwidth = more money. I pay for a 50x5 connection at my home instead of soldiering on with a 3.5Mbps line, stridently demanding that "someone out there do something". In the long term, codecs will improve, and technology makes that "thicker milkshake" more lightweight (a la gfycat HTML5 for large moving graphics instead of a huge and bloated .gif file). In the short term I think everybody gets that if you want a bigger pipe, you pay bigger money. Nobody's got their hand out. We're Americans. We generally abhor that tactic. >Netflix and other such services are said to use 60% of the available bandwidth. They are using an already developed infrastructure and offering a product that increasingly taxes that infrastructure. Yet no one is willing to pay to keep that infrastructure in place. Where do our monthly service fees go? Do you really think a major telco or cable company is charging just enough to keep the lights on, with no margin for R&D, service expansion, growth, profit? Asking a different way, do you think a major cable ISP would behave that way when, in many cases, they have government-supported localized monopolies that prevent other companies from establishing a foothold? If Comcast is the only option to get service in your area, do you *really* think they're charging bottom dollar... with no competition? >If a hotel went up down the street form you and all of a sudden your taxes went up to develop the water/sewer lines that could handle the new flow we'd all be screaming for the hotel to pay for it, they caused the problem. I don't have kids but I pay a fee to keep county schools running. I'm alright with it as I see the necessity. Governments use eminent domain for corporate interests on a sometimes basis, which sucks, and people complain about. This isn't a new problem; re-casting it as such because it's Internet-related isn't valuable. >Look, I don't have an answer; I just think this one is wrought with problems. Why, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THESE PEOPLE PROPOSE!!!!!!!! I believe this is a Republican talking point. Beyond that I don't think it has much semantic value. If you're upset at people supporting what you don't know, you should be upset at yourself for opposing what you don't know. *You shouldn't have a valid opinion*, yet you do. Sum it up as "we have no idea" and move forward, would be my recommendation.

daddit

The simplest solution would be to stop the government monopoly on straw sellers in a given area and let anyone sell straws. The FCC started this by stopping the laws that prevent cities from making broadband networks. Competition in straws, not price gouging by monopolies, is what will determine the real price for Internet service. We have no idea how efficiently Comcast is run, so making it compete will force it to be more efficient.

daddit

> Yet no one is willing to pay to keep that infrastructure in place. I'll just leave [this](http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html) here. Not only did we already pay to keep it in place, but we paid to improve it. This article is 8 years old, but at that time, we were all supposed to be at 45 Mbps down ***and*** up. We were all supposed to be on fiber by now, or at the very least, a fiber-coax hybrid. Read [this](http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm) for a nice summary on the **$200 billion** plus dollars that were calculated from profit and tax deductions. We already invested in the straw company making bigger, stronger straws, and they took that money and pocketed it instead. Now they're complaining because we're using up their bandwidth that should have been increased up to 10,000-fold at the backbone. They knew we wanted thicker milkshakes, but didn't care about the future. Also, I will add, it's totally acceptable to tax a business. The problem is, they should be taxing the telecoms, not giving them tax breaks. Content providers already pay taxes, they pay connection fees, bandwidth usage fees, and associated taxes. Meanwhile the Verizons and Coxes get breaks. They turn around and use that money to lobby politicians to vote in their favor.

daddit

Except that there are way more straws than we could ever use, and the straw sellers are dragging their feet on making more/better available to maintain their stranglehold. Meanwhile in other countries people are living in a wide straw paradise.

daddit

The straw makers have already been given billions in tax advantages to make more straws. They just pocketed that money, though, and are now making the same claims you are. Or they magically find enough straws to let you drink as much milkshake as you want. As long as you get it from them and not the ice cream shop you want

daddit

Well ice cream store has increased their order of ice cream and have enough to meet the demand. The straw company would be able to meet the demand as well if they started making and selling the more efficient fiber straws the government gave them a lot of money to make. The straw company though realizes that they are the only way the consumer (that's you) can get those delicious milkshakes so instead of trying to solve the problem they want to create an artificial crisis so they can gouge the customer and the ice cream store. They want to sell the same straw to both of them and they want to charge for anything larger than their standard straw (which is really a repurposed stir stick). Meanwhile, Google has decided to get into the straw business and starts making those new fiber straws that are so efficient (they help you poop better too!) and selling them at reasonable prices. The other straw companies are mad because they aren't used to the competition and now have to start selling better straws at a lower rate to compete with Google. Though, customers who are tired of their bullshit are switching to google straws and not looking back. What are the bad straw companies to do?? They figure if they can pay enough people in government to make it so that they are the only ones who can sell straws and stop Google from selling straws in as many cities as they can - they can continue to gouge both the customer and the ice cream store. So now they pour money into politics because for every dollar they spend buying a congressman they make back hundreds.

daddit

They're selling straws at multiple times what they cost to make, and they received government money to invest in better and bigger straw technology.

daddit

Your analogy is messed up now. You are putting the burden on the ice cream store. Net Neutrality isn't about the ice cream store. It's about the straw seller. Without Net Neutrality, the straw guy can pinch your straw *only* when you drink a peanut butter chocolate chip milkshake if he wants to, then say "That peanut butter chocolate chip sure is hard to drink. Why not have vanilla instead? Better yet, let's go to the shop across the street. Their peanut butter chocolate chip is almost as good, and it's not nearly as hard to drink." Without Net Neutrality, providers can choose to throttle certain content for literally any reason they want. That's not to say that the *way* they have gone about this is anything short of ludicrous, but that's the grand idea behind it. The real problem now is that they have basically turned the internet into a government controlled public utility with everything that goes along with that. Writing a political blog on your tumblr? You're on publically regulated internet now, pal, you better follow FEC guidelines or be prepared for fines. Maybe they don't do that after all. But as of now, they can. Before the vote, they couldn't. They basically looked at the straw problem and said "Okay, if you guys can't play fair we're just going to make it where the only straws you can sell are government approved. Oh, and since we're doing that, now *we* get to decide what ice cream you can make too if we want to."

daddit

Let market forces dictate the price of straws, without restricting their use.

daddit

DRAAAIIIIIIINAAAGE!

daddit

That'd be ridiculous. You'd have to have a bowling alley for the length of the straw.

daddit

Now that's an amaizing idea :D

daddit

I concur. Can we get OP's son's thoughts on other ELI5 topics?

daddit

The funny part is you think his son actually came up with this.

daddit

His 'son'. Also, that's quite some hyperbole you got there.

daddit

TIL that I am not smarter than a 9 year old.

daddit

Like, seriously. I've always said that in our time, with the internet at our fingertips (usually right in our pocket), the way teaching works is becoming extremely obsolete very quickly. The fact that his son had a question and knew well enough to "simply" google it means he's part of that next generation already; the one that is going to be accustomed to having the biggest library of information available to them at any moment. The internet has to stay free or it will probably have the largest effect on slowing down general human progress.

daddit

The content providers, or websites.

daddit

Everyone who creates internet content that we, the consumer, accesses through our straw.

daddit

web services like youtube or netflix or amazon etc.

daddit

The person pinching the straw is Comcast, but the store is more Netflix. Comcast is restricting customers from enjoying Netflix because Netflix hasn't paid them.

daddit

netflix

daddit

Like TSA PreCheck lines!

daddit

Bingo

daddit

Ice cream stores are the websites. The guy selling you a straw is the ISP.

daddit

Well, how about they sell you overpriced skinny straws while the guy getting the house special gets the thick bubble tea straw?

daddit

The flaw in this argument is that it absolutely didn't fucking happen.

daddit

well, I mean he is 9

daddit

Good thing that you backed this post up with citations rather than drifting off on a huge unfounded slippery slope argument.

daddit

[deleted]

daddit

no because that is fantasy. in this analogy the ISPs are the straw sellers, the FCC is regulating the ISPs not the milkshake people (i assume the website operators in this analogy) so they are free to make whatever flavour of milkshake they want, the cops are just regulating at most the size and shape of the straw and what the straw seller can do with that straw.

daddit

I think the straw is the connection to the milkshake which is the internet.

daddit

If that something is _lying_...

daddit

I second this idea...

daddit

Well, that subreddit name is too long, but this one wasn't: /r/explainlikeimelected

daddit

Just so you know, apparently a lot of things congress don't understand are explained to them with analogy. There was a funny one a while ago misrepresenting how the internet and mobile networks actually work by using some school boy analogy about the postal service or something equally stupid. I hope other users can remember the example as it's so stupid. (one example http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/14/985157/-Good-analogy-bad-analogy) > Kansas state rep. Pete DeGraaf's analogy is a terrible basis for an argument by analogy. But note, it isn't because pregnancy due to rape and a flat tire can't be compared--they can be compared, and the two cases have lots of properties in common. (This isn't surprising--virtually any two things have lots of properties in common. For example--every object has the property 'being self-identical'! Similarity is very, very cheap.) The problem is that pregnancy due to rape and a flat tire don't have many relevant properties in common in the context of a debate about health insurance. Hence, argument fail. > As Thomson shows us, analogy can be a powerful basis for an argument; as DeGraaf shows us, analogy can be an argumentative pitfall for the stupid. A very nice way of separating the two is to formalize the argument and then remember the maxim: 'Similiarity is cheap; relevance is expensive.' By understanding the underlying structures of arguments, we learn to use good arguments more effectively and disarm bad arguments more efficiently. Edit:spelling

daddit

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) to Firefox and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

daddit

I can't afford that.

daddit

I dont think I can talk that dumb.

daddit

My milkshakes bring congress to the yard and theyre like all pinching my straws damn right, just pinching my staws I could stop them, but they want to charge.

daddit

But not all the straws all the time. They'd pinch the ones in the Netflix flavored shakes, and maybe the ones for flavors they just didn't like, and maybe if it's busy they'd pinch everyone's straws just a little bit for most flavors. But the shop's special? That one would always flow just fine.

daddit

I don't see how this is different. Opponents have been grasping at straws for years.

daddit

The "Straw Freedom Act of 2015"

daddit

Or they would start drinking your milkshake.

daddit

Or declaring him a terrorist.

daddit

they will start taxing thicker straws, instead.

daddit

I demand my right to having non pinched straws!

daddit

The internet is, after all, a series of straws.

daddit

The greatest trick Congress ever played was convincing the public they were simply ignorant jackasses.

daddit

They don't even have to play dumb, congress is pro consumer gouging, because that means more money (since when have politicians cared if poor people have money, they aren't getting campaign financing from poor people).

daddit

All of congress understands.

daddit

They're not playing dumb, they're playing which side of the issue is going to pay me more money to back their position.

daddit

It's not just that they're fine with it, they love it. Anything that involves sticking out your hand and saying "Pay me more money" is right up their alley.

daddit

There are actually good reasons to believe that applying Title II is in fact the wrong move. But, only in a universe wherein Congress is able to craft laws that serve the citizenry and are willing to do so in order to address a public need. Since we don't live in that magical universe and have a congress that actively refuses to govern, then applying title II is a necessary compromise.

daddit

As with everything else.

daddit

No, you are completely right, and it's something that has been going on since way back when we were simply a set of 13 British colonies. Even after the Revolution when the North gave up slavery (even though they didn't have that many slaves to begin with, relatively speaking), the South didn't and really COULDN'T because so much of their economy was based around slave labor, that to do so would cause such an economic disaster that they deemed it a necessary thing to keep going on with.

daddit

Your first mistake is assuming they are all educated.

daddit

"Free milkshakes, what is this socialism? Thanks, Obama"

daddit

Why do you think they pretend climate change isn't happening, or that abstinence only sex education doesn't lead to more abortions? Because the party has become so tied to ideology, they constantly shoot themselves in the foot. They constantly trade off short term profit despite long term losses, *even in their own political future*, because *that's what the party platform is about*. If you want to emulate a dysfunctional business, more concerned about the next quarter's profits than they are about existing a couple years down the road, this is exactly what you're going to get, the parallels are pretty clear. In a short sighted attempt to continue to be relevant the party has shifted to cater towards the most fundamentalist, hard right faction of the right wing, to extract voters from a dwindling pool of the most zealous of the base, instead of changing their platform, which only further alienates moderates. Why is it short-sighted? The problem with that strategy is that it isn't sustainable. And I'm not just hand-waving here, I mean it isn't *demographically* sustainable, it isn't sustainable based on population and polling data. Millennials and younger generations consistently are polling more and more liberal (even at the same age) than the the Baby Boomer generation did, and it's because the Republicans have driven moderates completely out of their party. Whatever. You can't explain concepts like long-term prosperity to voters that still buy into a party that has unfortunately been captured by short term business interests and been molded to serve them (which are not compatible, for a million reasons, with the interests of the consumer), even to save themselves from decimating their own future political influence.

daddit

Well, they've done pretty well the last two elections. So, they think "stay the course." Younger voters have a low turn out and vote heavily Democratic anyway, so they really don't care because they aren't a target demographic for the GOP.

daddit

2015 Shamrock Fun Run for Congress!

daddit

No! I like the analogy, but we already have enough people in congress with this age appropriate mentality! His father should run for congress for educating his child and being a responsible adult!

daddit

DRAINAGE!!!

daddit

Would you say... you're finished?

daddit

Damn it... That's the one thing we can't get around! He can lie about his age, but they have a damned soul detector that is highly accurate. It can tell if a turd has a little soul left.

daddit

A congress of 9 year old gingers then!

daddit

In that case, I move to have him appointed as the newest Advisor to Congress in accordance with Object Tweleve of the Evil Overlord List: >One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation. Sadly your son is not five years old, but beggars can't be choosers.

daddit

I'm pretty sure most people in congress are deliberately incompetent.

daddit

"Isis is the bad guys who kidnap and kill people but they're on the other side of the world, so we're safe. And we have flying robots to kill them and they don't have any flying robots." "But what if they steal one of our flying robots and send it over here?" "..... DAAAAAAAAD?!"

daddit

Just yesterday, my 7 month old was discussing a public opinion poll on Ukrainian views about Crimea, relations with Russia, and U.S. aid to Ukraine. My wife says she was just colicky and spitting up on herself, but I know better.

daddit

[deleted]

daddit

Hey, thanks! I didn't know this when I made it but apparently it's very close to a Phish song (and a bib Dylan song)

daddit

Yeah, me too, but trying to figure out the timing.

daddit

I've got a seven year old daughter who's a lot like your nieces. Her two favorite things are watching StampyLongNose play Minecraft on YouTube and making stop motion videos with her Legos using a free iPad app.

daddit

My 8 year old cousin googled "Naykid gerls on motorcycles" in the middle of the living room. He's not smart.

daddit

In a way, we all want2believe.

daddit

When I was 8 year old nephew is learning to program and has already made some very basic video games. My 11 year old niece just built her first computer all by herself. Both of them know what net neutrality is. Kids deveolop at different rates and have a huge variety of interests. The story may be made up, but it could also be entirely true.

daddit

I believe it. I've got a 9 y/o little brother and he knows a lot more about current events than I imagine he would. I still remember lower school arguments during presidential election season. We were all talking out of our asses, basically, but we still were well aware of what was going on. This was soon after 9/11 though, so maybe that had something to do with ten year olds gaining awareness of domestic politics.

daddit

I remember being super opinionated about DRM and talking a lot about that when I was around 10. That was a thing that touched my life personally and we had all these tech magazines at home that I learned a lot from. I could definitely see net neutrality being a similarly important thing to someone of that age now.

daddit

My boss' 5yo understands the difference between fixed and variable costs, and can explain it using real examples. Boss is an economist and she and her husband talk about work in front of the kids. The kids ask questions about things they overhear, and mum and dad answer them. The concepts they pick up are pretty impressive.

daddit

My ten-year-old comes up with some amazingly insightful questions and comments sometimes, so yeah, let's not brush off kid's capabilities to take part in intelligent conversation.

daddit

I'm an optimist when it comes to these types of things. Kids are very unique and since there are millions of them, one of them is bound to say something profound. When I was a kid, I'd tell my friends about anything and everything that I had sort of learned about. Usually it was a whole bunch of pointless garbage, but that doesn't mean everything every kid ever says is garbage. But again, that's just me. If it is all bs, who cares? Literally doesn't effect me at all.

daddit

because i know nine and ten year olds and they aren't so stupid that this is impossible i know some that are, but i also know some that aren't. they also know bullshit pretty well: they deal with the same stuff from everyone around them (from their point of view) all of the time. if anything they all find it funny that there's some super "dad" or mega "teacher" that's doing something similar to all of us. plus, the internet is a lot more available to kids now, and even when i was that age a couple decades ago, i spent a long time on forums and stuff just reading things. i probably knew a lot of things kids generally didn't know (and meanwhile didn't know a lot of things they are expected to)

daddit

I just think most people don't care...

daddit

He might have said it but he's just regurgitating what OP told him with an analogy. I really doubt he informed himself about it.

daddit

First thing I thought.

daddit

It always puzzles me that people think the solution to corrupt politicians is just new politicians.

daddit

It's hard to refute monopoly status when Comcast, Warner, etc have exclusivity deals for CATV service in most counties/cities. Are Verizon FiOS and Google Fiber even close to enough of a threat to alter their behavior? Anyway, to me, breaking the government commissioned monopolies and enforcing antitrust laws should be sufficient and appropriate, not a new bureaucratic framework.