I don't really understand net neutrality

[Lancecastor]

Net Neutrality is a no-brainer.

If you're against it, you're an idiot. really.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Net Neutrality is a no-brainer.

If you're against it, you're an idiot. really.

Ishmael sez the invisible hand of the market is all that is needed for a reach-around!

 

[Lancecastor]

Ishmael sez the invisible hand of the market is all that is needed for a reach-around!

Ishmael would have let the global financial system collapse in 2008 as well.

And the competition between tin can and string companies would be Pure Capitalism!

 

[eyer]

A strong argument could be made that internet access has become a utility like lights in the room, water in the room, phone service in the room. They are all taken for granted now and they are all utilities. Soon internet access will be taken for granted.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America's electrical grid a D+.

...the AMSCE grades America's drinking water infrastructure a D.

The AMSCE gives America's infrastructure overall a D+...

...here's how they individually grade other government utilityesque responsibilities:

Aviation - D
Bridges - D
Dams - D
Hazardous Waste - D
Inland Waterways - D-
Levees - D-
Ports - C
Public Parks and Recreation - C-
Rail - C+
Roads - D
Schools - D
Solid Waste - B-
Transit - D
Wastewater - D

What reason whatsoever is there to even hope that after the federal government regulates total control over the Internet in America...

...it'll will grade anything above a D+?

What reasons are there to hope that if the Congress dictates by law that the Internet in America must remain free of FCC Title II regulation, it can achieve better than a D+?

 

[Ishmael]

Net Neutrality is a no-brainer.

If you're against it, you're an idiot. really.

Of course, massive tax and fee increases. Content control, spill over into the TV market and production price controls.

And what is the consumer going to get for these increased taxes and fees? Not a God damned thing. Better get used to the 'buffering' icon on your 'puter and smart TV because you're going to be seeing a lot of it if these regs are allowed to stand.

And of course you exhibit your abysmal ignorance with your 'tin can and string' simile, aren't yah Lance? We didn't see technological leaps in the phone industry, along with better, and cheaper, service until AT&T was broken up and the industry deregulated. And what we're seeing now is the FCC attempting to apply a reg. written in the 1930's to deal with what was essentially a monopoly market to the internet. In other words trying to apply telephone rules that were shit canned in the 70's and with good reason. And morons like you think this is a good idea.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Net Neutrality is a no-brainer.

If you're against it, you're an idiot. really.

So...as long as a stack of papers has "neutrality" on the front of it, it's a go?

Kind of like if a bigger stack of papers had "affordable" right there in the title, it caused prices to plummet?

No-brainer, indeed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hang on, Ishmael! Help is on teh way!

Query to teh "Bro Cavalry" rescue!

 

[Lancecastor]

AT&T proposed its divestiture, if you want to be accurate.

Keep in mind....much of the Network was capitalized in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

When the breakup occurred, it was costing AT&T something like 1/10 of 1 Cent to deliver a call anywhere in America.

And they wound up selling LD at Wholesale to the Baby Bells at 1.5-2 cents a minute.

HUGE profits, even with Regulations.


The main point is this....the ILEC has a huge advantage both in telecom and IP.

Without Net Neutrality, Ishmael, you are supporting Monopoly Capitalism and not a Free Market.

The people that built the network made lots and lots of money....and as others have suggested, communications (like other forms of transport) are integral/essential services that deserve an equalizing public thumb on the scale for the greater good.

 

[Ishmael]

AT&T proposed its divestiture, if you want to be accurate.

Keep in mind....much of the Network was capitalized in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

When the breakup occurred, it was costing AT&T something like 1/10 of 1 Cent to deliver a call anywhere in America.

And they wound up selling LD at Wholesale to the Baby Bells at 1.5-2 cents a minute.

HUGE profits, even with Regulations.


The main point is this....the ILEC has a huge advantage both in telecom and IP.

Without Net Neutrality, Ishmael, you are supporting Monopoly Capitalism and not a Free Market.

The people that built the network made lots and lots of money....and as others have suggested, communications (like other forms of transport) are integral/essential services that deserve an equalizing public thumb on the scale for the greater good.

Quite the opposite Lance. Competition can be achieved without the imposition of these regs. Asa a matter of fact on small part of the proposed regs does that without invoking Titile II. The proposed regs are actually going to go a long way to foster monopolies, or at least status quo, by imposing unsupportable fees and regs on small providers.

And all of this because of a business dispute between Comcast and Netflix, a dispute that Comcast was going to lose in the long run.

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

Of course, massive tax and fee increases. Content control, spill over into the TV market and production price controls.

And what is the consumer going to get for these increased taxes and fees? Not a God damned thing. Better get used to the 'buffering' icon on your 'puter and smart TV because you're going to be seeing a lot of it if these regs are allowed to stand.

And of course you exhibit your abysmal ignorance with your 'tin can and string' simile, aren't yah Lance? We didn't see technological leaps in the phone industry, along with better, and cheaper, service until AT&T was broken up and the industry deregulated. And what we're seeing now is the FCC attempting to apply a reg. written in the 1930's to deal with what was essentially a monopoly market to the internet. In other words trying to apply telephone rules that were shit canned in the 70's and with good reason. And morons like you think this is a good idea.

Ishmael

Just a point of order: The statute was written in the 1930s but the regulations are just proposed at the moment.

Statute - Legislative Branch.
Regulation - Executive Branch.

 

[Lancecastor]

Funny...Netflix also threw a wrench in Canada's recent CRTC regulatory hearings by refusing to provide their revenue and subscriber figures.

IP content providers are smart, you see...Content and Transport are two separate issues.

(The Telecoms were never allowed to charge more for talking fast on the telephone...were they?)

Transport is Transport...bits are bits.

Networks will eventually have to be neutral, or Technology will be stymied.

And because ongoing North American Superiority relies upon Technological Superiority, that's the way this is going to have to shake out.

/end thread.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Funny...Netflix also threw a wrench in Canada's recent CRTC regulatory hearings by refusing to provide their revenue and subscriber figures.

IP content providers are smart, you see...Content and Transport are two separate issues.

(The Telecoms were never allowed to charge more for talking fast on the telephone...were they?)

Transport is Transport...bits are bits.

Networks will eventually have to be neutral, or Technology will be stymied.

And because ongoing North American Superiority relies upon Technological Superiority, that's the way this is going to have to shake out.

/end thread.

Excellent summation.

 

[about_average]

Congress also wrote the Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC...

...and it's current Chairman no doubt lobbied for legislation to lock cell phones, as did probably one, if not two of the current FCC Commissioners.

I assume you have some special knowledge of that. I haven't seen any evidence of it.
I do know that telecommunication industry lobbyists "appealed" to congress to make sure it was illegal, and lobbied the Librarian of Congress to not issue another fair use exemption last time

 

[GarrettTX1]

One Dem on the FCC is sounding off now as well. I'm very concerned about the whole you'll find out what's in it after we pass it process here and think it should revealed to the public before votes are cast.

Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules - TheHill.com Article

A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned. Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down. It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself about backing tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules - since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.

 

[about_average]

That's gotta be one of the most stupidly ridiculous offerings I've read on the GB in a while...

Partial credit.
It's been around 13 or 14 years years and I forgot about the "primarily designed" clause. But it did make it illegal to buy a DVD in Europe and watch it in the US on anything other than a officially approved device.
And yeah, I guess it's been "a while" since you claimed to know better how to refer to generals than the Army, Air Force and Marines.

 

[RobDownSouth]

One Dem on the FCC is sounding off now as well. I'm very concerned about the whole you'll find out what's in it after we pass it process here and think it should revealed to the public before votes are cast.

Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules - TheHill.com Article

Mignon Clyburn is an empty suit. She tries to be all things to everyone.
She did a Reddit AskMeAnything and got annihilated for her evasive answers on Net Neutrality.

Don't trust her.

 

[eyer]

I assume you have some special knowledge of that. I haven't seen any evidence of it.
I do know that telecommunication industry lobbyists "appealed" to congress to make sure it was illegal, and lobbied the Librarian of Congress to not issue another fair use exemption last time

I posted snippets of the resumes of the current Chairman and 4 Commissioners of the FCC a few posts back...

...why don't you read the Chairman's and discover who he made his living lobbying for before President Obama nominated him to the FCC and then appointed him as Chairman?

Do you reckon that raising over $500,000 for the President's campaigns had anything to do with the Title II water bucket he's carrying for the President as Chairman of the FCC now?

Geezus Christ...

...progressive bozos on this Board wail about how business and government are in bed with each other all the time, yet when it's happening with their political Party of choice it all of a sudden becomes for the good of the country or some other crap.

And, please...

...can someone - ANYONE - define "net neutrality" without any partisan political Party spin to it?

Yeah, that's what I thought...

...this entire "net neutrality" issue is nothing but the same, old partisan politics crap.

The only side for anyone interested in keeping the Internet as freely evolving as it is now is to side with whatever action dictates the very least amount of federal government regulation...

...essentially all the "utilities" (as I listed above) government has voted itself the grand right to regulate are virtually all in sad, sad shape. The government hasn't even seen fit to fulfill any obligation to keep those utilities up-to-date, let alone continually improving them.

Can someone - ANYONE - provide any feasible reason(s) how total federal government regulation over the Internet will not give us the very same D+ result?

My issue is making and keeping all Americans' access to the Internet as unrestricted as possible while, at the same time, establishing America as having the fastest and most dependable Internet speeds and service the world offers...

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

There will be no more vital American economic/employment issue in the next 50 years than to make the Internet the awesome tool it has the potential to be for so many people. Today in America, we are stifling ourselves of that grand opportunity...

...elect me as Congress/President/Supreme Court, and the very first second I am in Office I will sign my own bill which opens the taxpayers' piggy bank to establishing blazing-fast and ultra-dependable Internet service to every American, and do it with the very least amount of federal government regulation and with the very most amount of free market input.

VOTE for EYER for KING​

 

[BotanyBoy]

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

Are you saying the internet, arguably the closest thing to a legal free market that the US and it's citizens have EVER had access to, is currently being stifled to death by draconian policy?

 

[eyer]

Partial credit.
It's been around 13 or 14 years years and I forgot about the "primarily designed" clause. But it did make it illegal to buy a DVD in Europe and watch it in the US on anything other than a officially approved device.
And yeah, I guess it's been "a while" since you claimed to know better how to refer to generals than the Army, Air Force and Marines.

Here it is again:

The DMCA made black magic markers illegal to manufacture, sell or possess because they could be used to defeat some CD copy protection.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=65509411&postcount=71

And just so you know...

...it has been recorded for posterity and for future reference.

 

[snugglestruggle]

I think it doesn't matter if there is a legit issue or not, it's going to end with the government creating a fee, tax or requiring a special license just to generate more revenue they can spend.

 

[eyer]

Are you saying the internet, arguably the closest thing to a legal free market that the US and it's citizens have EVER had access to, is currently being stifled to death by draconian policy?

I did not post such foolishness as your "arguably the closest thing to a legal free market that the US and it's citizens have EVER had access to"...

...nor did I post your "being stifled to death by draconian policy?"

Why is it always impossible for you to work from what others actually post...

...than just acting-out the psycho-drama always playing in your own mind?

Dazed and ...

...indeed.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why is it always impossible for you to work from what others actually post...

Why is it always impossible for you to simple answer a direct question? EVER?

I'm thinking chicken shit bitch who can't back up his RW whackadoodle so himz muster up all the conservative personal responsibility to dodge and weave all he can.


Are you saying the internet, arguably the closest thing to a legal free market that the US and it's citizens have EVER had access to, is currently being stifled to death by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question fucktard....think you can manage?

 

[about_average]

Here it is again:



And just so you know...

...it has been recorded for posterity and for future reference.

Were you trying to make a point?
Maybe trying to "prove" I denied a post I post I made? Which, of course, i didn't do.

At least you didn't try to deny your "most stupidly ridiculous offering" on the GB.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think it doesn't matter if there is a legit issue or not, it's going to end with the government creating a fee, tax or requiring a special license just to generate more revenue they can spend.

Better hide under the bed where it's safe then.
Send Mom out for more Cheetos when the supply gets low.

#BlackHelicopters
#Chemtrails

 

[eyer]

....think you can manage?

Think you can quote me instead of posting your very own words just to get off again by stirring the shit that's left of your brain matter?

How 'bout you...

...have you quit beating those little children yet?

"It's a yes or no question fucktard....think you can manage? "