http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
QuoteThe Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."
I honestly don't know what to make of this.
I'm on several mailing lists that tend toward a free internet, and they were lobbying *for* Net Neutrality. The argument for regulation was that ISPs were going to (continue) to throttle internet speeds of sites like Netflix unless they coughed up more money.
Sounds legit.
But now I find out that this is really just a major power grab and a huge move to regulate the internet from top to bottom. Predictions are that we're going to see a slower internet and less innovation. So now I'm questioning my original position. I like the net as it is now (sans government spyware). Not sure why we need to change it.
Unusual for me, but I'm undecided as well. There is an old maxim that amounts to making a decision based on who opposes a thing. In this case, Comcast fought against it, which makes me for it....for now.
Anything the government touches turns to shit.
Please remember when I've been shipped to Guantanamo.
Just don't send Star.
me and Gus will save ya buddy!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fperfectlycursedlife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2Fshit-just-got-real.gif&hash=a9f8e5c2ae32b0a9f2933c78240a4448da75e74f)
Gus of course being the angry short guy.
Quote from: mirth on February 26, 2015, 08:03:38 PM
Anything the government touches turns to shit.
Please remember when I've been shipped to Guantanamo.
Just don't send Star.
And that's the flip side of the equation. Seems like a potential "lose-lose" situation for us common folks.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on February 26, 2015, 08:12:41 PM
me and Gus will save ya buddy!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fperfectlycursedlife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2Fshit-just-got-real.gif&hash=a9f8e5c2ae32b0a9f2933c78240a4448da75e74f)
Gus of course being the angry short guy.
I don't mind the ankle biting so much
It was my understanding that they had to pass it to know what is in it. I haven't kept up this, so maybe they did release the details before the vote.
Quote from: mirth on February 26, 2015, 08:03:38 PM
Please remember when I've been shipped to Guantanamo.
Didn't you see? They've got a winter vacation home open now in Chicago: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=12825.msg334225#msg334225
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on February 26, 2015, 01:30:14 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
QuoteThe Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."
Oh, and as for whether pr0n is "safe" or not - one report I heard suggested otherwise: remember, this is the same government which implemented decency standards for the FCC. There is nothing to prevent that wisdom from being introduced to the internet.
no one likes Japanese pixel pr0n.
I just assume when an unelected bureaucrat says they are going to pass a regulation; it translates into restricting rights, freedoms, and intended to create impediments to growth and development. Fucking assholes. I've been against this from the being. It's a political power grab period. Jackasses.
The jackasses are the assholes on the FCC board not you fine gentlemen.
How can I ever support anything that threatens to take my porn away??
I'm definitely for the principles of net neutrality. As Steelie pointed out, Comcast is opposed to the concept, which pretty much makes me in favor of it automatically.
Now, as to how those principles are enforced...that's potentially a very different matter. Time will tell.
My previous comments aside, I disagree about this being a government power grab. The free market has ill served the U.S. public when it comes to providing high speed, reliable internet service at a reasonable price (we rank at the bottom of industrialized nations for speed and pricing of internet service).
Internet access has become a public utility at this point - everyone pretty much needs it as part of their daily lives, and lack of access at a reasonable price is a huge disadvantage for most folks. The big telecoms want to treat internet service like television service, they are not the same thing. Internet access is a necessity these days, not a luxury to wring every last penny out of.
I'm not a "big government" proponent at all, but sometimes regulation in the public interest is required. IMO, this was one of those cases.
As a bunch of you know, I do gummint for a living and have been thinking about our (gummint's) role in this business for a long time.
In the end, what you think about mirth's post above is pretty much where you ought to come down. If you think the Internet a right, or something to which the government should guarantee not merely access but dimension (speed most notably but also, potentially, price), then this was necessary. If, however, you think it a service to either have or not and for which end users must be responsible to create the market conditions that regulate these things, then this is a pretty grievous intrusion.
The bureaucratic impulse is a very strong one and will thrive in the present environment in which the executive and the legislative branches find themselves in a death-grip.
What I wait for:
1: The courts. The lawsuits will likely not come from the big telcomms. The notion that they're really opposed to this as much as some suggest is a false flag. They can afford regulatory compliance. It's the smaller competitors who will now be unable to. As an aside, those who equate liking something on Facebook with activism that are patting themselves on the back and convincing themselves that they did this, are as mad as I've always thought them. The money of content providers had far more to do with this than they ever did.
2: Internet taxation. State and local governments sincerely believe we've all been getting a free ride, particularly as it concerns sales taxes. This makes them far more likely.
3: Calls for international regulation. This will enhance those who claim that the U.S. wields inordinate control over the web. When it was a free-fire zone (it never, of course, was quite, but, much more than is likely now), our case against this was better.
I guess, in the end, I find myself agin' it, but I understand those who drove us to this point.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I am not for price controls. I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content. They are in direct competition with other content creators, but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.
We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.
Quote from: mirth on March 01, 2015, 05:00:08 PM
I am not for price controls. I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content. They are in direct competition with other content creators, but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.
We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.
Well put, Mirth.
Thanks. I have my lucid moments.
Oh look! A squirrel!
To make this argument -- and it is made by many (including my own wife) -- is nonetheless to choose a worldview. It assumes that the Internet has joined electricity, water, natural gas, &c., in the pantheon of utilities which the government must regulate. I only observe that there's a legitimate argument on the other side whose failure in this debate will have enduring and presently unforeseen consequences. The behavior of the telcoms reminds one of the dictum that the greatest enemy of socialism is socialism and the greatest enemy of capitalism is capitalists.
One of the easily foreseeable consequences, however, is price regulation. The notion that that is not now all but inevitable is to misunderstand the impulses of government.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I do think that the internet has joined the pantheon of public utilities. Living in Maine, there are plenty of days I might wish for price controls on the cost of oil, gasoline, and electricity, but I don't support, or advocate for, them.
I, however, don't think that taking a position on Net Neutrality means adopting a particular worldview
Unless that worldview is applying common sense to questions as they are presented.
I fear I have antagonized and that was never my intention...plenty of that to go around; this is the Internet after all...
The government, at least in our system, has to justify its intrusions into the market. That's the theory anyway. In this instance, this intrusion cannot be explained or justified without a worldview that equates the internet with a utility. That's a way of looking at the world that's fundamentally different from that held by many other well-intended people. And this is a generational choice as sure as that choosing to regulate radio and television, or, I suppose, radio which gave us our television regulations.
My only point...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
No antagonism at all. Sorry if it seemed that way. I appreciate the honest and informed discourse.
Quote from: mirth on March 01, 2015, 05:00:08 PM
I am not for price controls. I am for an even playing field in regard to content delivery. The people who own the infrastructure should not be able to control the content or dictate what is "priority" content. Part of the problem with today's internet in this country is that the service providers are also the same companies generating content. They are in direct competition with other content creators, but also control the infrastructure needed to access content.
We should follow the example of other nations and separate infrastructure from content. The infrastructure should be treated as a public utility. Content should always remain private and equally accessible via the infrastructure.
I agree.
The other issue with the large providers is the potential for abuses of a dominant position in the market, cartel agreements and the like that just exploit the consumer (and without reciprocal benefits for them). I think the US terminology is "anti-trust", but you get the idea.
Well all I will say is when one political party is for something completely; there's something hidden in the text of the regulation or law and it isn't about protecting individual rights. It's usually about providing another lever of centralized control. Net neutrality is a misnomer when used by the left or right. It isn't about access. It's about restriction. Additionally when a text of a law or regulation is hidden from the public even after it's been voted on and passed something is foul in Denmark.
I'm also on the side of the fence that not everything is a right. Access to the same speed internet as your neighbor or even having internet isn't a right.
Quote from: Bison on March 01, 2015, 08:18:17 PM
I'm also on the side of the fence that not everything is a right. Access to the same speed internet as your neighbor or even having internet isn't a right.
Sure, but is some level of telephone service a right? I may not need call waiting or caller ID, but should everyone be able to have access to a phone line?
We're not talking about what people are willing to pay for in regards to service. The ISPs want it to be okay for content providers to pay for preferntial dleivery. So, if Netflix gives a kickback to Comcast or whoever, then there service is delivered on the "fast lane".
I'm all for paying for faster service, but if I am shelling out for FIOS, don't tell me that my ISP is going to throttle Netflix because Netflix hasn't given them the necessary kickback. If I'm paying for a certain level of service, what is coming down the pipe should be irrelevant.
Is it really a right? Or is it a highly valued service that people want and because they want it; they equate want with right?
I just don't think the text of the regulation will do what you are proposing. And since no one is allowed to see it. We have no idea what the regulation text says. And it goes back to a fundamental problem that regulatory agencies have usurped our representative government as to who has the greatest impact on our lives.
And no I don't think 1930's regulatons for telephone lines equate very well to internet services.
For sure it's an old argument, big business vs. big government.
Do you really think we're going to apply 1930s regulations to the internet? Or are you completely anti-regulation?
Internet acesss has moved past just being a nice to have service. As a member of 21st century society, do you seriously disagree with that? Could you and your family easily go a week without internet access? It's more likely you could go without the phone access that government regulation stipulates you have access to. Times change, regulations need to change with them.
My point is that, much like healthcare, the internet is not broken and not need of a major government fixing. And if the government feels the need to fix it, then the fix should be done in the open. It wasn't and is not available for public viewing. Have you read the newly passed regulation? Or are you allowing your ideals to presume that the regulation is what you think it should be? If the issue is whether an ISP can give fast track to certain services where by those services and ISP are interlinked through ownership or exclusive contract, then I'd think that there are monopoly rules in place to handle such issue.
I've lived several years in the 21st century without the internet. I know hard it's hard to believe but true. There is life in the world where the internet isn't vital. I'd argue most of it. Now do I love the internet? Yes. Does it make life convenient? Yes. Are more basic services being provided through internet based services versus traditional in person services? Yes. Does that make the internet a right? It's a debate to be had to be sure.
There needs to be a very real discussion about rights. What are truly rights? What are conveniences, wants, desires, idealistic notions that masquerade as rights?
Forcing the internet into 1930 telecommunication oversight and regulation is exactly what they are doing.
We can go round in circles on the issue forever, we'll continue to disagree. I respect your point of view, while disagreeing with it.
The truth is that the FCC's actions last week change nothing about the current delivery of internet services:
http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/
Quote from: LongBlade on February 26, 2015, 07:12:08 PMNot sure why we need to change it.
because right now there is no legal framework in place to go after an ISP that start limiting content from non-favored sources
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 02, 2015, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 26, 2015, 07:12:08 PMNot sure why we need to change it.
because right now there is no legal framework in place to go after an ISP that start limiting content from non-favored sources
Does there need to be?
In a free market if one company does something stupid other companies can offer better services. Unless there's collusion, but that's already illegal.
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 09:20:29 AM
We can go round in circles on the issue forever, we'll continue to disagree. I respect your point of view, while disagreeing with it.
The truth is that the FCC's actions last week change nothing about the current delivery of internet services:
http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/
]
Fair enough.
The truth is no one other than the 5 FCC board members who voted on the regulations and the lawyers and special interest who wrote the regulation actually know what the new regulation says. All other sources are at best second hand information. It has not been release for public consumption yet. There in lies the danger.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 02, 2015, 10:33:35 AM
Does there need to be?
In a free market if one company does something stupid other companies can offer better services. Unless there's collusion, but that's already illegal.
But there
is no true free market among internet/cable providers. They have been allowed to carve the country up into their own fiefdoms. If we could go to a company that offered better choices, would most consumers put up with Comcast's absolutely horrid customer service? Makes me wonder exactly how much money they put into the pockets of eager Congressmen.
It's not a free market when the government has sold out in exchange for wheel barrels of cash, and it's difficult to see cable providers as anything other than monopolies.....unless we prefer the more colorful term "robber barons".
I appreciate the discussion guys. It's been one of the better ones I've had here or elsewhere. Thoughtful and civil. That's rare enough.
Here's my take: substitute telephone for internet and what you get is a situation where you pay to get to talk on the phone as much as you want but your phone company wants to limit who you can talk to and how many minutes you can talk to them by interfering with the connection to the folks you want to talk to most.
Ridiculously naive maybe, but there you have it.
I must live in another country called the United States from you guys, because never once has my access to any site been regulated or controlled.
On a side note: the telephone connection is not that everyone is entitled to a working phone line to do with as they want. IIRC all that your current phone line without paid service must enable you to do is dial 911 or emergency services. So what is the basic requirement for the internet? Surely not emergency service since that is what telephones are still required to do.
I think that's the point of the FCC decision, to avoid the interference you describe.
OK. But what is the internet equivalent of being allowed to dial 911 from any house based hard line?
Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 07:07:17 PM
I appreciate the discussion guys. It's been one of the better ones I've had here or elsewhere. Thoughtful and civil. That's rare enough.
Oh, (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Falien-fu.gif&hash=4db1321b1f1bb474c99830bc68534e5b73888a9c)
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 08:22:22 PM
Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?
I'm fairly sure that cell phones are capable of that, too, even without paid service. What I am not seeing, unless I missed it (which is possible), is what YOUR base line is for Internet service? Is it DSL access for all? Maybe reduced Mbps for all? Public Internet kiosks, like old phone booths where you dump your change in for x minutes of Internet access? All homes hardwired with Internet access, just put a deposit down at the local Internet Utility office and we'll turn you on from there?
I'm not actually concerned about the level if service. If I pay for 3 mbps that's what it is. Just don't tell me that one site gets preference over another. Infrastructure should be neutral.
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 08:52:35 PM
I'm not actually concerned about the level if service. If I pay for 3 mbps that's what it is. Just don't tell me that one site gets preference over another. Infrastructure should be neutral.
Exactly. If I pay for a decent internet connection and pay for Netflix, I shouldn't be penalized with slower Netflix service because Comcast is squeezing them for more money. If there are any questions of "rights" here, how about the right of the consumer to get what he pays for? That's what I want to see. Comcast and the other big players act like they own the internet, and because of the monopoly they enjoy and the lack of competition due to
payoffs campaign contributions, they get away with murder. All I want is what I pay for and maybe the chance to take my business somewhere else if I'm not happy. That's called competition.
Quote from: Bison on March 02, 2015, 07:40:03 PM
I must live in another country called the United States from you guys, because never once has my access to any site been regulated or controlled.
http://www.missingremote.com/news/2014-02-11/student-provides-evidence-comcast-throttling-netflix
tl;dr = I'll take gov't over the options on this one
the full monty:
The way the system has evolved over the past 15 years is that those with the 'delivery' infrastructure (cables, routers, switches, etc, at the city level or at the neighborhood level, not inside your house) have also become those with a 'content' infrastructure.
It is economically advantageous to them to force you to use their content on their delivery platform. It is economically advantageous for the company, and for their shareholders, and based on local taxes, it may be economically advantageous for the local municipality, too. Advantageous for everyone, except the consumer.
Imagine you wanted to ship a present to grandma. You place an order for flannel PJs for Christmas from LL Bean. Grandma's local area is covered by FedEx under an exclusive deal with the town, so UPS doesn't even deliver there. Well, because 'package neutrality' was struck down by Congress, FedEx doesn't have to deliver every package that comes through the sorting facility with the same urgency, and, well, darn if they don't have a promotional deal with Land's End to bump all their packages to the top of the queue. Your Christmas present to Grandma shows up on President's Day. Her neighbor got a box from her grandkids in time for Christmas, because they ordered from Land's End.
Classifying the 'net as a utility does give the feds the legal right to regulate many aspects of it. Classifying electricity does, too, which is why we have two standard voltages in the country, and not 87 of them, depending on your local electric provider. Moreover, classifying the 'net as a public utility also allows the government to set market-minimum rules that the companies have to follow or face federal legal action.
Here's one last bit on the cable and phone companies, and who you're dealing with -
Comcast, AT&T, TWC, etc have all made HUGE capital investments laying new fiber over the past 15 years or so. The fiber-optic cables they've laid run between cities, and within the cities they connect the major neighborhood switching stations to the central boxes in the cities. This was a major driving factor behind the ability to deliver so many HD channels once HD became the standard, and it's a major reason why they can offer so many bundled 'two way' services, like games on your set-top consoles, and on-demand movies.
These lines were dig, installed, connected, tested, etc with a pretty significant investment by the telecoms companies over a period of many years. So when a third party comes in and wants to over you alternate service, the telecoms (quite rightly) want to charge a premium for access to the infrastructure in which they invested so much vision, time, sweat, and money. If you want to start "LongBlade's Cable Service" and push content over TWC's lines, TWC is going to want you to pony up to push content through their pipes.
Except that come tax time, TWC insists that the current value of those lines is . . . ZERO. They're claiming capital depreciation, just like an office claims on a photocopier. And since most of these lines were laid over 7 years ago, they've effectively depreciated to nothing.
So you've got a cable company claiming that their lines are so valuable that a third party has to pay through the nose to use them, but they're so worthless that they shouldn't have to pay any taxes on them as an asset.
You've got commercial companies out there playing cutthroat games with each other and the federal government, all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, they're looking out for the shareholder - as they should - but taking it to the extreme that the market gets so distended that it's almost a parody of a free-market system. They've figured out how to rig the game, and we're just Mongo's in the game of life.
So do I trust the telecoms to do what's right by the consumer? Not on your life. But I also don't have another market option. In the Grandma's PJ's example above - the consumer can't get screwed because if FedEx yanks them around the consumer goes to UPS. But if TWC, with an exclusive local contract, yanks you around, what are your choices?
So given the options of self-regulation by Comcast, TWC, AT&T, DirecTV, etc, or regulation by the gov't, I'm going with the gov't in this case, because if they fuck it up, I have the option to vote out the gov't idiots. But I have to keep paying the telecom idiots to keep screwing me over.
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 08:22:22 PM
Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?
That's not the gold standard that is the original reason behind the phone service. Now it's expanded to include text messaging and phone calls on cell phones. And nearly every house built in the last 70 years or more has hard line service that's nothing new. It's also why you pay several taxes on your phone, cell or land line. How much are you willing to pay in taxes to insure everyone has a basic level of internet service? I know exactly how Comcast did it. Those who could afford the bill got the privilege of paying more every month to provide cheap or free service to others.
The transfer of data from one site being slowed or not is a completely separate issue from a basic right to have the internet.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 02, 2015, 11:08:34 PM
So given the options of self-regulation by Comcast, TWC, AT&T, DirecTV, etc, or regulation by the gov't, I'm going with the gov't in this case, because if they fuck it up, I have the option to vote out the gov't idiots. But I have to keep paying the telecom idiots to keep screwing me over.
How many shitty laws or taxes have been repealed over the last few decades following a vote?
Quote from: MetalDog on March 02, 2015, 08:43:17 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 02, 2015, 08:22:22 PM
Ok so that's the Gold Standard? And you do get that a lot of people have done away with landline phone service?
I'm fairly sure that cell phones are capable of that, too, even without paid service. What I am not seeing, unless I missed it (which is possible), is what YOUR base line is for Internet service? Is it DSL access for all? Maybe reduced Mbps for all? Public Internet kiosks, like old phone booths where you dump your change in for x minutes of Internet access? All homes hardwired with Internet access, just put a deposit down at the local Internet Utility office and we'll turn you on from there?
Cell phones do have that capability. Every home with a landline can get the internet. Remember dial up? It still exists and is used particularly in rural areas.
I'm still waiting for this magical compilation of regulation that was voted on by the FCC board to be made public record. I'm sure there are sweet kick backs to favorable interests and wonderful surprises to be had by all.
Interesting interview with one of the FCC board members. Not saying there's no bias, but at least this guy is out talking about the regulation. Unlike the chairman Wheeler, who isn't talking and still hasn't published the regulation.
Quote from: Bison on March 02, 2015, 11:49:37 PMHow many shitty laws or taxes have been repealed over the last few decades following a vote?
actually, there's a bunch here in NC just within the past 18 months or so. A lot of people are screaming about the legislature doing away with a bunch of tax incentives for different things like shooting a movie in NC. The legislature promised to simplify the state tax code (which was almost as bad as the feds) but you do that by taking out all the exceptions and special cases.
Well, when you do that, the people for whom those exceptions and special cases were a boon start yelling and screaming. But to their credit, they did it anyway.
Now there are some things they did that they shouldn't have, like repeal the Teaching Fellows program, but at least they started repealing something.
My biggest issue with all the yelling and screaming about this is how it's coming down right on party lines for all those folks who had never heard of "net neutrality" until 8 weeks ago.
Net neutrality has been a core principal of the internet since it was opened up beyond the DoD.
Since the mid-90s, commercial interests have been fighting to change the way they route traffic to give preferences to certain kinds of traffic, and effectively balkanize the internet into 49572340952874309 fiefdoms each with their own 'packages' of preferred content and everything else at crawling speeds. This is not a new development.
About 5 years ago, the telecoms realized that there was no legal structure in place that could force them to respect net neutrality and started quietly nosing around about how they start fucking people over for more money on internet speeds.
Unfortunately for them, the most knowledgeable people out there, and the easiest to widely mobilize around the country, are those for whom Net Neutrality is most important - the über-web-connected computer geeks.
They were able to stave off this blatant money-grab with enough PR fights and quasi-legal battles for a while, but finally Comcast, like an elephant-sized asshole in a broom closet, just decided to sit down wherever they damn well pleased and start choking off Netflix until they ponied up a huge bribe to get their HD content flowing again.
That's the point at which the gov't realized that they needed a legal structure with which the could shove Net Neutrality down the telecoms throats, and regulating the internet as a utility became the answer.
Why do you need a 300+ page set of regulations to say that? Because Comcast has an army of lawyers that's going to give a rectal probe to every single "i", "t", and comma looking for a way to exploit whatever was (or wasn't!) put in that regulation to squeeze just one more penny out of the public. Which, if I was one of their shareholders, I would want them to do on my behalf.
But now that "net neutrality" has entered the public discussion, the only positions you see staked out by people that had never held an opinion before this past Christmas are straight party line positions. And the only "reasons" they can articulate are the same parroted talking points that started bouncing around political talk radio around the second week of January.
That is my biggest problem in all this.
"Obamacare for the internet"? Please. That tells me you're a Rush Limbaugh / Ted Cruz fanboi with zero understanding of how the internet works, and an oversensitive gag reflex for anything that a Democrat does.
"The government is taking over the web"? Hardly. No more than the government ran Ma Bell for 70 years before allowing them to break up into the Baby Bells.
Whenever I start hearing those phrases, it tells me that either (1) they've done -zero- research into the issue, or (2) the only research you did was underwritten by the Center For Right Wing Luddism and Reflexive Disdain.
Have an opinion, but have your own opinion instead of having someone give it to, gift wrapped and prepared to be regurgitated on their behalf.
Don't be someone else's internet parrot.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 02, 2015, 11:08:34 PM
tl;dr = I'll take gov't over the options on this one
the full monty:
The way the system has evolved over the past 15 years is that those with the 'delivery' infrastructure (cables, routers, switches, etc, at the city level or at the neighborhood level, not inside your house) have also become those with a 'content' infrastructure.
It is economically advantageous to them to force you to use their content on their delivery platform. It is economically advantageous for the company, and for their shareholders, and based on local taxes, it may be economically advantageous for the local municipality, too. Advantageous for everyone, except the consumer.
Imagine you wanted to ship a present to grandma. You place an order for flannel PJs for Christmas from LL Bean. Grandma's local area is covered by FedEx under an exclusive deal with the town, so UPS doesn't even deliver there. Well, because 'package neutrality' was struck down by Congress, FedEx doesn't have to deliver every package that comes through the sorting facility with the same urgency, and, well, darn if they don't have a promotional deal with Land's End to bump all their packages to the top of the queue. Your Christmas present to Grandma shows up on President's Day. Her neighbor got a box from her grandkids in time for Christmas, because they ordered from Land's End.
Classifying the 'net as a utility does give the feds the legal right to regulate many aspects of it. Classifying electricity does, too, which is why we have two standard voltages in the country, and not 87 of them, depending on your local electric provider. Moreover, classifying the 'net as a public utility also allows the government to set market-minimum rules that the companies have to follow or face federal legal action.
Here's one last bit on the cable and phone companies, and who you're dealing with -
Comcast, AT&T, TWC, etc have all made HUGE capital investments laying new fiber over the past 15 years or so. The fiber-optic cables they've laid run between cities, and within the cities they connect the major neighborhood switching stations to the central boxes in the cities. This was a major driving factor behind the ability to deliver so many HD channels once HD became the standard, and it's a major reason why they can offer so many bundled 'two way' services, like games on your set-top consoles, and on-demand movies.
These lines were dig, installed, connected, tested, etc with a pretty significant investment by the telecoms companies over a period of many years. So when a third party comes in and wants to over you alternate service, the telecoms (quite rightly) want to charge a premium for access to the infrastructure in which they invested so much vision, time, sweat, and money. If you want to start "LongBlade's Cable Service" and push content over TWC's lines, TWC is going to want you to pony up to push content through their pipes.
Except that come tax time, TWC insists that the current value of those lines is . . . ZERO. They're claiming capital depreciation, just like an office claims on a photocopier. And since most of these lines were laid over 7 years ago, they've effectively depreciated to nothing.
So you've got a cable company claiming that their lines are so valuable that a third party has to pay through the nose to use them, but they're so worthless that they shouldn't have to pay any taxes on them as an asset.
You've got commercial companies out there playing cutthroat games with each other and the federal government, all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, they're looking out for the shareholder - as they should - but taking it to the extreme that the market gets so distended that it's almost a parody of a free-market system. They've figured out how to rig the game, and we're just Mongo's in the game of life.
So do I trust the telecoms to do what's right by the consumer? Not on your life. But I also don't have another market option. In the Grandma's PJ's example above - the consumer can't get screwed because if FedEx yanks them around the consumer goes to UPS. But if TWC, with an exclusive local contract, yanks you around, what are your choices?
So given the options of self-regulation by Comcast, TWC, AT&T, DirecTV, etc, or regulation by the gov't, I'm going with the gov't in this case, because if they fuck it up, I have the option to vote out the gov't idiots. But I have to keep paying the telecom idiots to keep screwing me over.
Outstanding analysis, BB. It's amazing what having real competition does for the consumer, isn't it? Funny, your example.....UPS
lost the last two packages I sent via them, as in literally they don't know where the hell they are. So guess what? I'm using FedEx next time. UPS has lost my business for the foreseeable future. If Comcast screws me over? Tough luck, sucker!!!
just to clarify my remark about being an internet parrot:
I'm not talking about people here specifically, I have seen far far worse on Facebook. Don't even get me started on some of the idiots at work
Thanks for being patronizing. :)
The hysteria around the issue is astounding:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150302/08162630183/hysterical-facts-optional-assault-fccs-new-neutrality-rules-has-commenced.shtml (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150302/08162630183/hysterical-facts-optional-assault-fccs-new-neutrality-rules-has-commenced.shtml)
If the Republican Party wants to tow the line for big telecom, it may be time for me to start voting Democrat. Never thought I would think that again.
Quote from: Bison on March 03, 2015, 09:20:09 AM
Thanks for being patronizing. :)
it's Tuesday, so it's my day on "patronizing" duty around here. I think Star's covering for LB tomorrow, though.
I'll be bitchy all week.
Quote from: mirth on March 03, 2015, 09:30:46 AM
I'll be bitchy all week.
that cute how you can sum up the past 8 years in one pithy little sentence ;)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 03, 2015, 09:38:54 AM
that cute how you can sum up the past 8 years in one pithy little sentence ;)
Apostrophe s isn't your strong suit is it?
Heil Grammar!
(https://m1.behance.net/rendition/modules/53709447/disp/e3e7f3245346a4130f8e7f6e7ef8da50.png)
me speak neanderthal to understood here
you make good with word
This has been a fun debate, but let's remember the really important things
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/bc81f910be0c93126cf194a454728c82.jpg?w=600&h=741)
Thank you. There were far too many words on the last page.
Quote from: mirth on March 03, 2015, 09:24:33 AM
The hysteria around the issue is astounding:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150302/08162630183/hysterical-facts-optional-assault-fccs-new-neutrality-rules-has-commenced.shtml (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150302/08162630183/hysterical-facts-optional-assault-fccs-new-neutrality-rules-has-commenced.shtml)
If the Republican Party wants to tow the line for big telecom, it may be time for me to start voting Democrat. Never thought I would think that again.
I think there is something to be said that the vote was along party lines. My issue in not with the "theory". My issue is that the camel's nose is in the tent. And because the internet is no longer considered an information service, but a telecommunication system there in lies a huge opening for additional regulation for problems that do not exist or are marginal at best not to mention fees, charges, and taxes, and yes regulation of content. Read your phone bill and you realize that there is a huge cost burden placed on telecommunication that does not exist on the internet today, but there is no question that similar charges will start to be accrued on your internet bill in the future.
It's all frankly pissing into the wind until the actual regulatory documentation is released. It isn't. So neither side of the issue actually knows anything about what was passed.
http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-internet-is-so-shitty-and-slow-1686173744