"... in a special website and video announcement wherein he lays out his plan for protecting the freedom and openness of the Internet."
AND: Ted Cruz takes the other side: "Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
November 10, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
224 comments:
1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»He's got to shut down those damn blogs that keeping writing about him.
Given the impulse of progressives to turn every regulatory opportunity into a political weapon, I'm opposed to "Net Neutrality.
See, I'm not even 100% sure what they mean by net neutrality. Years ago, it meant you couldn't charge a premium for sending or receiving certain kinds of data (I understood it as "do not tax internet porn/game/music downloads.")
Obama wants to shift costs and ownership, and reward his cronies. Net neutrality is Obamacare for the communication companies. It is ideal to operate with a business model that profits at other people's involuntarily incurred expense and liability.
I've got to agree with The Drill SGT.
I don't understand how you can claim to be "protecting the freedom and openness of the Internet" by passing laws that regulate and control it.
There are certainly arguments that can be made for regulation, but that ain't one of them.
"Net Neutrality" is one of the great doublespeak coinages of our time. It is nothing more than a good old regulation power grab, with all the associated overhead, bureaucratic red tape, opportunities for graft, and surveillance.
Until/unless there are full-on monopolies in the internet service provider space, the free market can and will handle any providers that leverage throttling or other tactics in an anti-consumer fashion.
Hey, Bunky, let's try IRS Neutrality first.
If you like your internet provider you can keep your internet provider.
Obama derangement syndrome at its finest here.
Waait.... the Internet isn't already open and free? I'm... maybe I'm a bit confused about this all.
Let me reread his letter again.
I don't understand how you can claim to be "protecting the freedom and openness of the Internet" by passing laws that regulate and control it.
See Eric Arthur Blair, famous British author and prophet.
I still don't get it. I've had no problems in getting data sent or received from other ISPs, satellite providers, land lines, etc. GMail has never bounced back a Yahoo! email.
I just don't get it.
Maybe if they called it something else but I agree with Drill SGT.
How much distance is there between the government and the "culprits" that the I can't expect to get screwed?
"Obama derangement syndrome at its finest here."
Nice of you to provide an example.
Obama derangement syndrome at its finest here.
I freely confess that if Dear Leader supports it...I'm agin' it.
- Krumhorn
Interesting comments thread. No one there seems to have much of a clue on what net neutrality means. See the wikipedia article. This is a turf war between the cattle ranchers (ISPs) and the farmers (major content providers).
Don't know if anti-trust law can be used here, but that's what we did the last time a telecom provider (AT&T) tried to leverage its monopoly position on the Last Mile. That's the appropriate tool for these kinds of issues, not regulation. Regulation just turns into a way for one side or the other to enforce an advantage.
"I freely confess that if Dear Leader supports it...I'm agin' it."
Actually, that's not a bad default position. Mr. Obama gives no reason to believe he has ever thought deeply or seriously about anything. If he embraces a position, it is almost certainly because of narrow political considerations, based on little or no knowledge of the underlying facts.
I freely confess that if Dear Leader supports it...I'm agin' it.
I was coming around to supporting "Net Neutrality", but if Comrade Obama is now supporting it, that means his wealthy buddies will make more bucks, liberty will be suppressed, and most of us will get screwed.
Nothing about Obama's statement changes my longstanding opinion on the subject.
After what Peter Gruber saidabout Obamacare, link at Insty, Obamas mouth is moving, he's lying.
Has Obama ever seen anything he did not want to bring under control of the federal government?
This is what makes Obama a totalitarian socialist.
Con man. Why take anything he says at face value?
Read this:
Currently, sometimes almost a third of all web traffic is Netflix's streaming movies. Netflix often accounts for nearly 50% of all web video streaming at any one time. Over time, companies like Comcast have gotten tired of serving bandwidth hogs like Netflix and paying for the privilege of doing so....If it is to serve Netflix at the same prices it serves your personal homepage on About.me, the Netflix is essentially getting a huge service for free, Comcast argues."
So there's a really strange disconnect between the President's proposal (which sounds very good) and the conflict between ISPs and Netflix that led up to it. The ISPs want to charge Netflix for usage and -- I suspect -- for peak usage.
This is commonplace for energy utilities. You pay for the amount of energy you use and the rate you're charged may be higher in peak periods.
The one point in the President's statement that seems to apply to this is as follows:
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
And the sum of this is, for me, complete confusion. Is it okay for ISPs to charge for high-bandwidth services during peak hours or not? If not, why not?
Wait -- so the same people who want me to pay more to water the lawn during a drought ... don't want Netflix to pay more for streaming during peak hours?
Mark said...
Obama derangement syndrome at its finest here
LOL
Powerful.
Insightful.
Persuasive.
All that's missing from Marks comment is...everything.
With any Obama proposal, I follow the general principle, I'm Against It. It's been pretty accurate over the last 6 years.
"Net neutrality" is a fine policy when bandwidth is infinite, latency is zero, and the other users of a shared network don't impact your quality of service.
With Obama, Ted Cruz channels Groucho for me.
PackerBronco: LOL!
I wonder if activist pressure can convince Comcast to throttle back access/speed to what they deem 'anti gay' websites, once the ISP has that power.
It's all about the Benjamin's and control.
I think most of the companies that cover the "last mile" to connect consumers to the internet are beneficiaries of natural (or regulatory) monopolies, whether they're cellular operators, cable companies, fiber optics companies, telephone companies or whatever. If this is limited to companies that are already benefiting from natural monopolies or especially regulatory monopolies, I don't have a problem with it.
I don't know which networks cover the "backbone" of the internet as it were -- once you're no longer dealing with hooking cables up to peoples' houses (or with cellular networks), but are instead dealing with linking up hubs and data centres and all that, I think the case for additional "net neutrality" regulation becomes a lot weaker. At that point, unless there's a monopoly, you ought to be able to reroute around the servers/networks that charge additional fees, no?
Blogger MadisonMan said...
PackerBronco: LOL!
That IS funny. :-)
"Wait -- so the same people who want me to pay more to water the lawn during a drought ... don't want Netflix to pay more for streaming during peak hours?"
Yeah, go figure.
Wired is not always neutral in those disputes but I do like to see what they say.
If the FCC reclassifies internet service as a utility under Title II, internet service would become something akin to telephone service, electricity, or water. This would give the FCC the legal freedom to lay down net neutrality laws. But some worry that this would end up slowing the expansion of the internet, giving ISPs less incentive to grow their networks.
I have to believe there is a free market answer to this. The FCC, like all other Obama agencies, is another weaponized Obama bureaucracy.
“Congress explicitly requires broadcasters to disclose this information to the public,” he said.
Republican Commissioner Robert M. McDowell dissented, saying that compliance costs for stations could run much higher than the agency has estimated. He said stations would have to divert tens of thousands of dollars in resources to keep ad data updated during a busy election season. Broadcasters have made similar arguments.
“The majority cannot be sure if it is doing more harm to the public interest than good,” he said.
McDowell recommended that Congress should focus on disclosure from political spenders themselves, rather than requiring more information from broadcasters, who comprise “one of many, many recipients.”
I think I know how I would vote.
I'm with Ted Cruz on this one... net neutrality is a government solution in search of a problem
I'd be worried if this had happened last year.
Now it's a gambit, something they expect to lose on in Congress, which Obama will use (1) as an excuse to try to do it through executive order and (2) to set up a campaign issue that he thinks Dems can do better on in 2016.
"serving bandwidth hogs"
Aren't the consumers the bandwidth hogs? They're already paying for the bandwidth. The trouble is that the providers want both sides to pay. They don't want consumers to get what they are paying for without someone else also paying for the consumers to get what they are paying to use.
So, consumers will be double charged for the bandwith: by the providers and by the companies who will be charged more by the providers and pass this charge onto consumers. The costs will be based solely on how a consumer chooses to use the bandwidth they've already paid for.
This isn't to say Obama is right, but it is to suggest that reactionary opposition is also not a very good approach. It establishes the debate on a predictable binary, rather than dealing with the complexity of the situation.
Which is precisely Obama's game, he wants to be both the populist while also padding his biggest supporters with more money. Meanwhile, reactionary Republicans help the biggest supports of their opponents while at the same time looking like they are against the freedom of the consumer. Win-win for Obama, and Cruz was pulled into the trap.
You will see this pattern on a handful of other issues between now and year-end, by the way. The cool kids are trying to justify their relevance.
"I wonder if activist pressure can convince Comcast to throttle back access/speed to what they deem 'anti gay' websites, once the ISP has that power."
You're welcome to try, Mark.
The Drill SGT said...
Given the impulse of progressives to turn every regulatory opportunity into a political weapon, I'm opposed to "Net Neutrality.
I'm with you.
So after losing an election which was a repudiation of all his policies then running away to China to avoid the glare of the press and people, his nibs is proposing another federal bureaucracy to regulate something that works so well that, sitting in my kitchen, I can get this message to everyone on the planet, at the speed of light, who has an internet connection. I do this over copper, a DSL connection that does slow down due to traffic, sometimes it goes from just under a megabyte per second to a little less than just under a megabyte, oh no!
It's all about control, Wahington elites want it, we can't give it to them. Take a few days off starting November 15, 2014, don't work, shop, visit doctors, spend money or pay bills, to let the elite know how much they need us. Strike for sanity November 15!
is a government solution in search of a problem
Most government solutions are searching for a problem.
As with many government proposals, the name "Net Neutrality" sounds all good and snuggly like puppy dogs and cute kittens. ObamaCare is Orwellianly named "The Affordable Care Act" to sell it to the rubes. Who could be opposed to "Net Neutrality"? It sounds all, well, neutral. As with any law, the devil is in the details and how those get implemented (as well as who does the implementing). As with healthcare, it's hard to find examples of things that are heavily government regulated that function better than the free market.
If the Internet gets legally classified as a public utility, then couldn't they charge higher rates for higher usage? It's common practice for utility companies to have tiered electric and water programs that increase rates as usage increases.
This is an issue which could get a lot of millennials back on Obama's side to an extent. If there's one thing millennials care about, it's the internet.
The problem with Net Neutrality is it's a huge abstract concept that can mean a lot of different things, some good, some bad.
"It's common practice for utility companies to have tiered electric and water programs that increase rates as usage increases."
-- That's how it worked during the days of Dial Up.
This is one of the things we conservatives like about Ted Cruz.
He is out there and ready to respond on most issues with his actual policy position.
Where are the Republicans "leaders" like Boehner and McConnell?
Let's be serious here. These guys who have been in for a long time, they are all about protecting their power. They worry about which position is the right position to hold. They no longer have principles, except the principle of power. They are careful what they say in order to avoid any damage.
In other words, they have zero influence over the culture wars. And conservatives are losing the culture wars, badly, thanks to these dopes.
But the Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and a few others, these are your culture warriors.
They know what they believe (Even though we may disagree) and are willing to argue in the public square for those beliefs.
We need more like this.
Not more mush from mush mouths.
when your signature legislative "achievement" was passed due to deceit, and one of the architects brags about that deceit, why would you assume people would take your word that new legislation you support will do what you say it will do.
nutshell: He admits in this clip that the text of Obamacare was deliberately written in a "tortured" way to conceal the fact that the mandate was in fact a tax, because if it were perceived (accurately) as a tax, the American public would not have abided it.
He also admits the law was written in order to hide from the public the fact that the whole point of Obamacare is a forced subsidy from the healthy to the sick -- that is, a tax.
And he's proud of this. He says that given the choice between transparency and no Obamacare, on one hand, and deception and Obamacare, on the other, he'd choose the latter every time.
"- ACE
but I encourage you to watch the video and judge for yourself.
Obama derangement syndrome at its finest here.
They prefer getting screwed over by Comcast because Obama is for it. Obama should just come out and say he wants internet cable providers to be able to block or slow down content from right wing websites, and they would be for net neutrality.
Point of order 1: Netflix is pretty much a pass-through (although they are branching out). If they pay more. We have found the "hogs" & they is us.
Point of order 2: If you "can get this message to everyone on the planet, at the speed of light, who has an internet connection" you ought to be getting a Nobel prize. The speed of electrons in a wire is something like 3E-4 m/s, a little slower then the speed of light.
Net Neutrality is not so difficult to understand.
Hard-wired internet bandwidth-providers have mostly flat pricing systems. It's easier and cheaper that way. They don't inquire how many gigabytes you've used this month...
...but note that providers of wireless bandwidth (4G) do have non-flat pricing systems. It costs them much more to provide the bytes, so they have different plans, based on bandwidth need, and they charge much more when you go over your limit.
So Comcast, for example, would like to throttle NetFlix, for example, because NetFlix, for example, is surfing free on Comcast's bandwidth. NetFlix's business model depends on free serving of data, which equals net neutrality. Comcast would like to favor some servers over others because of this.
Obama has sided with the free-rider. I doubt Obama has the slightest clue what's actually going on in this debate except insofar as it puts dollars into his collective wallet.
And, as noted by others above, net neutrality means more government control. So Comcast won't get to throttle NetFlix. Instead, the government will throttle all of us.
Internet service is one of the few things most people seem very happy with. Why do anything to it?
(And after the political misuse of the IRS and campaign finance laws, why let the government anywhere near it?)
"running away to China "
China is a nice example of the bureaucracy running the net. He's probably asking for ideas.
garage, as usual, is clueless. Everything to the left is about tactics.
The opponents of Net Neutrality gain a lot through a name few can understand. John Oliver had a much better name with "Bill to Prevent Cable Company Fuckery."
All net neutrality does is prevent double dipping by cable companies trying to charge web hosts for a service you as the consumer already pay for. Net Neutrality is vital if you want the internet to remain an open place where small companies can compete with big ones so the best product wins.
Cruz is on the wrong side of this. Why do Republicans keep bending over for the corporations that keep supporting Democrats?
Bob Ellison's explanation is the most accurate.
Meanwhile, I note that everything Obama touches turns to sh*t. I'd rather that didn't happen to the Internet.
Bandwidth has expanded so rapidly in the last ten years, even encompassing HD video, that if things continue this way, Moore's-Law-like, this issue will be entirely moot in a matter of a few years.
NetFlix might even survive.
Bob Ellison, you have one fact quite wrong--Netflix is not free riding. You as a Comcast subscriber are already paying them to carry Netflix. Comcast is trying to bill Netflix for a service they are already being paid by you to provide.
"Why do Republicans keep bending over for the corporations that keep supporting Democrats?"
-- How does increasing regulation help small companies? In what manner does increased compliance costs and a higher barrier to entry do anything BUT help large corporations? I still don't have a firm concept of net neutrality -- we're supposed to treat it like a utility, but we can't charge people for over or misuse of the utility like we do elsewhere, and we're expected to believe small companies can compete, despite that just not really being the case in any other utility field ever?
I just don't GET how Net Neutrality is supposed to achieve any of the stated goals.
"Comcast is trying to bill Netflix for a service they are already being paid by you to provide."
-- So, is the problem the same reason we try to avoid double taxation, because a given transaction shouldn't be charged twice?
Because, my understanding is that this would be like a band paying to use a venue, and then the band charging me a fee for a ticket, and the venue charging me for other things I use while accessing the band -- which seems perfectly fair to me.
tim maguire, you are the one who does not understand.
I buy my Internet bandwidth from Comcast and Verizon, and I pay mostly flat prices for it. I'm not paying NetFlix, and I'm not paying Comcast or Verizon for NetFlix, and they don't pay NetFlix anything at all.
Comcast and Verizon would be perfectly happy if NetFlix disappeared off this planet.
Like parking!
So, the band pays the venue for the space for the show. I pay the band for the ticket and the venue for parking.
With "net neutrality," are we saying that the venue shouldn't be able to charge me for parking?
Internet service is one of the few things most people seem very happy with. Why do anything to it?
That's what net neutrality is. Keeping the internet the way it is.
The interesting player, I think, is Amazon. That's the biggest player in server space, and Amazon is also trying (rather well) to be the big player in video streaming.
Amazon doesn't sell bandwidth...yet.
"net neutrality means more government control"
No it doesn't. Or it doesn't have to. It means things stay the same as they are.
"That's what net neutrality is. Keeping the internet the way it is."
-- Wait. Tim McGuire, I think, just said that Net Neutrality was to keep Comcast from current practices of charging both Netflix and me for accessing Netflix.
Which is it?
I pay my internet service provider for faster service so I can stream tv. There are several tiers of service available at different prices.
I really do not understand the issue.
"I buy my Internet bandwidth from Comcast and Verizon, and I pay mostly flat prices for it."
So are the people who pay for Netflix. They pay Netflix for the service and for their servers.
They also pay an agreed flat price for bandwidth. You want to use your bandwidth one way, others want to use it another. Why should that same bandwidth be given extra charges based purely on how it is used?
I didn't really have much of an opinion on "net neutrality" before but it occurs to me that should the federal government begin regulating the internet, it will become as "neutral" as the Internal Revenue Service.
What would Elizabeth Warren say about net neutrality?
You built a movie-streaming service. Good for you. But you didn't build that all by yourself. You're serving those movies on highways paid for by all the rest of us.
Paddy O, there are multiple players in getting that movie to your computer or TV:
1) NetFlix, which has to keep servers going (and buy bandwidth! Note that!)
2) Your ISP, which has to stream it down to you
3) You, who have to pay for NetFlix and that bandwidth
There are others, of course, like the copyright holders, but that's not what this debate is about.
Although, back in the Napster days, that was the debate. Music wanted to be free.
People think bandwidth wants to be free.
Yes, sir, we'd be delighted to set up your Internet cable service. But because your next-door neighbor is a 24/7 NetFlix user on the same trunk, we're going to have to charge you $1,000/month for your service.
Garage wrote;
"That's what net neutrality is. Keeping the internet the way it is."
Yep. And Obamacare is about improving our health care.
Let's keep the internet the way it is by allowing the internet to remain the way it is on it's own.
The government isn't always the answer.
Internet service is one of the few things most people seem very happy with. Why do anything to it?
(And after the political misuse of the IRS and campaign finance laws, why let the government anywhere near it?)
Perfectly stated in every respect.
- Krumhorn
I will guess that if you asked 100 people on the street what 'Net Neutrality' was, perhaps 1 could give a coherent and correct answer.
I can make a solid argument that since all customers pay for their connection, the entire internet is already paid for. The words around "net neutrality" sound like motherhood, apple pie, and "for the children", but it's just another lie to fool the rubes.
The big problem with the FCC regulating the internet even by "net neutrality" is that by it's very nature it is controlling what is sent over the internet and how. What is sent over the internet is content. Once you open the door to regulate content it is most definitely Pandora's Box.
Let the market work. If ISPs want to offer cheap bandwidth with preference for their services, fine. If the ISPs want to offer cheap bandwidth with access to only those things the ISP allows, fine. If the ISPs want to offer pure Internet access without access to the ISPs branded content, fine. Let the market demand un-throttled service and let vendors act to supply it.
BTW, there are easy ways around throttling by using VPNs.
By the way, Comcast and Verizon both have their own on-demand video-streaming businesses. They'd like to sell those, not be forced, by the federal government, to give you NetFlix's, for free.
If Comcast and Verizon were to decide today to throttle Netflix, as I think they would be able to do (but it would result in lawsuits immediately), Netflix would grind to a halt in no time.
Bob Ellison said...
1) NetFlix, which has to keep servers going (and buy bandwidth! Note that!)
2) Your ISP, which has to stream it down to you
3) You, who have to pay for NetFlix and that bandwidth
You forgot the "transit" providers that Netflix has to pay, like Cogent. The dispute earlier this year between Netflix and Comcast & Verizon centered around the issue of the big ISPs purposely degrading bandwidth to force Netflix to pay for more direct connections.
Isn't Net Neutrality like forcing everyone to travel by Amtrak?
Nonapod, why do you suppose Comcast would like to throttle NetFlix?
It's not really a trick question. The answer should be obvious.
Down with Net Neutrality! Down with it, I say. Every time the progs advocate a new regime of regulatory power there's a attractive, seemingly reasonable justification offered.
Back in the 1880's it was the railroads -- let's have one standard gauge and rules prevent head-on collisions; let's save lives. The actual result was a thousand railroad companies gobbled up by a few dozen, then those few dozen devoured by a handful.
Then it was let's regulate the banks and prevent fraud and financial panics -- yeah, right.
Then it was let's regulate those trusts and monopolies. Now the only monopolies are those that can be relied on for big anonymous donations to whichever party has the whip hand.
I also notice Obama has begun to dress like the leader of a fanatical religious cult as well as talk like one. Well, that's a blow for truth in packaging if nothing else.
The question that comes to mind is; what has government ever done that has resulted in greater efficiency, cheaper outcomes, and ease of use for the consumer?
No it doesn't. Or it doesn't have to. It means things stay the same as they are.
Famous last words.
Bob Ellison said...
Nonapod, why do you suppose Comcast would like to throttle NetFlix?
It's not really a trick question. The answer should be obvious.
I assume to get Netflix to pay them for direct connections rather than going through Cogent.
(By the way, I'm not trying to present a position on this one way or the other.)
The question that comes to mind is; what has government ever done that has resulted in greater efficiency, cheaper outcomes, and ease of use for the consumer?
We'd have high-speed passenger rail service in this country now if the private industry were free to explore and innovate without the Feds.
The big problem with the FCC regulating the internet even by "net neutrality" is that by it's very nature it is controlling what is sent over the internet and how.
I think you have this backwards. Net neutrality is forbidding ISPs from controlling how information is sent over the internet. That means ISP can't block or interfere with websites or content you wish to view. Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
Net Neutrality makes a lot of sense, if you value intentions over results.
Is that why progressives like it?
I am old enough to remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth that went with opening up the internet to business. It was going to be ruined! I guess from the point of view of the left, it has been. Since alternate points of view are available.
garage mahal: Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
The entire history of the existence of the Internet would suggest that the answer to this question is, "Yes," or at the very least, "It doesn't matter."
Wouldn't it?
"People think bandwidth wants to be free."
No, they think that if you're paying for bandwidth you should get to use what you pay for without paying extra for what you already paid for using.
garage mahal said...
Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
If the other option is putting those choices into the hands of unelected government commissioners? You're damn right I do.
There's no reason the free market can't take care of this. If your ISP is blocking/throttling content you want, change your ISP. In reality, the ISPs have every incentive to make the grid 'smart' in order to better meet customer demands...Net Neutrality, in addition to being a massive regulation grab, will ensure the net remains dumb.
Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
It has worked so far with cable TV providers, and it is far far easier to change you ISP than it is to change your cable provider.
If your ISP starts acting like a dick...change it. Hell I regularly use three different ISPs now, depending on what I am doing. (Chrome, Yahoo and AOL)
@ Garage -
Net neutrality is not about political viewpoint or the type of content discrimination you are worried about.
Rather it is about Content owners (Netflix primarily) vs Infrastructure owners (Mainly Comcast, but also Time Warner and other major players).
Businesses like Netflix have built their success on the incurred costs on the infrastructure holders via the way they pair with these holders (it gets a bit complicated, having to do with the "last mile" of service).
"If your ISP starts acting like a dick...change it. Hell I regularly use three different ISPs now, depending on what I am doing. (Chrome, Yahoo and AOL)"
I didn't know these were internet service providers.
In our area you can only have Verizon, Comcast or Centurylink.
but that's what we did the last time a telecom provider (AT&T) tried to leverage its monopoly position on the Last Mile
I live in a small, somewhat remote town in Vermont, not even in the village, but outside in a rural area. I have four practical choices of internet, WIMAX, Comcast, Hughes, and Verizon. It is ridiculous to compare this situation with the monopolies once enjoyed by telcos.
"Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? "
If my choice is ISP or Government, I'll take ISP, because I think I have more control of that, then I do over my government.
I wonder if activist pressure can convince Comcast to throttle back access/speed to what they deem 'anti gay' websites, once the ISP has that power. - Mark
I am sure that the government will be johnny on the spot stopping such abuse!
Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
So your big fear is that ISPs will do what the government does with every industry it regulates?
I'll take that risk. :)
eric said...
In our area you can only have Verizon, Comcast or Centurylink.
3 choices does not a monopoly make. Not to mention the myriad options that become available if you factor in Satellite or Cellular Tethering...
Fact is, this is a solution in search of a problem. Where is the harm that is going to befall us if we do nothing? And, as our hostess likes to say, better than nothing is a high standard.
So your big fear is that ISPs will do what the government does with every industry it regulates?
The government doesn't charge me more on who I call or what I say on that call, or block me from making certain calls. Neither should ISPs be concerned with what I view online or what I post.
Obama should just come out and say he wants internet cable providers to be able to block or slow down content from right wing websites, and they would be for net neutrality.
Mark already tried this argument. As soon as the internet is regulated, it is going to be the IRS all over again.
What I see over that the DailyKos is a dream of turning the internet into a big public utility, presumably with lots of good unions jobs, lower productivity and raising prices and siphoning off the lion's share to the Democrats.
The government doesn't charge me more on who I call or what I say on that call, or block me from making certain calls. Neither should ISPs be concerned with what I view online or what I post.
Is the IRS the government in your mind?
I think you have this backwards. Net neutrality is forbidding ISPs from controlling how information is sent over the internet. That means ISP can't block or interfere with websites or content you wish to view. Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with? Or the ability to block competitors websites and apps?
What's funny is if you compare this liberal argument to the Obama administration argument that Apple, by making their cloud inaccessible to government, is the new home for child pornographers.
In our area you can only have Verizon, Comcast or Centurylink.
You can get Hughesnet anywhere in the country.
"I will guess that if you asked 100 people on the street what 'Net Neutrality' was, perhaps 1 could give a coherent and correct answer."
That's why Obama sticking his nose in is so helpful. I now know which side I'm on.
Obama admin: "We don't want ISPs to block content to you because we want to be able to see what you would download if you could"
No, they think that if you're paying for bandwidth you should get to use what you pay for without paying extra for what you already paid for using.
I told them the same thing about watering my lawn every day in Florida.
"Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with?"
History teaches companies don't act like that, government does.
Oh, please. It's not content, it's quantity. ISPs don't really care what the hell you download; go goat porn all you want. They don't care.
They care about how much they have to pay to send it to you. Goat-porn still pics and short stories are cheap. Goat-porn HD video is expensive.
How hard is this to understand?
"And, as noted by others above, net neutrality means more government control. So Comcast won't get to throttle NetFlix. Instead, the government will throttle all of us."
Well put. NN is based on a very simplistic and almost childish understanding of how the Internet works. It's shocking to me how quickly people with technical knowledge, who should know better, can turn off their brains and insist the government take over whenever the proper buzzwords are spoken by the proper people.
I think the reason the left is so upset by the possibility of businesses controlling speech, as if they had the time, is that that is exactly what the left would do, had they the power.
History teaches companies don't act like that, government does.
The city is one of the only places on Earth with internet as fast as 1 gigabit per second – about 50 times faster than the US average. Despite Big Cable’s attempt to block the Gig’s expansion plans, money keeps flowing into Chattanooga
"US telecoms giants call on FCC to block Gig."
Sort of the opposite of what you were saying.
"How hard is this to understand?"
1. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ideology depends on his not understanding it.”
2. This is Garage we're talking about here.
"You can get Hughesnet anywhere in the country. "
I've kept my Verizon phone line unlimited for a reason. Hughesnet limits how much you get.
Which, I think we'd see once the FCC took over.
I like my unlimited internet.
@Garage
Your example of a corporation using a government system to block competition is REASON we are skeptical of giving governments more ability to block and stifle competition.
Regulatory capture is a real thing.
The Net Neutrality arguments are very confusing and almost nobody is an unbiased observer.
I will have to say that the administration's first three points seem completely unobjectionable and the knee-jerk response does seem slightly unhinged. The fourth point is confusing, because it is unclear about what kind of pricing and service model is actually being asserted.
Here's the Wall Street Journal (my emphasis):
The current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has said he is against regulating broadband Internet in the same manner of the landline phone system. Such regulation could expose broadband providers to a panoply of new federal rules on pricing and service—which critics say would lead to excessive control of the industry by Washington....
Netflix accounts for 32% of peak Internet traffic in North America, the most of any content provider, according to Sandvine, a broadband-services company. That has made Netflix a target for some cable-industry executives, who have argued the company should be subsidizing the costs of delivering its service to consumers.
In an interview last summer, Charter Communications Chief Executive Tom Rutledge noted that all broadband capacity was "paid for by the consumer," but "you could argue that it would be more efficient for consumers if the people who are taking the bandwidth for a product were paying for the bandwidth in some fair and proportional way."
So yes, based on my first point of emphasis, there is a fear that a telecom regulatory model would lead to regulatory abuse. However, given the ability of the government to assert regulatory control over anything for any pretext, first amendment supporters may well be advised to take advantage of the administration's content-neutral proposals and pass some actual legislation to lock them in place. Senator Cruz reacts with hulk smash when what is needed is jiu jitsu.
On the cost and pricing front -- my second point of emphasis -- the concept of "net neutrality" is peculiar, to say the least.
One thing that lost in the idea of flat rate fairness is that bandwidth delivered during peak usage requires far more infrastructure than the same bandwidth delivered during non-peak. If the pricing model for ISPs doesn't charge for and pass on peak costs, then text-and-picture Internet users are subsidizing video-internet users at a pretty substantial rate. In other words, Netflix is charging far less for its product than its actual demand on the network. The linear model of $/GB doesn't capture the non-linear cost of $/GB at network capacity.
What the progressives want, is that when bandwidth dries up, instead of a price signal restricting usage and expanding infrastructure, that they rule as the last one squatting on the rubble of the once great internet deciding who gets access.
Because the internet is working to well right now.
garage,
Notice how they need government to carry out their nefarious plans.
That is usually the case, isn't it? This kind of govt power is just one more item to draw in political money for the people who want to influence it.
Better to keep the govt out of it and money out of politics, eh garage?
"I have four practical choices of internet, WIMAX, Comcast, Hughes, and Verizon. It is ridiculous to compare this situation with the monopolies once enjoyed by telcos." No problem. In that case, neither regulation nor anti-trust law would be needed. My point remains correct: if there is a problem with monopoly practices of ISPs, anti-trust is the right remedy. If there isn't, no remedy is needed at all. The internet has grown just fine without oversight.
Jesus Christ on a Harley. I was responding to your claim "Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with?" and Gig is your response?
"US telecoms giants call on FCC to block Gig."
Sort of the opposite of what you were saying.
There are two points to make here:
1. Regulatory capture. When the FCC can regulate the internet as a public utility, it only gives the advantage to the large cable companies who can run crying all boo hoo to the regulators to protect them.
2. Use of taxpayer dollars to give an unfair capital advantage to a publicly-owned internet service provider over private ISP companies who have far higher capital costs. All the more reason to keep the shackles of the government regulatory regime off the private markets. Have you ever really looked at the fees and taxes on your phone bill?
- Krumhorn
Jesus Christ on a Harley. I was responding to your claim "Do people really want ISPs the ability to block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with?" and Gig is your response?
You said "History teaches companies don't act like that, government does." I showed you an example, on topic to this thread, that companies do act like that, in this case, to eliminate competitors products. (as I stated upthread)
"Then it was let's regulate the banks and prevent fraud and financial panics -- yeah, right."
That worked pretty much as planned for decades. The explosion of fraud and financial panics we're seeing in recent years is the result of the deregulation of the banks and financial institutions.
"Until/unless there are full-on monopolies in the internet service provider space, the free market can and will handle any providers that leverage throttling or other tactics in an anti-consumer fashion."
Hey, pal...I've got a bridge to Brooklyn I can sell you...cheap!
I am actually astonished that garage sees the story that way. I only know what garage has related, but does he think that these private competitors are going to send Blackwater in to shut down the new entrant? No. They are going the tried and true crony capitalism route.
"Waait.... the Internet isn't already open and free?"
It is now. It won't be if the big telecom players get their way and kill net neutrality.
ok, I googled Hughesnet, and within minutes, a Hughesnet commercial comes up on DirecTV.
This is not the first time I have noticed this. I googled lease prices for a certain car yesterday, and a commercial for the car came up.
I get a lot of golf commercials when I have been searching Amazon.
Has anybody else noticed this? My DirecTV box is directly connected to my wifi.
It is now. It won't be if the big telecom players get their way and kill net neutrality. Robert Cook
We heard this same type of crap from the left in the early '90s, I think it was, I am going from memory, when the internet was turned over to private enterprise.
Given then penchant for government to seize and abuse power where they can, any law requiring net neutrality will result in everything but.
The FCC has already proven to be an entirely corrupt government vehicle.
Another big problem is how do you determine neutrality? Some services aren't throttled, but simply slower due to a myriad of factors, including bandwidth from the original servers. Aside from governmental abuse, the end result would be endless lawsuits which would solve nothing and drive up costs for everyone.
"The explosion of fraud and financial panics we're seeing in recent years is the result of the deregulation of the banks and financial institutions."
Boy are you deluded !
You might read this article and, aside from a fib in the early part about who actually voted down TARP (Hint, it was the GOP House) it's pretty good.
A quiz: who has been president since 2008 ?
Who wrote Dodd-Frank ?
Who gets huge contributions from Wall Street?
The explosion of fraud and financial panics we're seeing in recent years is the result of the deregulation of the banks and financial institutions.
First, there is no explosion of fraud and panics. To believe that is to entirely ignore history.
Second, while there has been some deregulation, there has been a vast increase of crony capitalism regulation which allows the wealthiest institutions to game the system.
Actually, Obama is in favor of Net Conformity.
Everybody gets the same service. Providers can't differentiate. Experimentation must be approved by bureaucrats. Nobody is to earn an advantage.
Remember, this is the same government which spent thirteen years litigating with IBM because the government thought "domination" of big mainframes meant "domination" of computing.
When that case became laughable via the rise of the personal computer, the Feds turned their attention to Microsoft. They were convinced that Microsoft had some huge nefarious advantage because it embedded its web browser in its operating system. Mr. Softee would rule the world through its browser.
Then along came AOL, and after that many others, most prominently Google (which is not even a browser folks.)
The Feds will always be far behind the curve in technology. Check out the Obamacare debacle and the IRS email system if you want other examples. They will always be wrong. They will always fuck up whatever they touch.
With the internet and the things that it links together we have one of the great triumphs of American innovation. Now the government wants to control it.
What could possibly be wrong with that.
Garage said: "I showed you an example, on topic to this thread, that companies do act like that, in this case, to eliminate competitors products.
I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your claim that ISPs will "block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with?", and you know it. You got nothin' so your dishonest response is "Squirrel!"
"...his nibs is proposing another federal bureaucracy to regulate something that works so well that, sitting in my kitchen, I can get this message to everyone on the planet, at the speed of light, who has an internet connection."
If the big telecoms get their way and net neutrality is lost, you may not be able to get your message to everyone on the planet who has an internet connection, at the speed of light or even much slower. Unless you pony up the cash to buy that access.
Net neutrality is what we have now. It is what we are in danger of losing if the big telecoms are not stopped from monetizing the internet in ways they would like and have plans to do. Those who "support net neutrality" are those who wish to stop the loss of what we have through legislative action to prevent monopolies asserting their prerogatives.
"Another bureaucracy" is not necessary; simply a law passed to insure the protection of net neutrality.
Paddy O said "People think bandwidth wants to be free."
No, they think that if you're paying for bandwidth you should get to use what you pay for without paying extra for what you already paid for using.
Internet bandwidth is not like potatoes.
In order to deliver bits online, ISPs must maintain significant overhead. As others have commented above, that's not always easy, and it's not cheap. It's not like putting a truckload of potatoes on the rails. Internet bandwidth must be delivered all the time, right away, regardless of peak usage and related issues.
So when you buy, say, $50-worth of Comcast Internet for a month, you're not buying 25mbps for, uh, 2.6m seconds. You're buying into a pool of people who bought into the same pool, and most of you consume a tiny fraction of that product.
Got it?
So if everyone demands 100% delivery of the product, then the price will rise dramatically.
Got it?
Original Mike, I think GM is tool, but "History teaches companies don't act like that, government does" misses that ABC et. al. are controlling information in a way that supports the Democratic party.
So I keep trying to read up on the history of the ISP's in the United States. Why?
Because co-workers keep telling me the ISP's owe us $2,000.00 per person because we gave them 200 billion to build out high speed internet in this country and they took the money and we got nothing in return.
Man is this a partisan issue! I can't find anything on this except for one guys book about the 200 billion dollar broadband scandal. And everyone refers to that.
Why is it so hard to find out the truth? Ugh. Trying to research this is giving me a headache.
It's no wonder so many voters are low information voters. It's tough digging through the facts.
"Another bureaucracy" is not necessary; simply a law passed to insure the protection of net neutrality.
In theory, no. In practice, neither Barack Obama nor Robert Cook could resist the opportunity to enlarge the bureaucracy and start drawing up rules that disadvantage their political adversaries.
I personally believe that net neutrality is a good thing, but I'd rather put up with an ISP's (alleged) abuses than to let either Obama or Cookie come anywhere near the Internet except as an ordinary, unprivileged end user.
@Cookie, mendacity is your default response to any issue. The only question is whether you are lying to us, or to yourself.
"First, there is no explosion of fraud and panics. To believe that is to entirely ignore history."
Where have you been the past decade? The entirety of Wall Street's and the big banks' behavior over this period can be said to be the greatest ongoing financial fraud in history.
Second, while there has been some deregulation, there has been a vast increase of crony capitalism regulation which allows the wealthiest institutions to game the system."
No; this crony capitalism gaming of the system is the result of deregulation: the removal of regulations that had prevented the wealthy institutions from gaming the system over the decades following the Great Depression up to the late 90s.
Robert Cook wrote:
"Net neutrality is what we have now. It is what we are in danger of losing if the big telecoms are not stopped from monetizing the internet in ways they would like and have plans to do. Those who "support net neutrality" are those who wish to stop the loss of what we have through legislative action to prevent monopolies asserting their prerogatives."
I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now.
Why is it taking so long for their dastardly deeds to come to fruition?
Big Mike, you cannot show any instance where I have ever lied.
Bob Ellison said...
So if everyone demands 100% delivery of the product, then the price will rise dramatically.
Got it?
11/10/14, 3:32 PM
Sorry so what is your point?
If the ISP mis-calculated the pool, they have to raise processes or throttle bandwidth. If their customers are unhappy at either outcome, they will move to another ISP. Even someone living in the middle of the woods has options.
Sorry but you don't have a right to cable, internet, or a cell phone. If there is a market for someone to make any or all of those available to you at a profit, someone will. If the profit gets to be too great, others will too in order to capture "enough" profit to undercut them. Government should have no say in it.
Same with blocking sites. If you don't like it, move to another ISP. Eventually enough people will move that the block will come off or they will go out of business.
"Why is it taking so long for their dastardly deeds to come to fruition?"
Because there has been an ongoing struggle back and forth on the issue. To now, the proponents of net neutrality have won, or, at least, prevented actions that would kill net neutrality. But, those who would kill it never sleep, just as the crony capitalists who have destroyed our republic have been at their task for many decades, (from the time of FDR).
Where have you been the past decade? The entirety of Wall Street's and the big banks' behavior over this period can be said to be the greatest ongoing financial fraud in history.
Where have you been the last two centuries?
No; this crony capitalism gaming of the system is the result of deregulation: the removal of regulations that had prevented the wealthy institutions from gaming the system over the decades following the Great Depression up to the late 90s.
Not true. Getting rid of Glass–Steagall was a mistake, but if you believe that overall regulations have significantly decreased, you are being deliberately ignorant.
I'm not surprised that you fail to understand that "gaming the system" requires a regulated system to manipulate.
"Who gets huge contributions from Wall Street?"
Everybody in Washington. That's why there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties.
Todd, I think you've got it.
It is unfair to say Robert Cook has lied. A lie requires consciosness of the falsity of the statements one makes. Robert Cook is deluded well past the point of knowingly or intentionally attempting to deceive.
That he is nearly always wrong is also not in question.
Leave it in the free market - unregulated by the Feral Gummit.
If I want it badly enough, I'll pay the asking price. If I can't afford it, I'll do without or work harder until I can.
THAT is the American Way and the American Dream.
"That he is nearly always wrong is also not in question."
Hahahaha!! Sez who? You? Hahahahaha!
I am always right, bub.
Making us poor and less free is what this man and his party are all about.
I tried to defend your honor and your delsuion persists.
Fact: We don't have "Net Neutrality" today.
Question: Who today is being hurt by not having "Net Neutrality"?
Question: Who would immediately benefit from "Net Neutrality"?
Question: Assuming that the worst-case scenarios presented by "Net Neutrality" proponents won't come to pass, is there any reason left to support "Net Neutrality"?
When you examine these questions it becomes pretty clear that "Net Neutrality" serves the rent-seeking interests of the big players in the industry.
"I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your claim that ISPs will "block, interfere, or delay political opinions it disagrees with?", and you know it. You got nothin' so your dishonest response is "Squirrel!"
In my post I also stated that ISPs could block competitors and their products. I just showed you an example of a private company trying to block a municipality from delivering internet service and content to consumers. The opposite of what you claimed history shows. But yes, I'M TRULY SORRY FOR MISSING YOUR NARROWER POINT.
Good for Obama. This is not the government controlling content or access or speed, it is the government preventing the Internet providers from controlling content and access and speed. Treating the internet as a public utility, similar to telephone or power companies, is what net neutrality is about. The only people who would not support that are millionaire business owners [and Ted Cruz] who want more control and more money. I'm with the consumer on this one.
"Making us poor and less free is what this man and his party are all about."
Correction: it's what both parties are all about. They both work for the enemies of America, the big banks and financial institutions.
Obama comes out in support of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac financial model (similar to Obamacare) that was at the epicenter of the last economic meltdown. I wonder how much debt the rest of the world will continue to accept before they force an end to our liberal fiscal fantasies.
RE: "Who gets huge contributions from Wall Street?"
Robert Cook wrote: Everybody in Washington. That's why there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties.
This is what the Left says whenever they been scalded by the electorate.
If Cooktard, Bitchtits, and King Putt are in favor of something, that is good enough evidence for me that I should be against it.
I wouldn't trust any of the those three stooges to wipe their own ass properly or without attempting to stifle political opponents in the process.
garage mahal said In my post I also stated that ISPs could block competitors and their products. I just showed you an example of a private company trying to block a municipality from delivering internet service and content to consumers.
This is the way online usage used to be, back when AOL was a player.
Let's extend your conjecture: Comcast blocks, say, Verizon's servers, from serving http or email data to Comcast users. Comcast also probably blocks Verizon's online payment/customer-service sites, because, well, that would be the kind of stupid thing that Comcast would likely do.
Or maybe Comcast blocks, say, I dunno, some town in Indiana. Not sure why. Maybe they'd do it. Seems like a dick move. But maybe they'd do it.
This is the Berlin Wall to you?
Cable companies like Comcast are bandwidth limited. They provide X amount of bandwidth to an area and all the customers in that area have to share it. If a bunch of your neighbors are watching video, your bandwidth may be very low.
The telephone companies, like Verizon and AT&T provide each customer with a certain amount of bandwidth so it doesn't matter what your neighbors are doing, you have your full bandwidth.
The cable companies don't want to spend the money to fix their systems, so they want to limit the high bandwidth users.
Obama, once again, denies the reality of limited and finitely accessible resources. His cronies are hyperventilating while dreaming of a "divine" intervention through redistributive change. Apparently, the trillion dollar deficits were not enough to satiate their appetites; neither was Obamacare to secure progressive inflation in the medical care sector. Perhaps if it's conducted in the privacy of a chamber, then no will notice the consequences. Progressivism is an insidious ideology.
Robert Cook wrote: The explosion of fraud and financial panics we're seeing in recent years is the result of the deregulation of the banks and financial institutions.
Wrong. The Great Recession was caused not by fraud or bank malfeasance, it was caused directly by Federal Banking regulations that required banks and other mortgage lenders to finance home purchases by persons without the wherewithal to service their loans.
Abraham Lincoln is reported to have once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt." (Some say it was Samuel Johnson, others Silvan Engel, and still others attribute it to Mark Twain -- I think it tracks to a Solomon Proverb). This thread has revealed that there are many Althouse commenters- among those both claiming to be for and against Net Neutrality- who would have been MUCH better off heeding the proverb and staying silent.
"Because there has been an ongoing struggle back and forth on the issue. To now, the proponents of net neutrality have won, or, at least, prevented actions that would kill net neutrality. But, those who would kill it never sleep, just as the crony capitalists who have destroyed our republic have been at their task for many decades, (from the time of FDR)."
Wait.
So, we've resisted it without the government passing new laws?
Imagine that.
Sam Hall:
The bandwidth guarantees of Verizon, AT&T, etc. are only from the home to the local hub. They do not extend to the Internet, which is limited by global network and server capacities. So, the problem is not with the cable companies or their system, but popular misconceptions of network topology and its consequences.
Sam Hall wrote: The cable companies don't want to spend the money to fix their systems, so they want to limit the high bandwidth users.
Bingo. Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which in turn owns Obamas personal pit bull, MSNBC.
To those of you who are so enamored of "net neutrality," I want you to consider this: Obama wants the Internet to be regulated as a public utility, like electricity, water, and sewage service. Now ask yourselves what alternatives you have if the electric utility that bills you every month pisses you off.
This is the Berlin Wall to you?
I probably wouldn't notice. But if Comcast is able to run "fast lanes" a lot of companies that rely bandwith heavy applications like games, video, or payment systems would be crippled. Particularly startups. But we all have to suffer to protect a handful of shitty companies I guess. AS LONG AS OBAMA DOESN'T GET HIS WAY.
local hub
Cable providers use ATM switching, not hubs.
garage mahal: I just showed you an example of a private company trying to block a municipality from delivering internet service and content to consumers.
To be fair, the private company in your example is trying to get the federal government to block their competitor.
It's not really a good example to use when you're trying to argue in favor of giving the federal government more of that type of power.
It's not really a good example to use when you're trying to argue in favor of giving the federal government more of that type of power.
The federal government is not trying to shut down Gig. I'm not arguing the federal government should have that power.
The federal government is not trying to shut down Gig.
No, but people are trying to use government to shut down Gig. Why give government that power?
The cable companies don't want to spend the money to fix their systems, so they want to limit the high bandwidth users.
Or maybe they just want the people creating the traffic to pay for the infrastructure?
If this were a toll road operated by the govt, nobody would look twice at charging heavier tolls for heavier trucks, even if there were "start up" trucking companies trying to do the job cheaper by free riding.
Big Mike, you cannot show any instance where I have ever lied.
@Cookie, the statement will do excellently for starters.
tim in vermont:
The road analogy is correct and identifies the motive for net neutrality. Netflix et al want low-cost access to a limited resource and net neutrality will ensure it. This is similar to what "green" technology companies and their lobbyists achieved when they shifted and obfuscated the consequences and limitations that occur throughout their technologies' life cycle.
"net neutrality"
The left always name their agenda behind the opposite of what the name means.
tim in vermont said...
Or maybe they just want the people creating the traffic to pay for the infrastructure?
They are paying for their bandwidth. If you operate a website, you pay for every bit you send out.
Just read this: Technically speaking the Green Bay Packers would be the Obamacare for the NFL. Heh.
Instead of net neutrality, let's increase the rate of planned parenthood. That way Obama, Netflix et al will be able to provide a service to meet their consumers' expectations. And Democrats can fulfill The Dream of diverse illegal aliens and their foreign sponsors to shift liability to someone and some place else.
Make abortion, not fascism.
Quaestor:
A hub is a common point. You're probably thinking of network devices rather than topology.
Why give the federal government the power to shut down a municipality run Internet system? We shouldnt. Say No to Time Warner lobbyists.
April Apple said...
"net neutrality"
The left always name their agenda behind the opposite of what the name means.
So, 'net positivity' or 'net negativity'?
We've got to regulate the Internet to save the Internet from regulation.
Matt: "Just read this: Technically speaking the Green Bay Packers would be the Obamacare for the NFL. Heh"
The Feds dictate how the Green Bay Packers are run?
That is news.
To those of you who are so enamored of "net neutrality," I want you to consider this...
Binary thinking. Obama defines the terms of a position. Cruz opposes it. Thus, all the partisans take sides on the issue as a whole. That's the reason this country is in such a political mess.
One can support different ways of achieving the same goals. Obama is seeking to both be a populist while also helping his corporate backers.
Cruz is supporting his corporate backers while leading to the ultimate goal of people paying yet more for internet, even as we already pay a crazy amount for both wireless and broadband services.
If this were a toll road operated by the govt, nobody would look twice at charging heavier tolls for heavier trucks
It seems its more like charging Honda or Toyota a lot of extra money because so many people buy and drive those cars.
It's focusing the costs based purely on popularity, success, or other reasons to be determined later by the ISPs. Someone can be using a massive amount of bandwidth, but in a way that's not connected to those companies and that person's choices would not be charged extra.
Nobody could have predicted this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
snip: "By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization."
Again, what a shock this is!
Correction: 19 states have already made it impossible to replicate Chattanooga's Gig. Federal Government had nothing to do with it. Thanks, assholes!
Who writes the regulations?
The industry leaders.
Rusty said...
Who writes the regulations?
The industry leaders.
Wrong, it will be Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.
A hub is a common point.
No, a hub is a common point with one collision domain. In topology this is an important distinction.
Obama is seeking to both be a populist while also helping his corporate backers.
Which corporate backers would those be? Everyone benefits from net neutrality....except a few monopolistic ISPs.
Instead of neutral, it's a nice juicy payback to NBC Comcast.
"The opposite of what you claimed history shows."
You really are fucking stupid, garage. The point is, I didn't claim that.
Net Neutral sounds so nice. How can you be against it?
It's like when the leftwingers pushed the Fairness Doctrine.
Card Check, anyone?
You really are fucking stupid, garage. The point is, I didn't claim that.
What *is* your claim then? That private companies aren't interested in throttling free speech of those that disagree with them?
Life is short. I'm done.
Post a Comment