Can we take it that the opposers of net neutrality are happy with a company throttling iTunes, the services on Apple TV, the iRadio and Beats radio, because of the higher law of property rights. Or are you denying that could happen?
Thanks, Singularity. Do you have any info on quantity of data transported? I assume that your speed numbers are average during realtime measurements and thus would be affected by quantity of traffic. I know that my 40Mbps rate is not anywhere that during peak usage times.
I don't see why that should matter. In the US users on average are paying much more for internet service than users in Europe, for much lower speeds. And if the ISPs advertise 40Mbps and one has paid for it, then you would expect that person to at least see those speeds most of the time. Even accounting for peak usage, you should at least see 30 - 35 Mbps. But that usually is not the case. If I pay more, then I should get more not less.
...which "they" spend on buying stuff, and that my friend, keeps the economy ticking over.
It's time to take the power from corporations who pay the biggest bribes (lobbying) and return it to the people.
E.g. How will the Koch brother's latest windfall affect the average American?
Think about it. In our existing system of corporatist governance, pouring money into Washington is the only way to keep both the government and the competition from robbing you blind. It's a rotten situation, but the only conceivable way out I've come across is to enact term limits for elected representatives and prevent revolving-door employment in industries the regulators are supposed to regulate.
Corruption in government is guaranteed, so the effects can only be limited by limiting terms in office.
And what does that have to do with what I posted? The break up happened in 1982 (32 years ago). This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974. They were broken up by the government. I noticed you had nothing to say about subsidies given to corporations or past history of corporations & financial institutions in this country.
I don't know about TS but I lived through all of that and in many ways deregulation was a fantastic success. Nothing is perfect of course but that deregulation freed up the market enough that we now have things like the iPhone that frankly I couldn't have imagined in the 80's. I was a big Star Trek fan back then too so I imagined al, sorts of things.
I won't say that that deregulation was perfect but it certainly usered in an era of rapid change for the communications industry.
You are confusing deregulation with divestiture. AT&T was still regulated. Infact AT&T was bought by SBC which also took over the baby bells in the midwest, southeast/ west, & pacific bell. The changed the name of the company from SBC to AT&T because of name recognition.
While I ABSOLUTELY HATE AT&T, I hate the idea of some low IQ or even a high IQ drone dictating the rules for the internet. You know darn well that once the camel get's it nose under the tent, the entire stinky animal will be in. Case in point "Health Care". BTW guys have you availed yourselves for the 'free' hysterectomies yet? Oh speaking of the lack of love for AT&T. They've sold my UNLISTED land line # to gawd knows who. Their internet speed is a flaky 2.6 just like on the list but I've seen it burst to OVER 50Kbs.
You're conflating things, but just in case it helps, I suggest adding yourself to the FCC do not call list. It took care of all random sales calls with the exception of some police charity, which I think may have been a scam (not the cause, just the people calling). I still received calls from what I think was a collections agency that was looking for the previous owner of that number. After a while I just hung up on them without bothering to explain, because they never successfully removed my number.
You're conflating things, but just in case it helps, I suggest adding yourself to the FCC do not call list. It took care of all random sales calls with the exception of some police charity, which I think may have been a scam (not the cause, just the people calling). I still received calls from what I think was a collections agency that was looking for the previous owner of that number. After a while I just hung up on them without bothering to explain, because they never successfully removed my number.
I've added my number to the DNC list back in 2011. I've had this phone number for well over 50 years so that's not an issue. Now I've got caller ID, just for giggles sometimes I'll waste their time before telling them to go away. I'm going to start getting names and numbers, well numbers show up on my screen but I'm finding that they either hide the numbers or they are falsifying them. But I STILL HATE AT&T. They've got illegals carrying bits in little buckets instead of using fibre or copper.
And what does that have to do with what I posted? The break up happened in 1982 (32 years ago). This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974. They were broken up by the government. I noticed you had nothing to say about subsidies given to corporations or past history of corporations & financial institutions in this country.
You've not conceded the point. AT&T was a GOVERNMENT -PROTECTED MONOPOLY. It was "broken up" AFTER it had been protected by law. This is not a minor point.
As to the new and unrelated point you've now introduced, taxpayer financed bailouts and subsidies are wrong, without exception. Failing businesses, including airlines, banks, car companies and even homeowners (yes, the taxpayers themselves) should never be bailed out or subsidized. Ever.
You've not conceded the point. AT&T was a GOVERNMENT -PROTECTED MONOPOLY. It was "broken up" AFTER it had been protected by law. This is not a minor point.
As to the new and unrelated point you've now introduced, taxpayer financed bailouts and subsidies are wrong, without exception. Failing businesses, including airlines, banks, car companies and even homeowners (yes, the taxpayers themselves) should never be bailed out or subsidized. Ever.
The history of what you are speaking of is not that simple but of course it is that simple from AT&Ts website:
Also everything I said is related to to your pro-business at all costs arguments. The history of large corporations left unchecked (unregulated) has caused plenty of damage to the economy of this country.
I've added my number to the DNC list back in 2011. I've had this phone number for well over 50 years so that's not an issue. Now I've got caller ID, just for giggles sometimes I'll waste their time before telling them to go away. I'm going to start getting names and numbers, well numbers show up on my screen but I'm finding that they either hide the numbers or they are falsifying them. But I STILL HATE AT&T. They've got illegals carrying bits in little buckets instead of using fibre or copper.
I don't really see the point of all that, but you must really enjoy trolling.
Also everything I said is related to to your pro-business at all costs arguments. The history of large corporations left unchecked (unregulated) has caused plenty of damage to the economy of this country.
That is a pretty foolish picture to post considering it if is from the days when you needed a wire for ever thing you wanted to do.
What do you think it's going to look like if dozens of companies decide that they want to build their own network? Each and every one of them is going to have to put up their own wire, because no company is going to allow another company to use its wire, and then be undercut by them.
What do you think it's going to look like if dozens of companies decide that they want to build their own network? Each and every one of them is going to have to put up their own wire, because no company is going to allow another company to use its wire, and then be undercut by them.
Surely you don't think that there is no cooperation in competition. People will do what makes the most business sense.
Surely you don't think that there is no cooperation in competition. People will do what makes the most business sense.
So how would they cooperate?, because I haven't seen it yet. All these companies protect their networks like a baby, and only let others on it because they are forced to.
How would you feel if the Fed. Gov. suddenly decided it had to be in control of newspaper content and distribution? Would you not scream CENSORSHIP, and you would be 100% correct as it is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
All the Internet is, essentially, the 21st Century version of the paper-based newspaper.
The government isn't trying to be in control of internet content and distribution, they are trying to stop private companies abusing the control they have over it. It would be like if a newspaper had coupons in it and a newspaper company prioritized the supply of papers to more affluent households or households of a certain race and the government stepped in and said they couldn't prioritize their distribution that way.
I wonder about another scenario, in which the government is responsible for the buildout and replacement of copper with optical cable nationwide, but simply turns over access and use thereof to companies in the respective industries that would use it, leaving them to compete on an equal footing, infrastructure-wise. This would require a government significantly different than the one of today
That's the kind of thing that happens with transport and everyone is taxed as it's seen an essential service. The government can just charge a tax for installing and maintaining the best cabling and keeping it up to standard and private companies can lease the lines to lower the tax. That way there's minimal digging up of roads and a high quality of connection gets installed regardless of the profitability to the companies installing it. It also means that multiple companies can compete in areas where they couldn't before from small to large.
Once this is a Utility, the government can regulate and tax to no end!!
No end? OMG, that means millions, billions, trillions of dollars per person just like they've done to the water supplies, electric grid and waste disposal systems. Shut them all off and hide in the cupboard, they won't get you in there.
The government employs over 20 million people who also happen to rely on those services. Any harm they do to others in these matters, they do to themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that people who are pro-self-interest and anti-corporatist-government should vote for their own self-interest and against corporations rather than the other way round?
In what way would anyone benefit from not having net neutrality; how is it better as a consumer to not have that?
Comments
Thanks, Singularity. Do you have any info on quantity of data transported? I assume that your speed numbers are average during realtime measurements and thus would be affected by quantity of traffic. I know that my 40Mbps rate is not anywhere that during peak usage times.
I don't see why that should matter. In the US users on average are paying much more for internet service than users in Europe, for much lower speeds. And if the ISPs advertise 40Mbps and one has paid for it, then you would expect that person to at least see those speeds most of the time. Even accounting for peak usage, you should at least see 30 - 35 Mbps. But that usually is not the case. If I pay more, then I should get more not less.
Think about it. In our existing system of corporatist governance, pouring money into Washington is the only way to keep both the government and the competition from robbing you blind. It's a rotten situation, but the only conceivable way out I've come across is to enact term limits for elected representatives and prevent revolving-door employment in industries the regulators are supposed to regulate.
Corruption in government is guaranteed, so the effects can only be limited by limiting terms in office.
AT&T was a government-protected monopoly. This is a historical fact.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html
And what does that have to do with what I posted? The break up happened in 1982 (32 years ago). This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974. They were broken up by the government. I noticed you had nothing to say about subsidies given to corporations or past history of corporations & financial institutions in this country.
I don't know about TS but I lived through all of that and in many ways deregulation was a fantastic success. Nothing is perfect of course but that deregulation freed up the market enough that we now have things like the iPhone that frankly I couldn't have imagined in the 80's. I was a big Star Trek fan back then too so I imagined al, sorts of things.
I won't say that that deregulation was perfect but it certainly usered in an era of rapid change for the communications industry.
You are confusing deregulation with divestiture. AT&T was still regulated. Infact AT&T was bought by SBC which also took over the baby bells in the midwest, southeast/ west, & pacific bell. The changed the name of the company from SBC to AT&T because of name recognition.
While I ABSOLUTELY HATE AT&T, I hate the idea of some low IQ or even a high IQ drone dictating the rules for the internet. You know darn well that once the camel get's it nose under the tent, the entire stinky animal will be in. Case in point "Health Care". BTW guys have you availed yourselves for the 'free' hysterectomies yet? Oh speaking of the lack of love for AT&T. They've sold my UNLISTED land line # to gawd knows who. Their internet speed is a flaky 2.6 just like on the list but I've seen it burst to OVER 50Kbs.
You're conflating things, but just in case it helps, I suggest adding yourself to the FCC do not call list. It took care of all random sales calls with the exception of some police charity, which I think may have been a scam (not the cause, just the people calling). I still received calls from what I think was a collections agency that was looking for the previous owner of that number. After a while I just hung up on them without bothering to explain, because they never successfully removed my number.
You're conflating things, but just in case it helps, I suggest adding yourself to the FCC do not call list. It took care of all random sales calls with the exception of some police charity, which I think may have been a scam (not the cause, just the people calling). I still received calls from what I think was a collections agency that was looking for the previous owner of that number. After a while I just hung up on them without bothering to explain, because they never successfully removed my number.
I've added my number to the DNC list back in 2011. I've had this phone number for well over 50 years so that's not an issue. Now I've got caller ID, just for giggles sometimes I'll waste their time before telling them to go away. I'm going to start getting names and numbers, well numbers show up on my screen but I'm finding that they either hide the numbers or they are falsifying them. But I STILL HATE AT&T. They've got illegals carrying bits in little buckets instead of using fibre or copper.
You've not conceded the point. AT&T was a GOVERNMENT -PROTECTED MONOPOLY. It was "broken up" AFTER it had been protected by law. This is not a minor point.
As to the new and unrelated point you've now introduced, taxpayer financed bailouts and subsidies are wrong, without exception. Failing businesses, including airlines, banks, car companies and even homeowners (yes, the taxpayers themselves) should never be bailed out or subsidized. Ever.
You've not conceded the point. AT&T was a GOVERNMENT -PROTECTED MONOPOLY. It was "broken up" AFTER it had been protected by law. This is not a minor point.
As to the new and unrelated point you've now introduced, taxpayer financed bailouts and subsidies are wrong, without exception. Failing businesses, including airlines, banks, car companies and even homeowners (yes, the taxpayers themselves) should never be bailed out or subsidized. Ever.
The history of what you are speaking of is not that simple but of course it is that simple from AT&Ts website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
Also everything I said is related to to your pro-business at all costs arguments. The history of large corporations left unchecked (unregulated) has caused plenty of damage to the economy of this country.
I've added my number to the DNC list back in 2011. I've had this phone number for well over 50 years so that's not an issue. Now I've got caller ID, just for giggles sometimes I'll waste their time before telling them to go away. I'm going to start getting names and numbers, well numbers show up on my screen but I'm finding that they either hide the numbers or they are falsifying them. But I STILL HATE AT&T. They've got illegals carrying bits in little buckets instead of using fibre or copper.
I don't really see the point of all that, but you must really enjoy trolling.
A long and detailed rebuttal: http://mises.org/daily/5266/
What do you think it's going to look like if dozens of companies decide that they want to build their own network? Each and every one of them is going to have to put up their own wire, because no company is going to allow another company to use its wire, and then be undercut by them.
Surely you don't think that there is no cooperation in competition. People will do what makes the most business sense.
So how would they cooperate?, because I haven't seen it yet. All these companies protect their networks like a baby, and only let others on it because they are forced to.
You can bet your dollar on those leftovers being a tinier amount of data for your money plus ultra slow speed too.
The government isn't trying to be in control of internet content and distribution, they are trying to stop private companies abusing the control they have over it. It would be like if a newspaper had coupons in it and a newspaper company prioritized the supply of papers to more affluent households or households of a certain race and the government stepped in and said they couldn't prioritize their distribution that way.
That's the kind of thing that happens with transport and everyone is taxed as it's seen an essential service. The government can just charge a tax for installing and maintaining the best cabling and keeping it up to standard and private companies can lease the lines to lower the tax. That way there's minimal digging up of roads and a high quality of connection gets installed regardless of the profitability to the companies installing it. It also means that multiple companies can compete in areas where they couldn't before from small to large.
Satellites provides good throughput but the latency is horrible. For streaming services it's horrible.
Once this is a Utility, the government can regulate and tax to no end!!
See how Obama (and all of government really) tries to make it sound like something really good, while feeding us poison?
This is only the latest Gruber of a lie to come out of this administration!!
No end? OMG, that means millions, billions, trillions of dollars per person just like they've done to the water supplies, electric grid and waste disposal systems. Shut them all off and hide in the cupboard, they won't get you in there.
The government employs over 20 million people who also happen to rely on those services. Any harm they do to others in these matters, they do to themselves.
Doesn't it make sense that people who are pro-self-interest and anti-corporatist-government should vote for their own self-interest and against corporations rather than the other way round?
In what way would anyone benefit from not having net neutrality; how is it better as a consumer to not have that?